|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Why did Jesus not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity.
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This seems inconsistent to me. You say his prayers are inner processes. If God seemed far from him in his struggles, you are suggesting as Evensong remarked, a schizophrenic God.
Jesus Himself sometimes described the Father as within Him and other times as if He were another person. This inconsistency reflects His alternating states of glorification and exinanition.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The Trinity is in fact a mystery, yet to deny Jesus had a God to pray to is to reduce his high priestly prayer in John to rhetoric. In effect, you make his prayers lies as according to you, they are not what they seem.
They were not lies or rhetoric. His strength really did seem far from Him. The divine seemed far away. He spoke to His Father as if to another person.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Is it not easier to simply accept that Christ was God and the Father is God and their oneness is incomprehensible but a fact nonetheless?
If it is incomprehensible why get so disturbed about a slightly different way of describing it?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally, what do you make of the plural pronouns in Genesis? "Lest the man ..become like one of US"
The early stories in Genesis are not meant to be taken literally. God is speaking as if to a celestial court of angels or immortals.
Adam and Eve were not literal individuals, and they would not really have become immortal if they had gotten their hands on the fruit. Instead the Tree of Life stands for God Himself and the life that has its source in Him. The other tree stands for the appearance that we don't live from God but from ourselves. Having chosen the one, the other was no longer an option, so Adam and Eve were removed from the garden.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Freddy quote:
Quantum mechanics may give us a way of appreciating that things are not what they seem, but the issue here is how we think about and approach God. If our conception of Him is mistaken, as opposed to being merely limited, then this inhibits our ability to worship. The Trinity of three persons is mistaken because people then separate God and Jesus and think in terms of two, or three, divine beings.
Noooo. IMO God is three persons in one divine essence, a kind of existence (since there isn't a better term I can think of) that has no parallels in creation. You might not see it that way, but I see no reason to trade my view and most of the rest of Christianity's just because you and Swedenborg assert differently. You just slide over more bits of scripture than most do with the metaphor explanation when the bits get tricky and "contradictory". It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to a strict monotheist like yourself to read the bits about the divine Three and have to consider whether the Bible describes an actual spiritual reality. To promote the divine truth of the One God in the face of seemingly three descriptors, you put it all down to metaphor. I don't. If the Bible says there is One God and also describes a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I do my best with my little human pea brain to believe they are a particle and a wave at the same time. That's me. Believe what you like.
(Whew. This is mirror-image deja vu all over again. I argued this from the Godhead-is-not-only-Three-but-also-completely-One side with Andrew before his miraculous conversion to atheism. I think with the Trinity someone's going to disagree violently. Luckily, I just humbly accept this reality. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
And: quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
That still sounds to me like you're saying you believe it because it's impossible. I know that's not actually why you believe it; it just doesn't make for a persuasive argument. Neither does comparing the size of two infinite sets because no matter how interesting it is as set theory, the Athanasian Creed is not about sets or mathematics.
The funny thing is, I'll bet she knew that.
quote:
These comparisons might serve well as illustrations of the concept, but they utterly fail as proofs or even demonstrations.
Strangely, she wasn't offering them as proofs or demonstrations. So that's quite irrelevant.
Thanks, mt. You saved me time.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Freddy: a slightly different way of describing it?
Freddy this is not true. You are trying to say there is no real difference between a 'trinitarian' view and a 'oneness' view. The difference is not slight nor is it a different way of describing the same thing.One view sees a separation of personality and function in the context of a unity of direction, the other sees no such separation. Since your view finds any separation abhorrent you resort to linguistics. I think God uses metaphor to describe himself in many places but you think he actually describes himself as a metaphor. now the issue becomes what is the reality. You simply cannot say metaphor is reality and expect to satisfy since metaphor is by definition merely a way of understanding various aspects of same. I think your theology is really a convoluted tautology.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
God is three persons in one divine essence, a kind of existence (since there isn't a better term I can think of) that has no parallels in creation.
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible. So it's called a mystery and Christians are left worshiping three gods.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You just slide over more bits of scripture than most do with the metaphor explanation when the bits get tricky and "contradictory".
I don't slide over any Scripture. You're the one sliding over it. How is the Father then "in" the Son? Do the Father and Son literally sit side by side, and if they do how is it that if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father? Are they identical?
The terms are most certainly meant metaphorically. It's just a question of grasping the metaphor.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
(Whew. This is mirror-image deja vu all over again. I argued this from the Godhead-is-not-only-Three-but-also-completely-One side with Andrew before his miraculous conversion to atheism.
Yes, we all went round and round with him. Naturally I loved his position that the Father was the only one who was God, because I think that's where the Trinity actually ends up in people's minds. It certainly ends up there in academic Christianity, which quickly and decisively denies foolish tales such as that Christ was born of a virgin, was resurrected from the dead, and was the Son of God. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Freddy: a slightly different way of describing it?
Freddy this is not true. You are trying to say there is no real difference between a 'trinitarian' view and a 'oneness' view.
I'm not saying there is no difference. You said "their oneness is incomprehensible" and so I was asking why you are then so worked up about a different explanation. Why cling to a view that is incomprehensible?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think God uses metaphor to describe himself in many places but you think he actually describes himself as a metaphor.
I'm glad that you don't actually think He is literally "a Rock." But He Himself says that He describes Himself in metaphor:
quote:
John 16:25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."
If "figurative language" is not metaphor, then what is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You simply cannot say metaphor is reality and expect to satisfy since metaphor is by definition merely a way of understanding various aspects of same.
Yes, symbols represent reality, they aren't reality themselves. The Trinity is a truth that describes a reality in symbolic terms. There aren't literally three individuals who together somehow make up God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christ's baptism portrayed for all to see the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the Bible we often see deeply symbolic metaphors miraculously realized in stunning events such as this. The display in no way means that the Trinity is not within Christ as He later says.
But we see these three persons communicating and acting upon each other. This implies personality. Either real personality - as in a Trinity - or unreal personality - as in a personality disorder. Or that Christ was evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You don't know what modalism is.
The part you quoted from Wikipedia was about Sabellianism. Which is just one aspect of modalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
I cannot imagine sets or prime numbers. Therefore they don't exist. I can imagine unicorns and werewolfs. Therefore they do exist. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 02. February 2010, 11:33: Message edited by: k-mann ]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Freddy: quote:
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he had a human mind and the soul of God at birth, he wasn't human. Human beings are heart, mind and soul.
So you think that Jesus as to His soul was not God?
If his soul was God, then he wasn't a human being. He was God.
If my soul was not Evensong, a unique individual soul created by God, but God, then I would be God, not Evensong.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism. Neither, however, described God as appearing in three modes. It is not necessary to describe God in three modes to be Oneness. Both describe God as the One Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who has a Divine Soul of Love, Divine Mind of Truth, and Divine Body of Activity. Jesus, through a process of uniting his human form to the Divine, became entirely One with His Divine Soul from the Father to the point of having no distinction of personality.
That's not modalism.
So we have a human mind and body and God as soul. We have two parts to Jesus intially (one human, one God) that become God eventually.
Doesn't work. You have no original human being. You mention the Shema. One is to worship God with heart, mind and soul. In this case, Jesus would be worshiping himself.
Jesus is theocentric in 99.5% of the gospels. He worships the father, not himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Freddy: quote:
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
No. The view above is too heavenly bound. Jesus is not really Jesus of Nazareth, because his soul is God.
But I take my hat off to you Freddy for trying to make the Trinity more comprehensible.
IMO, it has to happen for Christianity to move forward
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we see these three persons communicating and acting upon each other. This implies personality. Either real personality - as in a Trinity - or unreal personality - as in a personality disorder. Or that Christ was evil.
The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
The Holy Spirit is not a dove, nor is it whatever it was that was seen that was "like a dove." The Father is not really thunder, nor does He speak in a loud voice out of the sky.
Instead this vision symbolized the way that the Father, who as Jesus says is "in Me", was united to Him by what is represented by His baptism.
Baptism normally represents the washing away of evils that is involved in the process of rebirth. In Jesus' case, since there was no evil, it represents the glorification process by which He was united with the divinity that is called "the Father." So it descends on Him, like a dove.
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You don't know what modalism is.
The part you quoted from Wikipedia was about Sabellianism. Which is just one aspect of modalism.
Maybe you can tell us what the difference is.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you think that Jesus as to His soul was not God?
If his soul was God, then he wasn't a human being. He was God.
What is a human being? How do you see this emphasized in the Gospels? Having a divine soul in no way precludes Jesus from being human - by which I mean that He walked on earth, preached, loved humanity, and suffered as a genuine person. The divinity within Him did not immediately manifest itself, but did so gradually over time - or so the Gospels seem to indicate.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So we have a human mind and body and God as soul. We have two parts to Jesus intially (one human, one God) that become God eventually.
Doesn't work. You have no original human being. You mention the Shema. One is to worship God with heart, mind and soul. In this case, Jesus would be worshiping himself.
Jesus is theocentric in 99.5% of the gospels. He worships the father, not himself.
So Jesus and God are not really one then. If the Son truly and eternally worships the Father then there really are two Gods, or else Andrew is right and the Father is the only one who is really God.
I would say, instead, that Jesus' prayers to the Father are a description of an internal dialogue that is mirrored in similar ways within every person. Except that whereas our inner debates are purely human, His were with the divine itself.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Freddy: quote:
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
No. The view above is too heavenly bound. Jesus is not really Jesus of Nazareth, because his soul is God.
Neither. It is biblical. Jesus really is Jesus of Nazareth, and the Father dwelt within Him just as He says.
[ 02. February 2010, 13:25: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
the divine within Him being like the soul in the body.
'Soul' is a Greek concept, quite alien to Jewish thought.
So are you saying that its use in Scripture is meaningless? Words translated "soul" appear 341 times.
A look at the context shows that it sometimes means simply the person himself/herself. Other times it evidently refers to the inner person.
Does it matter?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The translation is misleading.
nephesh's root word is "to breathe." Since those who are breathing still have "life," one of the meanings for nephesh is "life." So when you stop breathing, you die. That’s nothing like the Greek idea of soul; it’s simply the breath of life. It’s Psuche in the Gk NT
ruach and neshamah are wind, air or spirit - pnoe in Gk – again not like the Greek idea of soul.
The Gk Pneuma is spirit or air – as in the Holy Spirit
Where the bible uses ‘soul’, it is take to personify the whole person, not a bit that goes to heaven afterwards. Similar personifications are: heart, reins
Genesis 1:21 says that animals have ‘souls’ if you are going to insist on a Gk understanding.
According to the Biblical Hebrew E-MagazineThe soul is the whole of the person, the unity of the body, breath and mind. It is not some immaterial spiritual entity it is you, all of you, your whole being or self.
George Eldon Ladd in The Pattern of New Testament Truth, pp. 13-40 argues that Christians who read Gk thinking into the biblical use of ‘soul’ are dualists and heading towards Gnosticism.
For Ladd, as for all orthodox Christians: Salvation does not consist of freeing the soul from its engagement in the material world. On the contrary, ultimate redemption will involve the redemption of the whole man and of the world to which man belongs. This is the theology behind the doctrine of bodily resurrection, which only begins to emerge in the Old Testament but which is clearly developed in Judaism and the New Testament…… The contrast between the Greek and Hebrew views of God and the world is reinforced further by the Old Testament anthropology. Hebrew man is not like the Greek man — a union of soul and body and thus related to two worlds. He is flesh animated by God's breath (ruach), who is thus constituted a living soul (nephesh) (Gen. 2:7; 7:22). Nephesh (soul) is not a part of man; it is man himself viewed as a living creature. Nephesh is life, both of men (Ex. 21:23; Ps. 33:19) and of animals (Prov. 12:10).
Hence the creed talks of ‘the Resurrection of the BODY.’
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Leo, are you arguing that the New Testament usage of the term is incorrect? What is the meaning of the word in these passages:
quote:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
Luke 12:20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
Acts 2:27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
Revelation 18:13 horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.
What are these "souls"?
For my purposes I don't need the soul to be anything fancy. It is just a person's inner part, the real self that is not the body, and not necessarily the conscious mind. This is clearly meant in these passages.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
Whatever. Keep asserting that all you want.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It appears to be a case of the "If I can't see it, it must not be there" syndrome.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we see these three persons communicating and acting upon each other. This implies personality. Either real personality - as in a Trinity - or unreal personality - as in a personality disorder. Or that Christ was evil.
The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
Says who? And what is it a symbol of? Delusion?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
You claim this, yet deliver no arguments for this claim. Thank you for that. Now I can ignore you.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
Says who? And what is it a symbol of? Delusion?
The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
The Holy Spirit is not a dove, nor is it whatever it was that was seen that was "like a dove." The Father is not really thunder, nor does He speak in a loud voice out of the sky.
Instead this vision symbolized the way that the Father, who as Jesus says is "in Me", was united to Him by what is represented by His baptism.
Baptism normally represents the washing away of evils that is involved in the process of rebirth. In Jesus' case, since there was no evil, it represents the glorification process by which He was united with the divinity that is called "the Father." So it descends on Him, like a dove.
This is just my denominational perspective.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
symbol: something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of something invisible
represent : to serve as the counterpart or image of
depict: to represent by or as if by a picture <a mural depicting a famous battle>
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
You claim this, yet deliver no arguments for this claim. Thank you for that. Now I can ignore you.
I have to disagree. I think Freddy has done an admirable job in trying to explain his position. He has also done it with patience and goodwill.
If you choose to disagree, that's fine, but don't attack his efforts to deliver his arguments by claiming he hasn't any.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.
If a symbolic representation and a depiction are the same thing, then I'll use different terms.
The events that took place at Christ's baptism were not a literal description of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Rather they were a visual and aural illustration of a corresponding relationship within Christ.
This illustration was seen at His baptism because baptism represents a person's regeneration or rebirth, and Christ's case, His glorification.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I have to disagree.
Thank you Evensong for those gracious comments. My arguments may be wrong but they aren't non-existent.
At the same time snide remarks are part of the fun here, so I take no offense. We are, after all, idling away our time for each other's amusement. Not exactly settling world issues.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
You claim this, yet deliver no arguments for this claim. Thank you for that. Now I can ignore you.
I have to disagree. I think Freddy has done an admirable job in trying to explain his position. He has also done it with patience and goodwill.
If you choose to disagree, that's fine, but don't attack his efforts to deliver his arguments by claiming he hasn't any.
I must disagree. Freddy just says 'it's impossible' without arguing the point. My question, then, is: Why is it impossible for God to be three persons? Just saying 'the word god excludes this' doesn't do. Because the discussion is just that; what is God like. He begs the question by using his conclusion as a premise.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why is it impossible for God to be three persons? Just saying 'the word god excludes this' doesn't do.
It's not the word "god" it's the prefix "omni" - as in "omnipotent." Two persons can't both be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent without being one and the same.
Is it that you don't think that these "omni's" apply to God? Or that three can in fact be these things without being one and the same? Or that there is a category shift such that what we think of as the rules that govern these puny human concepts simply aren't valid when speaking of God?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's not the word "god" it's the prefix "omni" - as in "omnipotent." Two persons can't both be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent without being one and the same.
Why?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why?
Didn't you already ask this? If one person has all power there isn't any left for another person to have all of. If one person knows everything then what another all-knowing person thinks can be no different. If one person is omnipresent, then there can't be any distinction between where he is and where another omnipresent person is.
The only conclusion is that they are one and the same, occupy the same place, think the same things, have the same power and are therefore one.
Since Jesus said that He and the Father were one, and that He was in the Father and the Father in Him, this seems perfectly consistent.
Why is it so hard to get past the imagery of the one praying to the other, sitting beside each other, voices and doves from heaven, and the one doing the other's will? It seems to me that these are obvious metaphors that can't possibly be literally true of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
Just a few comments.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why?
Didn't you already ask this?
Yes, but my question was for proof, not for you to restate your claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If one person has all power there isn't any left for another person to have all of.
This treats omnipotency as a batch of cookies. But omnipotency just means that a person has the power to do whatever He wants in the way He wants it, providing it's logical. (It is impossible - even for God - to make married bachelors and circular squares.) It's not as if potency (power) is something that disappears. And of it was; we wouldn't have any potency or power. Which is an absurd position.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
If one person knows everything then what another all-knowing person thinks can be no different.
Again, this treats knowledge as a batch of cookies. Does your knowing 2+2= 4 mean that I cannot know it?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I must disagree. Freddy just says 'it's impossible' without arguing the point. My question, then, is: Why is it impossible for God to be three persons?
Because Jesus was a monotheist
Because three does not equal one and one doesn't equal three.
Because unless God is the same as man Jesus cannot be both fully God and fully man.
The Chalcedonian definition of the Trinity is a paradox. They couldn't decide whether Jesus was a man or God, so they said he was both.
It's a compromise, its not a solution
That's why its metaphorical
quote:
“Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable” ---Oscar Wilde
[ 04. February 2010, 12:36: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
This treats omnipotency as a batch of cookies. But omnipotency just means that a person has the power to do whatever He wants in the way He wants it, providing it's logical. (It is impossible - even for God - to make married bachelors and circular squares.) It's not as if potency (power) is something that disappears. And of it was; we wouldn't have any potency or power. Which is an absurd position.
Actually, this is the Christian position. God has all power and we have none. Jesus said "Without Me you can do nothing." Of course that is something that needs explaining, because it makes no sense at first reading.
I'm not saying that two people can't share power, or that power is like cookies. But "all" is an exclusive descriptor. Two people can't have "all" of anything without being the same person. This is true of power, knowledge, and presence.
I would guess, though, that you deny that God is omnipresent. Otherwise the Father and Son could not sit on adjoining thrones:
quote:
Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 14:62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 16:19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
Acts 7:56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
Romans 8:34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Colossians 3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hebrews 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
Now I would say that these passages don't mean that Christ literally sits or stands at God's right hand. They are meant figuratively, the "right hand" then, as now, standing for strength or power (as in "His right hand man"). But someone who took this useful imagery literally might struggle with the concept of omnipresence.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Leo, are you arguing that the New Testament usage of the term is incorrect? What is the meaning of the word in these passages:
quote:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
Luke 12:20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
Acts 2:27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
Revelation 18:13 horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.
What are these "souls"?
For my purposes I don't need the soul to be anything fancy. It is just a person's inner part, the real self that is not the body, and not necessarily the conscious mind. This is clearly meant in these passages.
No - your interpretation of those verses is incorrect - if you read them again with my (the linguistic) definition of soul as the whole person, they make perfect sense.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - your interpretation of those verses is incorrect - if you read them again with my (the linguistic) definition of soul as the whole person, they make perfect sense.
Umm, did you even read the passages?
These in particular don't fit with the definition of "soul" as the whole person:
quote:
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless
Revelation 18:13 bodies and souls of men.
In these passages the soul is clearly distinguished from the body, and in some from the mind and heart.
I grant that in some passages the meaning of "soul" is simply "person", but even in those passages it is taken to mean "the real person." Many passages talk about "my soul," which seems more likely to indicate "my inner self" than "my body."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
I must disagree. Freddy just says 'it's impossible' without arguing the point. My question, then, is: Why is it impossible for God to be three persons?
Because Jesus was a monotheist
But this begs the question. The question is wether Trinitarianism is monotheistic belief or not. You assume that it is, and use this assumption as a premise in your argument. You are in practice saying: Trinitarianism isn't monotheistic because it isn't monotheistic. But I disagree.
Monotheism doesn't necessarily mean that there is just one divine person; it holds that there is just one divine nature or being. The greek pantheon didn't consist of different persons with the same nature. It was different persons with different natures. We see this for instance in that they disagree, they fight each other, sabotage each other, etc.
When the Church Fathers developed the doctrine of the Trinity they considered the data. Every doctrine is developed on the basis of facts or data in response to something. (This, I believe, is true of anything and anyone.)
They said: we believe in Christ; we worship Him as if He was God. But in the Christian stories (some of which eventually became the New Testament) and in the life of the Church you meet three things called God, each one being distinct from the other. From this it was deduced – I believe by the help of the Holy Spirit – that there is three divine persons and one divine being or nature. This isn't contradictory. We don't hold that there is one person and three persons or one nature and three natures. No, we hold that there are three persons and one nature or being.
And over to Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But "all" is an exclusive descriptor. Two people can't have "all" of anything without being the same person. This is true of power, knowledge, and presence.
No it isn't. Neither power, knowledge or presence is in themselves material objects.
First; knowledge. If I know something my knowledge isn't diminished by you also knowing it. Knowledge increases when shared, because knowledge is spiritual or mental. (At least in the case of God. We could perhaps have 'physical knowledge' too.) So two omniscient persons doesn't cancel each other out.
Second; power. If I have the power to cruch a stone with a hammer does this mean that noone else has that power? Can you explain what it is with omnipotency that barrs more than one person from possessing it? (This language is a little imprecise; you don't possess power as a thing. Power is merely the name given to the ability to do what one is capable of.)
Third; presence. Here I am reminded of the 'medieval' question: How many angels can dance upon the pin of a needle? The answer is twofold: (1) Noone, because angels aren't physically located on the pin of a needle. (2) All of them and infinitively more, because angels aren't physically located on the pin of a needle. God isn't omnipresent in the same way that you are present in your kitchen. It's not as if God is 'standing' besides you.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Neither power, knowledge or presence is in themselves material objects.
Things don't need to be material objects to preclude two from each having "all" of them or it.
If two things are omnipresent it means that there is no space where one is where the other is not, even within the other itself. This is true even if God is apart from space and time.
If two have all power there can be no power that one has that the other does not have.
If two have all knowledge there is no knowledge that the one has that the other does not.
This means that only one can be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
God is three PERSONS in one BEING or SUBSTANCE. The omnipresence is predicated of the BEING, not the PERSONS.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
But that's IMPOSSIBLE, mousethief.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God is three PERSONS in one BEING or SUBSTANCE. The omnipresence is predicated of the BEING, not the PERSONS.
Is there actually a way of making sense out of that? Or are you arguing, as Andrew did, that divinity is a single category, so that God is one regardless of how many persons there are.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes that's what we've been trying to say all along. Trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I didn't realize that anyone besides Andrew bought his argument. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
So you also see "divinity" as a category just as "humanity" is - and that just as many people make one humanity, so many gods make one divinity? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't know about all that category stuff. I just know there is one God in three Persons. Andrew's stuff about human nature never made any sense to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Glad to hear it. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Explain PERSON.
Whatever Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are, they are certainly distinct. The NT clearly testifies to this.
If they are not the same (they are distinct) then they are not one. They are different from each other.
Literal trinitarianism is tritheism.
Even my PhD systematic theology lecturer admitted as much when pushed.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Ah well that proves it, then, if you don't get it and your prof didn't either.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah well that proves it, then, if you don't get it and your prof didn't either.
LOL. I suppose it proves it that you have got it? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As much as one does. It's not an axiom of geometry.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
No, your point was that it was wrong. Not at all the same point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As much as one does. It's not an axiom of geometry.
My point is that the Trinity is metaphorical, not literal.
That's why you can only understand it "as much as one does". Because it certainly is not clear like an axiom of geometry.
Metaphorically, the Trinity is not wrong. It works very well for me. When I see Jesus, I see a window into God the Father.
As the creeds of my tradition state, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son and this case, when I think HS, I think Jesus and God after Pentecost and present today with us. Now.
When I think Jesus and the Holy Spirit I think "to the glory of God the Father" (the Gloria)
etc
[ 05. February 2010, 05:25: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Metaphorically, the Trinity is not wrong. It works very well for me. When I see Jesus, I see a window into God the Father.
As the creeds of my tradition state, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son and this case, when I think HS, I think Jesus and God after Pentecost and present today with us. Now.
Very nice. That's pretty much how I see it.
The Trinity is not wrong, it's a metaphor - or as Jesus said "figurative language." What's wrong is saying that the Trinity is actually three distinct persons, each of whom is God, and yet mysteriously one.
The Father is God insofar as He is beyond our understanding, the invisible God, divine love itself. He is not seen or known by anyone, except through the Son.
The Son is God insofar as He shows Himself to us, the visible God, the Word of God, the divine truth. The divine truth is what gives form to all things, which is why creation is said to have happened by means of the Logos.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by means of the Son because it is God as He exists with each of us, enlightening and vivifying us. This enlightenment is from the divine love by means of divine truth, which is why the Holy Spirit is sometimes described as not being given except by Christ - and leading to the whole "Filioque" confusion.
This is one God, with no confusion about whether there are three. The distinctness of the Father and Son shown in the Gospels has to do with the interaction of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ as His human nature was glorified, or formed in perfect obedience to His divinity. This is why the Son is always subordinate to the Father even though they are also one and have the same powers.
The whole purpose of the Incarnation was to make God visible to a humanity that had drifted far away from God. In this way God was able to remove or reduce the power of hell, and begin to restore the integrity that was first lost in the Garden when people "ate the fruit" or trusted in knowledge instead of God. Integrity is then restored over time as the human race gradually accepts and obeys the knowledge that comes from God that Jesus taught. This is how God leads us in freedom.
To me this is the value of the Trinity. But when the Trinity is understood as three persons the whole point is lost. The way is then open to thinking of salvation in terms of a sentence passed by the Father, and a price paid by the Son, which, in my opinion, makes no sense at all and leads to no good end.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
My point is that the Trinity is metaphorical, not literal.
And my question, which I have aso posed to Freddy, is: for what is it a metaphor?
[ 05. February 2010, 12:13: Message edited by: k-mann ]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
