Y
You
Guest
Thread is about Trinity not Baptism. Matthew shows there are three persons in the Trinity. Unless one wishes to use Acts to show there is no God the Father or Holy Spirit, only Jesus.
- Status
L
Lisa44
Guest
Some baptized by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (trinity). While other baptized in the name of Jesus.
Acts doesn’t prove that there isn’t a Father or a Holy Spirit. But it proves that baptism under Jesus’s name only is sufficient.
Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
So that means we are not saved by the trinity. It means we are saved by Jesus’s name alone.
There is no where in the bible it says you can baptize in the name of the Father only, or in the name of the Holy Spirit only, or in the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
It is only by Jesus’s name.
Think about this, if God is a trinity of three persons, and they make up one God, then couldn’t you baptize in any one of those names?
So why can’t we baptize in the name of the Holy Spirit?
Matthew 28:16-20
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
He doesn’t say “we” are with you always. Or everything “we” have commanded you.
He says all authority has been given to “me”. Not to “us”.
So what is THE NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Y
You
Guest
Actually He does;
John 14:23
Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.
…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.So what is THE NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?
F
fakename
Guest
To the OP:
the Trinity is “3 Gods” and 3 infinities as far as the three persons are God, just one sometimes says that there are 3 bluenesses in so far as there are 3 blue things, or 3 categories of human nature if there are 3 humans; said in a rhetorical sense.
The Trinity is one God in that the same persons, considered from the point of view of their divinity, are in fact only logically different from God and also logically different from each other. They are aspects of God. Again, however, they are the same in their divinity.
The Trinity is 3 persons in that the persons are really distinct from each other when considered in themselves. They are all really different from each other and the Father is not the Son and so on.
They are all one in so far as God has 3 personal notions or properties in him. These 3 properties are the Trinity.
So God has both logical and real distinction within him.
So the 3 persons are not really 3 infinities but in a poetic or rhetorical sense.
the Trinity is “3 Gods” and 3 infinities as far as the three persons are God, just one sometimes says that there are 3 bluenesses in so far as there are 3 blue things, or 3 categories of human nature if there are 3 humans; said in a rhetorical sense.
The Trinity is one God in that the same persons, considered from the point of view of their divinity, are in fact only logically different from God and also logically different from each other. They are aspects of God. Again, however, they are the same in their divinity.
The Trinity is 3 persons in that the persons are really distinct from each other when considered in themselves. They are all really different from each other and the Father is not the Son and so on.
They are all one in so far as God has 3 personal notions or properties in him. These 3 properties are the Trinity.
So God has both logical and real distinction within him.
So the 3 persons are not really 3 infinities but in a poetic or rhetorical sense.
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
Hello Forum Readers
I think we must have a lot in common if you are interested enough to join this discussion. I hope you will find that my Trinity research compliments your own.
I believe that God is one in spirit, and universal in mind, but threefold in personality. Each of these persons is conscious of himself as part of one consciousness unified in conscience and reason, but having the personality prerogative of freewill within the bounds of necessary Trinity cooperation. The will of each person of the Trinity is not identical, but is integrated in a procession of exquisite “perichoresis” or dancing around of Trinity coordination, forever supporting their divine union in One God. Theoretically, each could walk away with his portion of the kingdom, as the Quran puts it, but they don’t because of the catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.
Please take a look at my new book “The Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace” currently previewing on the web at www.trinityabsolute.com.
The thesis is that Muslims worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the Deity Absolute Primogenitor. Christians and some Hindus worship the first person through the second person, i.e. the Universe Absolute Supreme Being or Oversoul. And many Hindus and some Buddhists venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person, i.e. the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of All That Is.
It is argued that world religions reflect the systematic unity of One God in Trinity manifestations, which become almost universal when you consider that some flavours of Buddhism, Confucian-Taoism, and other major religions seem to be psychological permutations or combinations of the first three – all just different personality perspectives on the same God.
It is argued that that a spark of that one spirit of Trinity indwells the soul of all humans, together with a small portion of the universal mind, and a personal will or character. The human soul is thus modelled on the Trinity as its only adequate metaphysical vehicle, but in a “perichoresis” or dance of the psychological coordinates of consciousness – the threefold human soul – personality/mind/spirit.
If the purpose of life is to find God and be like him, then the way to do the will of God is to let him live your life with you, helping fuse your personality and spirit in your immortal soul. That immortality may be achieved through participation in the Universe Absolute Oversoul, of which Jesus Christ seems to be the head representative. At the same time, in considering this Universe Supreme Being, Muslims would insist on including Muhammad, and Hindus might suggest Gandhi, etc. At the supposed spirit level of the universe, we can speculate that the corresponding supreme leaders might be Michael, Gabriel, and some unidentified angel(s).
Similarly and likewise, Allah, Abba (or Father, as Jesus called him), and Brahma may be regarded as a representation of the first person of the Trinity Absolute in three major world religions - Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism – with hybrid psychologies represented by Buddha, Confucius, and others.
My questions are: Do you see how closely the psychology of the major religions maps onto the Trinity Absolute, as I have described it? What do you think of religious pluralism? Can I not still be a good Christian without being exclusive?
Please see my trinityabsolute.com website Contact page, and give me a comment for the Bulletin Board.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
I think we must have a lot in common if you are interested enough to join this discussion. I hope you will find that my Trinity research compliments your own.
I believe that God is one in spirit, and universal in mind, but threefold in personality. Each of these persons is conscious of himself as part of one consciousness unified in conscience and reason, but having the personality prerogative of freewill within the bounds of necessary Trinity cooperation. The will of each person of the Trinity is not identical, but is integrated in a procession of exquisite “perichoresis” or dancing around of Trinity coordination, forever supporting their divine union in One God. Theoretically, each could walk away with his portion of the kingdom, as the Quran puts it, but they don’t because of the catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.
Please take a look at my new book “The Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace” currently previewing on the web at www.trinityabsolute.com.
The thesis is that Muslims worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the Deity Absolute Primogenitor. Christians and some Hindus worship the first person through the second person, i.e. the Universe Absolute Supreme Being or Oversoul. And many Hindus and some Buddhists venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person, i.e. the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of All That Is.
It is argued that world religions reflect the systematic unity of One God in Trinity manifestations, which become almost universal when you consider that some flavours of Buddhism, Confucian-Taoism, and other major religions seem to be psychological permutations or combinations of the first three – all just different personality perspectives on the same God.
It is argued that that a spark of that one spirit of Trinity indwells the soul of all humans, together with a small portion of the universal mind, and a personal will or character. The human soul is thus modelled on the Trinity as its only adequate metaphysical vehicle, but in a “perichoresis” or dance of the psychological coordinates of consciousness – the threefold human soul – personality/mind/spirit.
If the purpose of life is to find God and be like him, then the way to do the will of God is to let him live your life with you, helping fuse your personality and spirit in your immortal soul. That immortality may be achieved through participation in the Universe Absolute Oversoul, of which Jesus Christ seems to be the head representative. At the same time, in considering this Universe Supreme Being, Muslims would insist on including Muhammad, and Hindus might suggest Gandhi, etc. At the supposed spirit level of the universe, we can speculate that the corresponding supreme leaders might be Michael, Gabriel, and some unidentified angel(s).
Similarly and likewise, Allah, Abba (or Father, as Jesus called him), and Brahma may be regarded as a representation of the first person of the Trinity Absolute in three major world religions - Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism – with hybrid psychologies represented by Buddha, Confucius, and others.
My questions are: Do you see how closely the psychology of the major religions maps onto the Trinity Absolute, as I have described it? What do you think of religious pluralism? Can I not still be a good Christian without being exclusive?
Please see my trinityabsolute.com website Contact page, and give me a comment for the Bulletin Board.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
J
John_Russell_Jr
Guest
Hi. Thank you for your helping me to understand holy trinity.
Before ask my second question, let me ask my questions about your answers:
My dear friend, holy trinity doesn’t talk about one god with 3 aspects, It talks about one god and three distinct persons.
And your definition is a modalist definition.
And I don’t know what you mean “the love that is them and the love they have for eachother is so beyond infinitely powerful that it perfectly unites all 3 so they are one , love unites , evil divides”. I don’t understand it. By this definition, we must say that the distiction between persons is because of evil.
… my dear friend ,
… it is not modalism , but rather my attempt to put the false image out of peoples heads that the 3 persons of the blessed trinity are separate as with the 3 leaf clover , they are 3 aspects that are 3 distinct persons that make up 1 god …
… reality = love , and love expresses itself in an infinite number of infinitely creative ways but alway has perfect unity , evil is nothing / ness and does not really exist , ths world has evil but this is why our world is outside reality , the delusion , why we lost the garden of eden which symbolises reality …
… the demons were cast out of their reality heaven to its opposite hell too , evil cannot exist , and god is working on fixing the problem of evil , he has fixed it instantaneously from the start , but we exp it gradually being fixed as we cannot exp our whole eternity at once , a pain for us but a necessity we must bear with for now …
… so love = reality , and its opposirte = evil , and evil cannot exist in reality so we find ourselves outside reaity in this delusion whilst it is fixed , in essence there is only good and evil in our world , but it shpould be love and evil , we are not meant to be good or evil in reality , we are meant to be love and loving , good and evil are just acting , and one breeds the other endlessly , but love destroys and eliminates evil and we be love an don’t act loving , that is the diff dear friend …
… we should try to go from acting good to being love then we are eliminating evil , this will eventually give us reality back with divine intervention i think , there is tons more to this , this is my own theory too …
… may god bless and love you,
… john …
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
Hello again Trinity Forum Readers,
I am a retired professional engineer living in Canada, near Vancouver, B.C.
My main area of philosophical interest is the proof of One God in the Trinity, which I maintain can be “demonstrated in abstract philosophical terms, unencumbered by specifically Christian dogma,” and I hope you will find that my Trinity Absolute research compliments your own understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (see my previous posting of Sep 30 '11 9:52 p.m.).
I believe that God is one in spirit, and universal in mind, but threefold in personality. Each of these persons is conscious of himself as part of one consciousness unified in conscience and reason, but having the personality prerogative of freewill within the bounds of necessary Trinity cooperation. The will of each person of the Trinity is not identical, but is integrated in a procession of exquisite “perichoresis” or dancing around of Trinity coordination, forever supporting their divine union in One God. Theoretically, each could walk away with his portion of the kingdom, as the Quran puts it, but they don’t because of the catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.
Please take a look at my new book “The Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace” currently previewing on the web at www.trinityabsolute.com.
I returned recently to Canada, from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Along the way, I reread my own book, and had an experience of religious epiphany, which I was hoping for.
I concluded that Kant’s argument from moral duty in allegiance to one “categorical imperative” (the Golden Rule) is a universal absolute value of goodwill, warranting and entitling belief in the three postulates of practical reason: freedom, God, and immortality. Because it is universal, this conception becomes indubitable knowledge – not an empty illusion by any means, but a glorious inevitable construction of reason, on which to stake our lives.
I am not satisfied with my treatment of the moral argument in my book. This is a killer argument, but it is difficult to summarize precisely. Nevertheless, I feel I need to take a run at boiling down Kant’s arguments in the Appendix, and bring them into the body of Chapter 1.4. This will certainly make an already long chapter even longer, and risks negotiating the subtleties of Kant’s arguments, without making them more difficult to follow, than they already are.
On the other hand, the effort must be made, and why shouldn’t the Moral Argument get the most space, since it is the most elegant and most persuasive proof of God. Kant regarded it as the only definitive and thoroughly conclusive argument of metaphysics justifying faith in freedom, God and immortality.
Triune relationships are not only ubiquitous, but some of them are basic to space, time, energy, matter, human psychology, world religions, and One God, as is shown in my book. Absurdly obvious, the Trinity Absolute is an idea that has been “hiding in plain sight” - a concept so compelling that it creates its own existence - the one inevitability (as the UB calls it).
Nevertheless, I must say that I am not a bit surprised by the slowness of the reaction so far. As Ross Perot said, you can write a book and think you are finished, but you’re not. You’ve got to tell people what you’ve told them, over and over before it sinks in. As Carlos Castaneda put it, “Everything new in our lives… must be repeated to us to point of exhaustion before we open ourselves to it. You hear my statements, and you certainly understand what I mean, but your awareness prefers to deal with an unfamiliar concept as if it were an empty ideal.”
When I think that the systematic unity of the Trinity Absolute is probably the only adequate metaphysical vehicle of creation, I am reminded of Pythagoras crying out: “A2 + B2 = C2. Come on people, don’t you get it?” A multi-dimensional triangular relationship is the metaphysical basis of everything, without which there would be nothing, and with which there is anything. Like logic and reason itself, it just is, and no one knows why - other than something very like it must exist, or there would be no basis for reason itself.
What do you think? Can you help me correct and improve my arguments?
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
I am a retired professional engineer living in Canada, near Vancouver, B.C.
My main area of philosophical interest is the proof of One God in the Trinity, which I maintain can be “demonstrated in abstract philosophical terms, unencumbered by specifically Christian dogma,” and I hope you will find that my Trinity Absolute research compliments your own understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (see my previous posting of Sep 30 '11 9:52 p.m.).
I believe that God is one in spirit, and universal in mind, but threefold in personality. Each of these persons is conscious of himself as part of one consciousness unified in conscience and reason, but having the personality prerogative of freewill within the bounds of necessary Trinity cooperation. The will of each person of the Trinity is not identical, but is integrated in a procession of exquisite “perichoresis” or dancing around of Trinity coordination, forever supporting their divine union in One God. Theoretically, each could walk away with his portion of the kingdom, as the Quran puts it, but they don’t because of the catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.
Please take a look at my new book “The Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace” currently previewing on the web at www.trinityabsolute.com.
I returned recently to Canada, from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Along the way, I reread my own book, and had an experience of religious epiphany, which I was hoping for.
I concluded that Kant’s argument from moral duty in allegiance to one “categorical imperative” (the Golden Rule) is a universal absolute value of goodwill, warranting and entitling belief in the three postulates of practical reason: freedom, God, and immortality. Because it is universal, this conception becomes indubitable knowledge – not an empty illusion by any means, but a glorious inevitable construction of reason, on which to stake our lives.
I am not satisfied with my treatment of the moral argument in my book. This is a killer argument, but it is difficult to summarize precisely. Nevertheless, I feel I need to take a run at boiling down Kant’s arguments in the Appendix, and bring them into the body of Chapter 1.4. This will certainly make an already long chapter even longer, and risks negotiating the subtleties of Kant’s arguments, without making them more difficult to follow, than they already are.
On the other hand, the effort must be made, and why shouldn’t the Moral Argument get the most space, since it is the most elegant and most persuasive proof of God. Kant regarded it as the only definitive and thoroughly conclusive argument of metaphysics justifying faith in freedom, God and immortality.
Triune relationships are not only ubiquitous, but some of them are basic to space, time, energy, matter, human psychology, world religions, and One God, as is shown in my book. Absurdly obvious, the Trinity Absolute is an idea that has been “hiding in plain sight” - a concept so compelling that it creates its own existence - the one inevitability (as the UB calls it).
Nevertheless, I must say that I am not a bit surprised by the slowness of the reaction so far. As Ross Perot said, you can write a book and think you are finished, but you’re not. You’ve got to tell people what you’ve told them, over and over before it sinks in. As Carlos Castaneda put it, “Everything new in our lives… must be repeated to us to point of exhaustion before we open ourselves to it. You hear my statements, and you certainly understand what I mean, but your awareness prefers to deal with an unfamiliar concept as if it were an empty ideal.”
When I think that the systematic unity of the Trinity Absolute is probably the only adequate metaphysical vehicle of creation, I am reminded of Pythagoras crying out: “A2 + B2 = C2. Come on people, don’t you get it?” A multi-dimensional triangular relationship is the metaphysical basis of everything, without which there would be nothing, and with which there is anything. Like logic and reason itself, it just is, and no one knows why - other than something very like it must exist, or there would be no basis for reason itself.
What do you think? Can you help me correct and improve my arguments?
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
L
Lisa44
Guest
I don’t understand this book, at all. Maybe someone else here does?
Are you a Catholic?
I am a Catholic but I don’t put much emphasis on the doctrine of the trinity so maybe that is why your book looks confusing to me.
Could you distill your thesis into one sentence for me? I am a simpleton.
Are you a Catholic?
I am a Catholic but I don’t put much emphasis on the doctrine of the trinity so maybe that is why your book looks confusing to me.
Could you distill your thesis into one sentence for me? I am a simpleton.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Thank you for the scripture quote.
Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus’s word is equal to the Father’s word. Those who do not love Jesus’s word do not love the Father’s word. Those who love Jesus love the Father.
Those who keep Jesus’s commandments are those who love him. Those who love Jesus’s commandments and keep them the Father loves. So this is talking about a personal relationship. So personal in fact that Jesus and the Father will make their HOME with the believer.
I do not think that these verses demonstrate the distinctness of the Father and the Son, so much as thy demonstrate the SAMENESS of them. In fact, they are inseperable.
Jesus says that he does what the Father commands so that the world may know that he loves the Father. (14:31).
So in the same way, we are to do as Jesus commands so that the world knows that we love Jesus. And by doing this we are following the Father.
There is no indication to me that Jesus and the Father are seperate persons, or that they are even seperate in a physical sense. Because where Jesus is there is the Father also.
I do realize that in the same verses Jesus says “the Father is greater than I”.(14:28)
And you would take this to prove a seperate person. Still, I would argue, that God is greater when he is not in the flesh for the simple reason that the flesh is of this world. Just like we will be greater when we get an eternal life and not one that will perish in death.
H
Heuchler
Guest
I’m going to assume that he at least isn’t your average Catholic. He said that " It is argued that that a spark of that one spirit of Trinity indwells the soul of all humans, together with a small portion of the universal mind, and a personal will or character. The human soul is thus modelled on the Trinity as its only adequate metaphysical vehicle, but in a “perichoresis” or dance of the psychological coordinates of consciousness – the threefold human soul – personality/mind/spirit."I don’t understand this book, at all. Maybe someone else here does?
Are you a Catholic?
I am a Catholic but I don’t put much emphasis on the doctrine of the trinity so maybe that is why your book looks confusing to me.
Could you distill your thesis into one sentence for me? I am a simpleton.
This implies that we have the mind and spark of God but we are so stupid as to go against ourselves. While sin is stupid, it is a rebellion against authority not against self. God sustains existence and the universe but He is not our mind and soul.
Samuel also says that they are one spirit with a universal mind with seperate wills which implies to me that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the multiple personalities of a single insane entity. The Catholic definition I believe follows that they are the same in attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.) and one in will (they all wish good, they all represent love, etc.) but they have seperate minds and bodies (the son is corporal the father and holy spirit are without a body).
And Samuel, this really seems like spam the way you phrase your posts the exact same way each time and are putting this here instead of opening up a new thread. If you want us to focus on your book then start a new thread, if you want to contribute to this thread, then stay on topic please. But if you start a new thread, send me a personal message because I’d like to see it
Y
You
Guest
Your previous post said that He did not say “we”. I simply said He did say “we”.Thank you for the scripture quote.
Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus’s word is equal to the Father’s word. Those who do not love Jesus’s word do not love the Father’s word. Those who love Jesus love the Father.
Those who keep Jesus’s commandments are those who love him. Those who love Jesus’s commandments and keep them the Father loves. So this is talking about a personal relationship. So personal in fact that Jesus and the Father will make their HOME with the believer.
I do not think that these verses demonstrate the distinctness of the Father and the Son, so much as thy demonstrate the SAMENESS of them. In fact, they are inseperable.
Jesus says that he does what the Father commands so that the world may know that he loves the Father. (14:31).
So in the same way, we are to do as Jesus commands so that the world knows that we love Jesus. And by doing this we are following the Father.
There is no indication to me that Jesus and the Father are seperate persons, or that they are even seperate in a physical sense. Because where Jesus is there is the Father also.
I do realize that in the same verses Jesus says “the Father is greater than I”.(14:28)
And you would take this to prove a seperate person. Still, I would argue, that God is greater when he is not in the flesh for the simple reason that the flesh is of this world. Just like we will be greater when we get an eternal life and not one that will perish in death.
It was your argument.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Your argument was to demonstrate the trinity in the bible, correct?
I then argued against your position.
So you used John 14:23 to demonstrate the “we” of the trinity.
Which I then (tried to demonstrate) was not really a “we” at all, but a unity.
I realize the trinity is a subtle topic. Anyways, have a good day!
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
Dear Heuchler,
I said each person of the Trinity has freewill, and while theoretically their personal wills might separate, they do not disagree substantially because of the “catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.”
I know it sounds insane, but if the three persons of the Trinity are all of one in spirit, and share universal reason, then their only distinction must be in personality. Character is the hallmark, and freewill the prerogative of personality.
I probably should not have started my postings with this difficult material (and I certainly didn’t mean to repeat the paragraph you quote). However, as you can see, I am obsessed with the Trinity, and I don’t want to start a new thread because I do have “Questions about Trinity.” I will try to respond to others in this forum, and will break my questions down as I go along, but the big question I have is as follows:
Can you help me correct and improve the arguments in my new book “The Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace” currently previewing on the web at www.trinityabsolute.com?
To answer Lisa’s question, I define the Holy Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As a general term, Trinity merely refers to three things or people that are considered as a unit, inseparable.
In my book, I define the TRINITY ABSOLUTE as a Systematic Unity reflected in Religions, demonstrated in Science, echoed in Psychology, and composed of the Three Absolutes of Creation:
What do you think?
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
I said each person of the Trinity has freewill, and while theoretically their personal wills might separate, they do not disagree substantially because of the “catastrophic consequences of such a disintegration, as well as the overwhelming goodness of their systematic unity.”
I know it sounds insane, but if the three persons of the Trinity are all of one in spirit, and share universal reason, then their only distinction must be in personality. Character is the hallmark, and freewill the prerogative of personality.
I probably should not have started my postings with this difficult material (and I certainly didn’t mean to repeat the paragraph you quote). However, as you can see, I am obsessed with the Trinity, and I don’t want to start a new thread because I do have “Questions about Trinity.” I will try to respond to others in this forum, and will break my questions down as I go along, but the big question I have is as follows:
Can you help me correct and improve the arguments in my new book “The Trinity Absolute: a Constructive Interpretation of World Religions and a Metaphysical Blueprint for Peace” currently previewing on the web at www.trinityabsolute.com?
To answer Lisa’s question, I define the Holy Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As a general term, Trinity merely refers to three things or people that are considered as a unit, inseparable.
In my book, I define the TRINITY ABSOLUTE as a Systematic Unity reflected in Religions, demonstrated in Science, echoed in Psychology, and composed of the Three Absolutes of Creation:
- The Deity Absolute Primogenitor – represented in religions by Allah, Abba or Father, as Jesus called him; Brahma, and others.
- The Universe or “Universal” Absolute Supreme Being or Oversoul – represented in history by Jesus, Muhammad, Gandhi, and others.
- The Unconditioned Absolute Spirit of All That Is – the ultimate Destiny Consummator, who is expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified.
What do you think?
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
T
tonyrey
Guest
- God is Love.
- One Person who is Love is the apotheosis of egoism.
- Two Persons who love each other are sterile.
- Three Persons who love one another are a Family.
- Life reflects the nature of divine Love.
- Unity is the basis of eternal joy and harmony.
H
Heuchler
Guest
See, if they have a personal free will though, then they are not one and not God. They are one because they have one will, are omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. The only difference is how they came about. Christ is the begotten Son of the Father. He is the word of God the Father. In this Christ is the eternal word that is a complete self-description of the Father. The only difference between the two is that Christ came second and the Father begot Christ.
I think you are trying a little two hard to make comparisons of the trinity in other faiths. Unfortunately, Muhammed and Ghandi are nothing like a second person of a divine trinity in union with the Father. To me, it’s really pushing it. No other religion contains a trinity where they claim I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Muhammed was just a prophet, Ghandi was just a hindu man. They never claimed to be in perfect union with God.
L
Lisa44
Guest
It looks like relativism to me.
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
Lisa,
With regard to your recent posting (#22), could you perhaps baptize in the name of the Spirit, in recognition that the spirit is the way to the Son, (if perhaps not the only way), and according to scriptures (John 14:6) the Son is the only way to the Father?
I argue that the Supreme Being will probably be Jesus reincarnated in his return to earth as Christ, heading a supreme gestalt of the consciousness of all humankind. You and I are both big fans of Jesus, that’s for sure.
Indeed all authority has been given to him, but ask yourself, who freely gave him this authority, if not the Father; and who gladly surrenders authority to him, if not the Spirit? I’m only suggesting you look upon the persons of the Trinity as equals. Similarly, we should respect all major religions, which we are entitled by all the laws of analogy, to assume reflect God in different respects, if you can get past the contradictions, and see their consensus.
With regard to your posting (#28), don’t worry, my wife and friends don’t understand me either. With regard to your second question, please click on the “About the Author” button at the top of my website www.trinityabsolute.com.
Lisa don’t give up on the Trinity. I suggest you click on the Preview pdf-download feature, and print it out if you have to, but read it through (only 19 pages) as quickly as you can without thinking about it too much at first. As the meaning and significance sinks in, the whole broad picture should snap into focus, and as I say at the beginning of the website, “You’ll kick yourself for not having seen it sooner.”
With regard to your posting (#29), I understand that it is Catholic doctrine that the persons of the Trinity are unified in spirit, universal in reason (mind), but threefold in personality. As the Chinese would say: “Same, same, but different.” This reminds me of Plato, who called the Trinity: same (one), other (many), and essence (all).
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
With regard to your recent posting (#22), could you perhaps baptize in the name of the Spirit, in recognition that the spirit is the way to the Son, (if perhaps not the only way), and according to scriptures (John 14:6) the Son is the only way to the Father?
I argue that the Supreme Being will probably be Jesus reincarnated in his return to earth as Christ, heading a supreme gestalt of the consciousness of all humankind. You and I are both big fans of Jesus, that’s for sure.
Indeed all authority has been given to him, but ask yourself, who freely gave him this authority, if not the Father; and who gladly surrenders authority to him, if not the Spirit? I’m only suggesting you look upon the persons of the Trinity as equals. Similarly, we should respect all major religions, which we are entitled by all the laws of analogy, to assume reflect God in different respects, if you can get past the contradictions, and see their consensus.
With regard to your posting (#28), don’t worry, my wife and friends don’t understand me either. With regard to your second question, please click on the “About the Author” button at the top of my website www.trinityabsolute.com.
Lisa don’t give up on the Trinity. I suggest you click on the Preview pdf-download feature, and print it out if you have to, but read it through (only 19 pages) as quickly as you can without thinking about it too much at first. As the meaning and significance sinks in, the whole broad picture should snap into focus, and as I say at the beginning of the website, “You’ll kick yourself for not having seen it sooner.”
With regard to your posting (#29), I understand that it is Catholic doctrine that the persons of the Trinity are unified in spirit, universal in reason (mind), but threefold in personality. As the Chinese would say: “Same, same, but different.” This reminds me of Plato, who called the Trinity: same (one), other (many), and essence (all).
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
Heuchler,
In replying to your posting (#30), I should give you credit for suggesting that the “spirit of Trinity” is the spirit of God, which of course is also the spirit of the Son, and their same spirit is glorified in that person which is their consummation - the Spirit of All That Is. In a sense, maybe we could say that the spirit of Trinity is the same, other, and essential spirit of God thrice-glorified. Don’t you agree that a spark of this same spirit indwells all humankind?
In an earlier posting (#10), you seem to endorse C. S. Lewis’ book “Mere Christianity.” My book has a sub-chapter paraphrasing Lewis where he says, “Father is the only word to use. But unfortunately it suggests that He is here first - just as a human father exists before his son. But that is not so… The Son exists because the Father exists: but there never was a time before the Father produced the Son… He (the Son) is the self-expression of the Father - what the Father has to say. And there never was a time when He was not saying it.” Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis, P.147.
With regard to your posting (#35), the persons of the Trinity are all of one will by mutual agreement, which has a danger (as the Quran points out), in that they each retain that freewill autonomy, which constitutes them persons, but which (at least potentially) might cause trouble.
Theoretically, they could “go there own way,” but among other dire consequences, such a distintegration would be catastrophic to the metaphysical coherence of heaven, earth, and all that is. Nevertheless, there are obviously distinctive characteristics of freewill personal dignity, which the persons of the Trinity may exhibit, within the limits of necessary Trinity unity, and their metaphysical roles in it.
No matter how overbearing, or cantankerous, or vague the personal characters may sometimes seem to be, in the worst case, the eternal metaphysical need for their systematic unity of coherence in the Trinity Absolute is the only adequate vehicle humans have discovered so far, as a basis for something, anything, and everything - without which there would be nothing.
Muhammad may have been the prophet of the Deity Absolute in a different respect than Jesus, whom Christians believe is more than just a prophet. Yes, Gandhi was “just a Hindu man,” but Jesus was also a man, and they each have about a billion followers in the world today. Consider if the Hindus and Buddhists might not eventually merge, with their hero at the head, in some super-supreme, even ultimate, consummation of existential/experiential personality - a gestalt of consciousness representing the person of the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit. Is this not a parallel for our speculation that the Supreme Being is (or will be immanently) Christ returned, at the head of an entity of consciousness in which all humankind may participate?
You are right, Muhammad and Gandhi, “never claimed to be in perfect union with God,” as Jesus was so readily able to do, but that may be only because they belong to and represent those persons of the Trinity Absolute that have character roles distinct from Jesus and each other, even if they are inseparable in their Holy Trinity.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
In replying to your posting (#30), I should give you credit for suggesting that the “spirit of Trinity” is the spirit of God, which of course is also the spirit of the Son, and their same spirit is glorified in that person which is their consummation - the Spirit of All That Is. In a sense, maybe we could say that the spirit of Trinity is the same, other, and essential spirit of God thrice-glorified. Don’t you agree that a spark of this same spirit indwells all humankind?
In an earlier posting (#10), you seem to endorse C. S. Lewis’ book “Mere Christianity.” My book has a sub-chapter paraphrasing Lewis where he says, “Father is the only word to use. But unfortunately it suggests that He is here first - just as a human father exists before his son. But that is not so… The Son exists because the Father exists: but there never was a time before the Father produced the Son… He (the Son) is the self-expression of the Father - what the Father has to say. And there never was a time when He was not saying it.” Mere Christianity - C. S. Lewis, P.147.
With regard to your posting (#35), the persons of the Trinity are all of one will by mutual agreement, which has a danger (as the Quran points out), in that they each retain that freewill autonomy, which constitutes them persons, but which (at least potentially) might cause trouble.
Theoretically, they could “go there own way,” but among other dire consequences, such a distintegration would be catastrophic to the metaphysical coherence of heaven, earth, and all that is. Nevertheless, there are obviously distinctive characteristics of freewill personal dignity, which the persons of the Trinity may exhibit, within the limits of necessary Trinity unity, and their metaphysical roles in it.
No matter how overbearing, or cantankerous, or vague the personal characters may sometimes seem to be, in the worst case, the eternal metaphysical need for their systematic unity of coherence in the Trinity Absolute is the only adequate vehicle humans have discovered so far, as a basis for something, anything, and everything - without which there would be nothing.
Muhammad may have been the prophet of the Deity Absolute in a different respect than Jesus, whom Christians believe is more than just a prophet. Yes, Gandhi was “just a Hindu man,” but Jesus was also a man, and they each have about a billion followers in the world today. Consider if the Hindus and Buddhists might not eventually merge, with their hero at the head, in some super-supreme, even ultimate, consummation of existential/experiential personality - a gestalt of consciousness representing the person of the Unconditioned Absolute Spirit. Is this not a parallel for our speculation that the Supreme Being is (or will be immanently) Christ returned, at the head of an entity of consciousness in which all humankind may participate?
You are right, Muhammad and Gandhi, “never claimed to be in perfect union with God,” as Jesus was so readily able to do, but that may be only because they belong to and represent those persons of the Trinity Absolute that have character roles distinct from Jesus and each other, even if they are inseparable in their Holy Trinity.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
S
Samuel_Maynes
Guest
It does look like relativism, in the sense that there is a relative relationship in the circumincession or perichoresis (procession or dance) of the absolute persons of the Trinity Absolute. Believe it or not, this giddy vision of multi-dimensional consciousness, in an almost kaleidoscopic merry-go-round of joyous movement, creating an “overplus” of the divine energies characteristic of the persons of the Trinity (particularly justice, love, and mercy), is well-supported by Catholic doctrine (Augustine and Aquinas).
This adds a lightness of being to the creation (which it would otherwise lack), bringing it alive through the co-creative activity of the three absolute persons consubstantial in the Trinity Absolute; and frees the Deity Absolute Father from the aweful fetters of his supposed “original” lonely existential absolute majesty and sovereignty. Indeed, there may have been a dreamtime of the Father, in which his goals and their implications in all their goodness were known, but the means to produce them were not.
This seems to have been the “lesson that could not be taught,” which if God had not resolved (in the Trinity), he would have gone mad, and we would have been trapped in a nightmare-like dream.
But we are not trapped in a dream. Reality is all too material these days. So God must have thought and pondered on the Trinity, until at a certain moment about 14 billion years ago, he “saw” that it was good, and instantly it popped into material existence, and has apparently been expanding ever since. Trinity would seem to be the basis of a “theory of everything” - what Stephen Hawkings called “an idea so compelling that it brings about its own existence” - the one inevitability.
Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.trinityabsolute.com
H
Heuchler
Guest
God is a trinity with one will, a same set of attributes, and three different persons distinguished by where they came from, the Son comes from the Father, the Spirit is the love between them. (I know it’s bad wording but its hard to convey this without going into heresy.) To claim that they have different wills would destroy the point lewis was making in Mere Christianity which is that Christ is the perfect self-knowledge of God literally personified.
- Status