- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleThank you for the intelligent response. It is possibly the only attempt so far to accurately present the Trinity, although I have a few problems with some of the comments which I will come to.
According to Diog. Laer. ix. 20 (K. 37), “When Empedokles said to Xenophanes that the wise man was not to be found, he answered: “Naturally, for it would take a wise man to recognise a wise man”.
Xenophanes, the founder of the Eleatic School who was born about 580 B.C., according to Diog Laer. iii. 16; Cic. de nat. Deor. i. 27, said amongst else:
-- “ ...[text shortened]... collapses into itself and it cannot be accepted dew to its obvious contradictions and sophisms😵
Firstly, I haven't actually tried yet to define what 'substance' and 'person' mean; I have only so far sought to refute the idea that the Trinity is of pagan origin. I do not see any evidence of that. The earlier myths of Sumeria and Greece, which Galveston alludes to, do not show any evidence of something trinitarian, only something triadic. His other argument is simply to say that since Christians used Hellenic philosophical terms (particularly Platonic), it must be pagan. It is as silly as saying that since Plantinger has used propositional logic, he must be a rationalist of the class of A.J. Ayer. It smacks of anti-intellectualism, as if a devout Christian cannot decently engage in philosophy. Simply because early Christians used metaphysical terms does not mean that they were Pagans.
Secondly, I reject the idea that the Trinity is contradictory. At first it seems that way, a violation of identity logic. The rule of transitivity states that if A=B and B=C then A=C. The Trinitarian formula seemingly violates this: 'The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.' However, Plato gives a good argument for resolving such apparent contradictions. He observes that a person may want to drink alcohol and not want to alcohol water (I am using a more contemporary example than his). Does this mean we have two people or a contradiction? No. Plato's solution is to say that in one respect, he desires it, in another respect, he doesn't. Perhaps a habitual addiction spurs on his desire, but his understanding that it is self-destructive makes him not desire to drink. This Plato's argument for the Triparite soul and is relevant here. In personhood, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same; in substance, however, they are. There is no contradiction in this (in fact, you yourself have said this. I am just saying that the accusation of contradiction does not follow.)
Of course, the terms 'person' and 'substance' have to be defined. I do not think that you have given a very accurate presentation of personhood. In several instances, you confuse it with personality. You compare the three persons to human beings -- yet being is a matter of substance, not of person. Etymologically, person is linked to the idea of drama, coming from the word persona which was a character in a play. The dramatis personae were the cast of characters. Importantly, these personae were defined by their relation to other personae. The master was the one with power over the slave; the slave the one under dominionship of the master; the cunning slave (especially for Plautus) was the comedic agent of the whole play who deceived his master. Essentially, the persona is defined by his relation to other personae and his activity in relation to them.
The confusion, I think, for many Christians is to confuse person with entity or with being and not understand that the persons only express internal relations of the one God. There is only one being: God. He is one, omnipotent, omniscient, uncaused and perfect. If there is a Trinity, it is not in the form of three beings (St. Augustine explicitly cautions against comparing the Trinity to a family of mother, father and child) or three entities (etymologically, entity and being are the same.) The Trinity, following the etymological explanation above, is a matter of relations and actions. There is a Father, defined by his relation to a Son by the act of begetting, and a Holy Spirit defined by his relation to both of these by the act of their mutual loving. However, this is not enough. Terms like 'Father' and 'Son' also suggest entities as if God can be split up into individual constituents like a family. Avoiding this, St. Augustine described the Trinity in terms of the human soul: the Father is the mind able to create new thoughts, the Son is the self-knowledge of the Father (thus always begotten of the Father) and the Holy Spirit is the love between them -- but while there are many activities and relations, there is only one soul. St. Bonaventure described the Trinity similarly, the Father is 'the ground being', the Son is his self-knowledge and the Holy Spirit is the love overflowing between them into the act of creation.
The important implication of this is that the three persons cannot be considered entities somehow dividing up God. Pope Benedict, only years ago as Cardinal Ratzinger, described the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 'pure action'. The Father is 'being', the source of existence and creation; the Son is his self-knowing; finally, the Holy Spirit is the constant loving between them. They correspond to activities; they are personal by their relations. Importantly, the Trinity is thus corresponds to God's internal relations, His existence, self-knowledge and love and it better situates the idea of personhood in its historical context as relational and related to action. So the mystery since St. Augustine has not been how to understand the unity of the three persons as one God, but how the three persons, as pure action, could possibly become immanent. How could God's self-knowledge become incarnate and how can the Holy Spirit 'speak' to the prophets, evangelists and saints throughout history?
EDIT: I have to acknowledge that my whole presentation of the Trinity comes from Latin theology, not Greek. Latin theologians have generally investigated the Trinity analytically (not looking at the Scriptures, but taking a natural approach. St. Thomas basically derives the idea of the Trinity from the idea of the first cause, rather than Scripture.) Greek theologians however would also have a different idea of the relations of the persons. They would not say that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and Son, seeing this as an expression of the filioque and an heretical subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillGalvo prays to God, not to Christ, for it is idolatrous and blasphemous for a Christian to pray to Christ, Jesus stated, our Father, which are in heaven , hallowed or sanctified be your name, not my name, not me the father, dont pray to me, pray to the Father.what is the fathers name? That is correct it is Jehovah. when was the first time that you prayed to Jehovah ?
When was the last time you told Him that you loved Him ?
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by Conrau KI simply analyzed the occurrence of the concept of the Trinitarian Christian God and I said that in my opinion this concept is pure theoplacia, a fusion of polytheism and monotheism, of imagination and wannabe reason, of fiction and reality.
Thank you for the intelligent response. It is possibly the only attempt so far to accurately present the Trinity, although I have a few problems with some of the comments which I will come to.
Firstly, I haven't actually tried yet to define what 'substance' and 'person' mean; I have only so far sought to refute the idea that the Trinity is of pagan orig ...[text shortened]... lioque and an heretical subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
St. Augustine’s opinion regarding the human soul means nothing to me the way you offer it (the Human has a mind that is able to create new thoughts, the mind of the Human has knowledge of its existence, and the mind of the Human is connected with the self of the Human by means of love&hellip😉 so I leave it aside.
Methinks St. Bonaventure went a bit further: if the Father is “the ground being”, he merely rephrased Lux Interna as “Father”. And when he says that the Son is “his self-knowledge” and the Holy Spirit the Love overflowing between them into the act of creation, it seems to me that he stares towards the primal archetype of the dualism and so his conception of Trinity appears to me nothing more than a dull interpretation of the triangle Qeter-Chochmah-Bhinah.
Regarding Ratzinger’s thesis: if the Trinity is solely a matter of relations and actions Within the single entity “god”, kindly please let me know for one how can you know such a thing since there are no elements of reality in the physical world regarding this supposed process and, for two, let me know why each of these three divine properties must be worshipped separately as if each one of them had inherent being and existed solely on its own?
😵
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by Conrau Kedit: “So the mystery since St. Augustine has not been how to understand the unity of the three persons as one God, but how the three persons, as pure action, could possibly become immanent. How could God's self-knowledge become incarnate and how can the Holy Spirit 'speak' to the prophets, evangelists and saints throughout history?”
Thank you for the intelligent response. It is possibly the only attempt so far to accurately present the Trinity, although I have a few problems with some of the comments which I will come to.
Firstly, I haven't actually tried yet to define what 'substance' and 'person' mean; I have only so far sought to refute the idea that the Trinity is of pagan orig ...[text shortened]... lioque and an heretical subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
This is not a mystery at all. The Saviour/ Messiah appears in order to save his Kingdom and to connect it again with the heavenly realm of existence, so he has to overcome the abyss between these Worlds (that was caused because of the Fall) and to balance permanently the miscellaneous powers of his six-fold Kingdom. So the key to your question lies in the understanding of the main triangle Qeter-Yesouhd-Tiphereth: the Son makes the Father understandable by means of helping the Human to attain enlightenment. The agent is Love
😵
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by Conrau KFinally, Plato’s argument about the so called three aspects to the soul is argued solely on an unconvincing level in "The Republic -Book IV“, and in my opinion is ill-considered because finally I have a single desire that overcomes every other intention/ desire of mine: I have solely the desire to drink not from the poisoned water although I am very thirsty.
Thank you for the intelligent response. It is possibly the only attempt so far to accurately present the Trinity, although I have a few problems with some of the comments which I will come to.
Firstly, I haven't actually tried yet to define what 'substance' and 'person' mean; I have only so far sought to refute the idea that the Trinity is of pagan orig ...[text shortened]... lioque and an heretical subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
Furthermore, leaving aside the fact that this decision of mine comes out of the evaluation of my mind alone, kindly please define "soul" and prove that its aspects are three😵
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===================================
Galvo prays to God, not to Christ, for it is idolatrous and blasphemous for a Christian to pray to Christ, Jesus stated, our Father, which are in heaven , hallowed or sanctified be your name, not my name, not me the father, dont pray to me, pray to the Father.what is the fathers name? That is correct it is Jehovah. when was the first time that you prayed to Jehovah ?
Galvo prays to God, not to Christ, for it is idolatrous and blasphemous for a Christian to pray to Christ, Jesus stated, our Father, which are in heaven , hallowed or sanctified be your name, not my name, not me the father, dont pray to me, pray to the Father.what is the fathers name? That is correct it is Jehovah. when was the first time that you prayed to Jehovah ?
========================================
As is freqeuntly the case, you answer for galveston a question asked to him. I would like to hear for once his own response.
The Apostle Paul was a Christian of course. And he found no problem in praying to Jesus Christ too: Three times he says he besought the Lord Jesus. Concerning the thorn sent by Satan to harass Paul -
"Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.
Most gladly therefore I will rather boast in my weaknesses that the power of Christ might tabernacle over me." (2 Cor. 12:8,9)
Paul prayed to, made petition to, besought the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor.1:2)
So go back to your Kingdom Hall and tell your teachers - " You taught us that we shouldn't pray to Jesus but to Jehovah His Father only. But Paul in Second Corinthians prayed to the Lord Jesus three times. And the Lord Jesus answered him - "My grace is sufficient .." and Paul then experienced "the power of Christ."
And we see Stephen praying to the Lord Jesus "And they stoned Stephen asd he called upon [the Lord] and said, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! And kneeling down he cried out with a loud voice, Lord, do not hold this sin against them. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 7:59,60)
Please do not try to tell me that these are not PRAYERS. If I should suffer persecution to death I certainly want to be calling out to the Lord Jesus. Yet why wait ? In my daily trials and even in mundane things of life I want to be calling out to Jesus, praying to Him, praising Him.
And I sense absolutely no rivalry or jealousy in God when I pray to the Father or the Son. I tell the Father I love Him and the Son is well pleased. I tell the Son that I love Him and the Father is well pleased.
This rivalry matter is purely your imagination.
Where is galveston then? When is the last time, galveston, that you told the Lord Jesus that you loved Him? Are you afraid to tell Jesus that you love Him?
The more you pray to Jesus and tell Him you love Him, I can assure you the happier Jehovah will be !
15 Dec 09
5 edits
galveston, listen to Paul's word and touch his heart of love.
" I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me;
and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
Touch Paul's spirit here - the Son of God, Christ, "who loved me ... who loved me .... Christ loved me .... Christ gave Himself for me." (my emphasis)
Did your teachers teach you that you shouldn't thank the Lord Jesus that he LOVED you and gave Himself FOR you? Did they make you afraid to say "Lord Jesus I want to thank you. You loved me Lord Jesus. You GAVE yourself for me Lord Jesus. I want to thank you."?
Do you know how happy it would make Jehovah to hear you pray to the Lord Jesus "Thankyou Lord Jesus that you loved me and gave yourself for me"?
There is no rivarly in the Triune God. In the very same book Paul says God sent the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of the Christians crying "Abba Father" (4:6)
The thought of rivalry and competition between the Father and the Son is a human concoction that has nothing to do with reality. Worst, it is a theology from the pit, a doctrine of demons.
This persuasion that you might offend Jehovah if you pray to Jesus, is not of God.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillI did answer you. You must have missed my thread?
[b]===================================
Galvo prays to God, not to Christ, for it is idolatrous and blasphemous for a Christian to pray to Christ, Jesus stated, our Father, which are in heaven , hallowed or sanctified be your name, not my name, not me the father, dont pray to me, pray to the Father.what is the fathers name? That is correct it is Jehovah ...[text shortened]... ray to Jesus and tell Him you love Him, I can assure you the happier Jehovah will be !
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75???????? No comments?
Jesus in the beginning according to the Bible.
First mentioned at Gen 1:26 where God said to him " let us make man in "our" image. ( God would not talk to himself.)
John 1:1-3, Ps 33:6, Col 1:16 brings out Jesus was directed by his Father to create, hence the term "Master Worker" was applied to Jesus. Prov 8:30 which also states that he was besid ...[text shortened]... hn 1:1 & 7: 16,17. Rev 19:13,16.
Any suggestions here of them being the same being?
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75============================
I did answer you. You must have missed my thread?
I did answer you. You must have missed my thread?
=============================
I saw one reply, very benigh.
I don't think you realize how you have been systematically and methodically poisoned against the Son of God.
Very subtle. What has been the result of the Watchtower teaching on you? It has been to try to reach God apart from Christ.
No matter how you speak glowly about Christ the oldest angel or Christ the temporary king for Jehovah, at the root of your teaching is an antichrist spirit.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillJay your the one with the problems in understanding who Jesus is compaired to his father Jehovah. Until you come to the correct knowledge of who they are you'll never see the falseness of the trinity.
[b]============================
I did answer you. You must have missed my thread?
=============================
I saw one reply, very benigh.
I don't think you realize how you have been systematically and methodically poisoned against the Son of God.
Very subtle. What has been the result of the Watchtower teaching on you? ...[text shortened]... or Christ the temporary king for Jehovah, at the root of your teaching is an antichrist spirit.[/b]
15 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75==================================
Jay your the one with the problems in understanding who Jesus is compaired to his father Jehovah. Until you come to the correct knowledge of who they are you'll never see the falseness of the trinity.
Jay your the one with the problems in understanding who Jesus is compaired to his father Jehovah. Until you come to the correct knowledge of who they are you'll never see the falseness of the trinity.
======================================
I haven't even mentioned the word Trinity that much.
You see you are waiting for me to defend a creed. All I ever do is tell you what the Bible says. That is all that is needed really.
Your Arian theology has been tailored and designed to poison you against the Son of God.
You have Old Testament Judaism with a reluctant and begrudging bare tolerance for the Son of God. You cannot get rid of Him for a pure Judaism so you work to make Him an angel.
The word Trinity may envoke many things to different people. It is enough to point out that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
You may call this revelation Trinity, you may call it whatever you wish. But it is there in the Bible.
If the Word was not God but some other god then you are a polytheist. There is really not much need to explain more. As long as your Logos is not the God but is another god, you are a polytheist.
But you say you are Jehovah's Witness. But the very verse you derive that phrase from testifies against your polytheism:
"And you are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me?" (See Isaiah 44:8)
What is your answer galveston? Jehovah says in Isaiah 44:8 "Is there a God besides Me? Or is there any other Rock? I do not know of any."
"Well," says the Watchtower, "Poor Jehovah. Let us educate Him. There is ANOTHER God besides You. There is this Logos - a God. And this OTHER god became flesh"
Yet you call yourselves "Jehovah's Witnesses" but you DIRECTLY contradict Him. He knows of no other God.
You know another one though! And you call yourselves Jehovah's Witnesses ??
You are teaching like Antichrist Witnesses.
15 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillYou are teaching like Antichrist Witnesses
[b]==================================
Jay your the one with the problems in understanding who Jesus is compaired to his father Jehovah. Until you come to the correct knowledge of who they are you'll never see the falseness of the trinity.
======================================
I haven't even mentioned the word Trinity that much.
You ourselves Jehovah's Witnesses ??
You are teaching like Antichrist Witnesses.[/b]
get a life and get off that armchair, when was the last time ANY member of Christendom, got up off their fat butt and came to my house to tell me about the good news of Gods Kingdom? In Fact , when was the FIRST TIME a member of Christendom got off their fat butts and preached the good news of Gods Kingdom? answer not in my lifetime!
you hands and the hands of your parishioners are filled with bloodshed, the blood of millions , sacrificed on the alter of war!
You know the warnings contained in scripture and look, your brothers are going down into the grave and you have done NOTHING about it, not lifted one finger to help them spiritually as even the Christ himself did.
the primary work of Jesus Christ was declaring the good news of Gods Kingdom, in which he instructed his followers, in which he commanded his followers, so that some might be saved, that is why you people are reprehensible, for you not only prevent others from going in, but even you yourselves are doing nothing to help them, even though they are skinned and thrown about, sheep without a shepherd!
(Matthew 12:30) . . .He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.
(Matthew 7:16-20) . . .By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillHummmm, lets see. Jesus is refered to as a "God" but never as "God Almighty." Satan is refered to as the "God of this System."
[b]==================================
Jay your the one with the problems in understanding who Jesus is compaired to his father Jehovah. Until you come to the correct knowledge of who they are you'll never see the falseness of the trinity.
======================================
I haven't even mentioned the word Trinity that much.
You ...[text shortened]... ourselves Jehovah's Witnesses ??
You are teaching like Antichrist Witnesses.[/b]
So it seems "YOU" have a misunderstanding of what that scripture means. Figure it out.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by black beetleI simply analyzed the occurrence of the concept of the Trinitarian Christian God and I said that in my opinion this concept is pure theoplacia, a fusion of polytheism and monotheism, of imagination and wannabe reason, of fiction and reality.
I simply analyzed the occurrence of the concept of the Trinitarian Christian God and I said that in my opinion this concept is pure theoplacia, a fusion of polytheism and monotheism, of imagination and wannabe reason, of fiction and reality.
St. Augustine’s opinion regarding the human soul means nothing to me the way you offer it (the Human has a min ...[text shortened]... rshipped separately as if each one of them had inherent being and existed solely on its own?
😵
I know. And you did a good job presenting the Trinity in an intellectually honest way. I just do not believe that this conclusion follows. I do not believe that the accusation of polytheism is valid because Christians still believe in only one God and pray to only one God.
St. Augustine’s opinion regarding the human soul means nothing to me the way you offer it (the Human has a mind that is able to create new thoughts, the mind of the Human has knowledge of its existence, and the mind of the Human is connected with the self of the Human by means of love&hellip😉 so I leave it aside.
I am sorry, I have misrepresented it. St. Augustine characterised the activity of the soul as 'memory, understanding and will', corresponding to 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'. The Father as memory is the ground of the whole Trinity, from which understanding (the logos, the Son) is conceived. The will, the Holy Spirit, is then the product of memory and understanding (Father and Son). There is only God and one soul however. The description of the Trinity is then comparable to the interpsychic activities of the human soul.
Methinks St. Bonaventure went a bit further: if the Father is “the ground being”, he merely rephrased Lux Interna as “Father”. And when he says that the Son is “his self-knowledge” and the Holy Spirit the Love overflowing between them into the act of creation, it seems to me that he stares towards the primal archetype of the dualism and so his conception of Trinity appears to me nothing more than a dull interpretation of the triangle Qeter-Chochmah-Bhinah.
I don't understand this criticism. I do not see anything remotely archetypal or dualist. Like St. Augustine, he understands the Trinity as similar to the interpsychic activities of the mind -- but in terms of transcendentals (Father as existence, Son as knowledge and Holy Spirit as love.)
Regarding Ratzinger’s thesis: if the Trinity is solely a matter of relations and actions Within the single entity “god”, kindly please let me know for one how can you know such a thing since there are no elements of reality in the physical world regarding this supposed process and, for two, let me know why each of these three divine properties must be worshipped separately as if each one of them had inherent being and existed solely on its own?
Ratzinger actually isn't building a new thesis. He is simply emphasising the importance of the relativity in the Triune. The idea that each person is pure action comes from St. Augustine. The example, which St. Augustine gives, of this in the physical world is the human soul and the psychic interplay between memory, knowledge and will in the one and integral soul. These are not 'divine properties'. No one worships properties.
Finally, Plato’s argument about the so called three aspects to the soul is argued solely on an unconvincing level in "The Republic -Book IV“, and in my opinion is ill-considered because finally I have a single desire that overcomes every other intention/ desire of mine: I have solely the desire to drink not from the poisoned water although I am very thirsty.
I am not actually arguing that there is a Tripartite soul; I am just arguing that his line of reasoning offers a solution to apparent contradictions. We can say without contradiction 'A in respect of B and not-A in respect of C' which is not a contradiction. Undoubtedly Plato's application of this principle to the human soul does not justify his conclusion of a Tripartite soul; but I am not interested in his argument but rather in his method of argument.