Trinity Discussion

[Coder]

You are confusing Revelation with terms.

The Relevation is influenced by and is using language to relate to Greek/Roman/pagans. People of a certain time/culture can’t understand something if it does not relate to their concepts - this is fine. Jesus used parables all the time. “Father-Son” is a parable of the early Church in Scripture to relate the one true God to pagans who understood “father gods” and “son gods”. The reality of the one true Judeo-Christian God is clarified/emphasized by inclusion of the Jewish term “Holy Spirit”.

If you try to tell a pagan that God became a man, you know what he’s going to say? He’s going to say “Yes, I know, many gods have become a man. which one are you referring to ?” So you try to say “No, I mean the one the true God, He is a pure infinite spirit. and He is the only true God”. Why do think the Gospel of John shows Jesus telling the “non-Jewish” woman that “God is spirit”? Jews already knew the term Holy Spirit.

Why do you think the Creed emphasizes “true God from true God”? You’re dealing with pagans whose only way of understanding God becoming man is one of their “many gods” becoming man which they already believed. So we teach pagans that Jesus is “true God” from “true God”.

The early Creeds (and the Scriptures) were dealing with pagans and keeping with Jewish roots at the same time - a tough row to hoe

 

[Coder]

Revelation will not change because man has difficulty with it;

Absolutely. Revelation is a way of relating the truth about God. The language used to relate the truth about God to pagans can change but the truth about God Himself is unchangeable.

 

[Coder]

Catholic understanding is not that the Holy Spirit is as Judaism understand Him; simply stated: they see and understand God as “X.”

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

The reference to the Jewish Roots and that the Holy Spirit has never been understood as a person in Judaism (including IMHO by Jesus Himself and the disciples) is a clue IMHO that the Church is making gentle moves away from the Greek/Roman/pagan influences and terminology and back to the Jewish roots. The tree that you and all Christians are grafted onto. The tree that never understood God as having parts/persons.

 

[goout]

The Relevation is influenced by and is using language to relate to Greek/Roman/pagans. People of a certain time/culture can’t understand something if it does not relate to their concepts - this is fine. Jesus used parables all the time. “Father-Son” is a parable of the early Church in Scripture to relate the one true God to pagans who understood “father gods” and “son gods”. The reality of the one true Judeo-Christian God is clarified/emphasized by inclusion of the Jewish term “Holy Spirit”.

If you try to tell a pagan that God became a man, you know what he’s going to say? He’s going to say “Yes, I know, many gods have become a man. which one are you referring to ?” So you try to say “No, I mean the one the true God, He is a pure infinite spirit. and He is the only true God”. Why do think the Gospel of John shows Jesus telling the “non-Jewish” woman that “God is spirit”? Jews already knew the term Holy Spirit.

Why do you think the Creed emphasizes “true God from true God”? You’re dealing with pagans whose only way of understanding God becoming man is one of their “many gods” becoming man which they already believed. So we teach pagans that Jesus is “true God” from “true God”.

The early Creeds (and the Scriptures) were dealing with pagans and keeping with Jewish roots at the same time - a tough row to hoe

A couple of points.
The Church does not object to the elements of truth expressed in other peoples. All people have a “homing device” for God. Everyone tries to express truth. So yes, cultures influence one another and have elements of truths like the Trinity. So?
This is a good thing, not a cause for dispute.

God is not made in our image, we are made in God’s image.

You can go round disputing where the doctrine of the Trinity originates in pagan ideas or Scripture, etc…But the doctrine is first of all

1. Revealed
   and
2. observed

How is the Trinity revealed? The best revelation of the Trinity is marriage. For that reason marriage is called “the primordial sacrament”. Marriage is the most fundamental and observable sign of God’s interior life.

Man loving woman loving man, and that love is life itself, both literally and spiritually. The love between persons is a person itself.
This mirrors how God is. Rather than disputing how Scripture observes the Trinity, pause and look around you, the reality is evident.

Scripture most simply expresses the Trinity as “God is love”. Love is between persons. But again, this is not so because Scripture says it is so, it is so, and Scripture expresses it.

 

[Coder]

A couple of points.
The Church does not object to the elements of truth expressed in other peoples. All people have a “homing device” for God. Everyone tries to express truth. So yes, cultures influence one another and have elements of truths like the Trinity. So?
This is a good thing, not a cause for dispute.

God is not made in our image, we are made in God’s image.

You can go round disputing where the doctrine of the Trinity originates in pagan ideas or Scripture, etc…But the doctrine is first of all

1. Revealed
   and
2. observed

How is the Trinity revealed? The best revelation of the Trinity is marriage. For that reason marriage is called “the primordial sacrament”. Marriage is the most fundamental and observable sign of God’s interior life.

Man loving woman loving man, and that love is life itself, both literally and spiritually. The love between persons is a person itself.
This mirrors how God is. Rather than disputing how Scripture observes the Trinity, pause and look around you, the reality is evident.

Scripture most simply expresses the Trinity as “God is love”. Love is between persons. But again, this is not so because Scripture says it is so, it is so, and Scripture expresses it.

I like your approach and presented beautifully if I may say. By your reasoning I would also point out (as I have) that each human (in God’s image) is one inseparable human being/person.

Also, as I mentioned, the “terminology” used in Scripture itself is “parabolic” (a parable) using “father gods” and “son gods” (e.g. Saturn-Jupiter) terminology (in some places) to relate the reality of the one true God becoming man to pagans who had pervasive concepts of “father gods” and “son gods”. In fact, given the environment that the early Church was preaching in, wouldn’t one even expect to see language like this? Notice how this language is particularly in John, a later Gospel, perhaps written after some experience had been gained trying to preach to pagans. The Holy Spirit is the term used in Scripture to tie the teaching back to the Jewish roots to indicate that still, we are talking about the one true Judeo-Christian God who does not have parts/persons.

What’s happened is, that this language has been “handed” down such that sincere and brilliant theologians have had to explain how the Trinity does not mean that God is not one and we admit it’s unintelligible and so we all just say “Wow, I understand God created the universe even though it’s a mystery, I understand God became man even though it’s a mystery, but the Trinity, I can’t understand that one.”

The Pope has really been talking about a new softness and flexibility today. He has indicated that it’s more than “an era of change” , it’s a “change of an era”. Amen, we’re no longer preaching primarily to pagans.

 

[goout]

I like your approach and presented beautifully if I may say. By your reasoning I would also point out (as I have) that each human (in God’s image) is one inseparable human being/person.

Yes, but God is not made in our image. God is infinitely more than we are.

Before we existed, God is love “already”. God is personal love in all eternity. God’s love is not contingent on us.

On the other hand, our existence is contingent on God’s fruitful love. So while we derive from his Trinitarian nature(?) , that does not mean we are “just like” God.

That is probably not a very good explanation. Others can probably state this more coherently.

 

[goout]

…
In fact, given the environment that the early Church was preaching in, wouldn’t one even expect to see language like this? Notice how this language is particularly in John, a later Gospel, perhaps written after some experience had been gained trying to preach to pagans. The Holy Spirit is the term used in Scripture to tie the teaching back to the Jewish roots to indicate that still, we are talking about the one true Judeo-Christian God who does not have parts/persons.

Understanding develops. Each age influences the one to come after.
The ancient Jewish understanding is not the same one we have today. I fail to see why that is an issue. It’s not an issue for the Church.

Again look at marriage. Do two persons become one? Yes. Again, not in the same way as God is three/one, but a truth about God is expressed.
Theologians speak of a healthy marriage as having a “transcendent third”.
The couple loves sacrificially, and that love is fruitful and transforms the world.
It is powerful

 

[Coder]

Understanding develops. Each age influences the one to come after.

Yes.

Theologians speak of a healthy marriage as having a “transcendent third”.
It is powerful

Yes, the “transcendent third” is the one true God who has no parts/persons.

 

[goout]

Yes, the “transcendent third” is the one true God who has no parts/persons.

Think about what we just said about the context of the transcendent third in marriage.
Your conclusion does not follow.

If God is love, he cannot be an individual.
Love is not just a standalone thing. It is the stuff of relationship.

 

[japhy]

Think about what we just said about the context of the transcendent third in marriage.
Your conclusion does not follow.

If God is love, he cannot be an individual.
Love is not just a standalone thing. It is the stuff of relationship.

^
This!

This is part of one of the arguments for at least a duality of persons in God that I know of.

Can we agree on the following principles:

1. God, as an eternal spirit, is unchanging and timeless
2. God is perfect
3. God loves
4. God’s perfection is something humanity should strive to imitate (albeit incompletely)

If so, then (2) and (3) imply that (5) God loves perfectly, and (1) and (5) imply that (6) God has always loved perfectly, both before (i.e without) creating anything and after (i.e. upon) creating the universe.

If God’s perfect and unchanging love existed before there was anything created TO love, then God did not love the uncreated creation (except potentially). But perfect love, loves not only that which could be, but that which is. So God loved perfectly that which Is before anything was created. So God loved perfectly before creation.

But is perfect love, love of self? Or is it love of other?

If perfect love is love of self, then selfishness is superior to selflessness, and if (4) God’s perfection is something we should aspire to imitate, then humanity should aspire to selfish love over selfless love. But that does not appear to be the case.

So if human love should aspire to selfless love, love of other over love of self, then God’s perfect love must be love of other.

But if God could love other perfectly and in actuality (not just potentially) before anything was created, then God had to be able to love something other than “self”. But that “other” which God loves could not itself be created; it must also be God.

Thus there must at least be a duality of persons in God, such that God can express perfect love (of Other) before an “other” was created.

It’s not air-tight, I’ll admit, but it’s a starting point.

 

[Coder]

Hi,

I don’t question God’s great love for us and it is wonderful.

God says “I am”. There is no need to speculate theologically/philosophically about His love as a rationalization for why He must be a Trinity or consists of two etc.

He is infinite and mysterious and one. Who are we question how or whether He loves Himself etc. and whether this must mean He is two/three?

The Trinity doctrine didn’t result from this theological/philosophical speculation. The Trinity doctrine is defended by Scriptures which I have proposed here were formulated (especially later in John) as a result of the work of preaching to pagans. (Many previous posts detailing this).

 

[Milestone]

Christ’s True Church, the Catholic Church, is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Trinity is taught as doctrine, who am I to reject that which God has revealed directly and infallibly?

We can try to understand the Trinity, but never can we deny it. If we do, we reject the authority of the Church, and ultimately, God.

 

[Coder]

Christ’s True Church, the Catholic Church, is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine was not formally developed/defined until centuries after Pentecost. As you say, it’s taught on the level of a mystery, leaving plenty of room for development. I think it may develop further:

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

 

[goout]

The doctrine was not formally developed/defined until centuries after Pentecost. As you say, it’s taught on the level of a mystery, leaving plenty of room for development. I think it may develop further:

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

Development is just that. Development is growth in understanding.
Development is not an uprooting.
The same tree is continuous from the seed to the fruit.

*The Church is living.

• It is always the same organism.

 

[goout]

Hi,

I don’t question God’s great love for us and it is wonderful.

God says “I am”. There is no need to speculate theologically/philosophically
…

Then why are you speculating? What do you see and know?

You know that love must be between one person and another. You already admit that to yourself.
By your own natural experience and reason you can see that God is inter-personal.

Yet you tie yourself into knots clinging to another idea. You are going against what you know to be true in favor of speculation.

 

[jcrichton]

The Relevation is influenced by and is using language to relate to Greek/Roman/pagans. People of a certain time/culture can’t understand something if it does not relate to their concepts - this is fine. Jesus used parables all the time. “Father-Son” is a parable of the early Church in Scripture to relate the one true God to pagans who understood “father gods” and “son gods”. The reality of the one true Judeo-Christian God is clarified/emphasized by inclusion of the Jewish term “Holy Spirit”.

If you try to tell a pagan that God became a man, you know what he’s going to say? He’s going to say “Yes, I know, many gods have become a man. which one are you referring to ?” So you try to say “No, I mean the one the true God, He is a pure infinite spirit. and He is the only true God”. Why do think the Gospel of John shows Jesus telling the “non-Jewish” woman that “God is spirit”? Jews already knew the term Holy Spirit.

Why do you think the Creed emphasizes “true God from true God”? You’re dealing with pagans whose only way of understanding God becoming man is one of their “many gods” becoming man which they already believed. So we teach pagans that Jesus is “true God” from “true God”.

The early Creeds (and the Scriptures) were dealing with pagans and keeping with Jewish roots at the same time - a tough row to hoe

…actually, you have that backwards… early belief did not claim that God became man but that man became a god or was a son of a god–Rome, as an example, began with gods but eventually, through self-promotion, Caesar claimed divinity (ditto with the Egyptians)… as far as I can recall in ancient mythology none proclaimed that a god became a lower being: man.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Absolutely. Revelation is a way of relating the truth about God. The language used to relate the truth about God to pagans can change but the truth about God Himself is unchangeable.

Since this is empirical (Revelation/Truth remains Truth) then language (grammatical accidents and usage) cannot inject error into the Truth Being Reveal; ergo, the terminology “Trinity” does not affect God’s determination to Reveal Himself as Three in One (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

Yes, there are terms and practices that may mirror the Holy Trinity yet the fact remains that God Exists as Three while simultaneously Being Only One!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

The reference to the Jewish Roots and that the Holy Spirit has never been understood as a person in Judaism (including IMHO by Jesus Himself and the disciples) is a clue IMHO that the Church is making gentle moves away from the Greek/Roman/pagan influences and terminology and back to the Jewish roots. The tree that you and all Christians are grafted onto. The tree that never understood God as having parts/persons.

I could also say that IMO Jesus spoke Spanish… the fact that I state it so does not make it factual.

Jesus did not refer to a power or strength or energy or a function. Jesus spoke of the other Paraclete (meaning He too is a Paraclete) and God Being Spirit would certainly exclude the need of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit cohabitating and exhibiting three distinct presences.

Take the event of the Resurrection… Jesus foretells of His Crucifixion… He embraces it! He notices the dread in His Disciples’ mind and heart and He clarifies in a three prong measure that:

1. It must come to fruition–for this reason I came (Incarnation) into the world.
2. No one takes my Life from Me: I lay it down and I will take it up again.
3. You will see Me again (this is not final).

Jesus Resurrects!

It is Jesus’ own testimony that He gives up His Life (human) and that He takes it up again (Jesus is Resurrected by Jesus.) [God, the Son, is the force present in the Resurrection.]

Apostolic Teaching Reveals that God, the Father, Resurrects, God, the Son. (Jesus is Resurrected by the Father.) [God, the Father, is the force present in the Resurrection.]

Apostolic Teaching Reveals that God, the Father, Resurrects, God, the Son, through God, the Holy Spirit. (Jesus is Resurrected by the Holy Spirit.) [God, the Holy Spirit, is the force present in the Resurrection.]

You may choose to ignore those passages that demonstrate that God exist in three distinct Persons; you cannot ignore that the passages demonstrate that God Reveals that He exist in three distinct Persons!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Coder]

Hi yes, but Catholics don’t have Protestant exegetical methods.

What is the purpose of the Gospels? Are they profitable for doctrine etc.? Yes. However, what is their main purpose? Their purpose is to reach the audience of the day with the Good News of Jesus Christ.

At the end of the Gospel of John, it tells us what it’s purpose is. Does it say that it’s purpose is to form doctrine for those who already believe? No, it says there were “many other things…” but “these were written” that you may believe. Who is it saying “that you may believe” to? Is it saying this to apostles and members of the Church who already believe? No, it is saying “that you may believe” to the people of the day (primarily Greek/Roman/pagans). So, of course it would use terminology and parables that they could relate to and the early Church did as well (e.g. in prayers at mass).

It was a charity and mercy (for pagans). The Jewish apostles were already mature in their understanding of God It was Peter who recognized the Christ, not a pagan.

I point once again to the record of Jesus telling the non-Jewish woman that the Jews know who they worship. Another clue along the road for us.

God Bless

 

[goout]

Hi yes, but Catholics don’t have Protestant exegetical methods.

What is the purpose of the Gospels? Are they profitable for doctrine etc.? Yes. However, what is their main purpose? Their purpose is to reach the audience of the day with the Good News of Jesus Christ.

Ok

At the end of the Gospel of John, it tells us what it’s purpose is. Does it say that it’s purpose is to form doctrine for those who already believe? No, it says there were “many other things…” but “these were written” that you may believe. Who is it saying “that you may believe” to? Is it saying this to apostles and members of the Church who already believe? No, it is saying “that you may believe” to the people of the day (primarily Greek/Roman/pagans). So, of course it would use terminology and parables that they could relate to and the early Church did as well (e.g. in prayers at mass).

It was a charity and mercy (for pagans). The Jewish apostles were already mature in their understanding of God It was Peter who recognized the Christ, not a pagan.

I point once again to the record of Jesus telling the non-Jewish woman that the Jews know who they worship. Another clue along the road for us.

God Bless

No one disputes that the Jews are chosen in a unique way to receive revelation.
No matter how mature one’s faith, it is always developing. The most holy saint was a work in progress in this life.

So you want the gospel to wear cement shoes…that cannot work.