Understanding the Trinity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Horton
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TonyBS said:
This may help this understanding

"…For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42
God Bless and Regards Tony
Click to expand...
What happened to verses John 6 : 39-41?

MJ
 
Servant19 said:
Hi Martin. Is there a source that says Jesus was not created?

.
Click to expand...
John 8
Before Abraham Was, I Am

48 The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.

52 The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?

54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word. 56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.

57 The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
 
Vico said:
John 8
Before Abraham Was, I Am

48 The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

49 Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father, and you have dishonoured me. 50 But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death for ever.

52 The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death for ever. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself?

54 Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55 And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word. 56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.

57 The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

59 They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
Click to expand...
Thankyou Vico.

Being an eternal being outside of time does not equate to being uncreated…

.
 
MartinJordan said:
What happened to verses John 6 : 39-41?

MJ
Click to expand...
Indeed Martin 🙂

There are Baha’is in Iran who are being killed by extremists for not forsaking their belief in the Son. (Jesus)
It goes without saying as a Baha’i. The quotation Tony provided did not see any reason to explore John 6:39-41 since it is a fundamental of the Baha’i religion

.
 
portos11:
It’s easier to accept or grasp because it’s also wrong. There is ONE divine nature because there is one God. There cannot be multiple divine natures because this would mean multiple gods. This ONE divine nature is possessed in its fullness by each the three divine Persons.
Click to expand...
I thought as much. So I return to my previous question: Can someone explain this use of the word ‘Persons’? Because it doesn’t make sense to me in the context of the Trinity.
 
Nixbits said:
I thought as much. So I return to my previous question: Can someone explain this use of the word ‘Persons’? Because it doesn’t make sense to me in the context of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
Nixbits, did you by any chance read the Baha’i explanation of the Trinity?

.
 
Servant19 said:
Thankyou Vico.

Being an eternal being outside of time does not equate to being uncreated…

.
Click to expand...
Well, Jesus Christ is the eternal begotten (read my response earlier in the thread, based on Augustine’s take, to see what “begotten” means in this context) Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and God the Son. Neither of those verbs imply a “creation” in the sense you’re imagining it. Both Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are God, and by definition, can’t be “created”.
 
Micosil said:
Well, Jesus Christ is the eternal begotten (read my response earlier in the thread, based on Augustine’s take, to see what “begotten” means in this context) Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and God the Son. Neither of those verbs imply a “creation” in the sense you’re imagining it. Both Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are God, and by definition, can’t be “created”.
Click to expand...
Thank you Micosil.

What if I were to share with you the glad tidings that the eternal begetter of the Holy Spirit has manifested Himself to humanity?

.
 
Micosil said:
Well, Jesus Christ is the eternal begotten (read my response earlier in the thread, based on Augustine’s take, to see what “begotten” means in this context) Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and God the Son. Neither of those verbs imply a “creation” in the sense you’re imagining it. Both Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are God, and by definition, can’t be “created”.
Click to expand...
I always thought St.Basil got it:

“8. Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15 and again image of His goodness; not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person. For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases”
 
40.png
Servant19:
Nixbits, did you by any chance read the Baha’i explanation of the Trinity?
Click to expand...
I’ve read the posts on this thread regarding the Trinity in the Baha’i religion. I didn’t find any illumination though.
 
Nixbits said:
I’ve read the posts on this thread regarding the Trinity in the Baha’i religion. I didn’t find any illumination though.
Click to expand...
Essentially the Father, Holy Spirit and the Son can be likened to the physical sun, it’s essential rays and the perfect reflection of the sun.

When the perfect reflection says “I am the sun” it is the truth since nothing but the whole reality of the sun can be seen. When the perfect reflection says “Don’t call me the sun” it is also speaking the Truth.

Does that make sense?

.
 
arthra said:
Horton asked:

*“What does your faith tradition teach regarding the trinity?”

Abdul-Baha explained the Baha’i view of the trinity many years ago around 1911 in the Holy Land…then Palestine today Israel and I quote:

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality – that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes – became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied – for the Sun is one – but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
Code: 
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113)
Click to expand...
That’s not trinity. That’s a different sort of doctrine. In fact that definition is arrianism, not trinity.
 
Servant19 said:
No

The Son is an eternal Reality that exists outside physical creation. It has always existed, pre-existent.
Click to expand...
Is this your position or the Baha’i official position?

Let me also ask, who would you consider representative of your “trinity” in the early church.
 
Servant19 said:
I always thought St.Basil got it:

“8. Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15 and again image of His goodness; not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person. For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases”
Click to expand...
Letter 38

** ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA**
To his Brother Gregory, concerning the difference between οὐσία and ὑ πόστασις.
  1. Many persons, in their study of the sacred dogmas, failing to distinguish between what is common in the essence or substance, and the meaning of the hypostases, arrive at the same notions, and think that it makes no difference whether οὐσία or hypostasis be spoken of. The result is that some of those who accept statements on these subjects without any enquiry, are pleased to speak of one hypostasis, just as they do of one essence or substance; while on the other hand those who accept three hypostases are under the idea that they are bound in accordance with this confession, to assert also, by numerical analogy, three essences or substances. Under these circumstances, lest you fall into similar error, I have composed a short treatise for you by way of memorandum. The meaning of the words, to put it shortly, is as follows: …
    newadvent.org/fathers/3202038.htm
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Is this your position or the Baha’i official position?

Let me also ask, who would you consider representative of your “trinity” in the early church.
Click to expand...
It is the official position of the Baha’i Faith Ignition.

I do not understand your latter question. Maybe you can re-phrase?

.
 
Vico said:
Letter 38

** ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA**
To his Brother Gregory, concerning the difference between οὐσία and ὑ πόστασις.
  1. Many persons, in their study of the sacred dogmas, failing to distinguish between what is common in the essence or substance, and the meaning of the hypostases, arrive at the same notions, and think that it makes no difference whether οὐσία or hypostasis be spoken of. The result is that some of those who accept statements on these subjects without any enquiry, are pleased to speak of one hypostasis, just as they do of one essence or substance; while on the other hand those who accept three hypostases are under the idea that they are bound in accordance with this confession, to assert also, by numerical analogy, three essences or substances. Under these circumstances, lest you fall into similar error, I have composed a short treatise for you by way of memorandum. The meaning of the words, to put it shortly, is as follows: …
    newadvent.org/fathers/3202038.htm
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link Vico.

As I stated, the whole letter explains the Trinity PERFECTLY. It is entirely compliant with Baha’i theology.

There is no mention of uncreatedness in this or any exposition in Catholic theology, only mention of eternality which is not the same…

God bless you, and God bless Pope Francis who is currently clarifying so many Catholic misunderstandings.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top