Why the Trinity?

[GaryTaylor]

I think further past the psychology/philosophy slight issues. There’s also a missing cohesiveness with physics/philosophy. I don’t see where Hegel is consistent with the Big Bang. The Matter which we touched on along with energy, kinetic, potential-thermal. Something from nothing.

The energy the light-God, preceded the matter. Perhaps its me?

gwfhegel.org/Nature/kf.html

The flaws in his thinking resides here…

"Therefore, this being the case, it is absolutely impossible for all the matter in the universe to condense (or have condensed) into a single point or singularity, or to become “infinitely dense.” This would be tantamount to matter’s complete yielding to attraction, which would require and presuppose the cancellation of the moment of repulsion, which is impossible as repulsion is an essential element of the concept of Matter. "

 

[Tom_Baum]

Eternally begotten means eternally procreated.

The “Second Person” of the Trinity always was, Jesus wasn’t always was.

That the “Second Person” of the Trinity would be Incarnated was part of God’s Plan even before creation and before creation there was only God, (the First, Second and Third Persons of the Trinity) but Jesus, God-Incarnate, did not yet exist.

One could say that the Incarnation was known before creation therefore known from eternity therefore eternally known but there was not begottenness among the First, Second and Tlhird Persons of the Trinity, the only begottenness was in the Incarnation, in other words, the Second Person of the Trinity was NOT begotten by the First Person of the Trinity.

 

[Tom_Baum]

There is a misunderstanding here. I’m speaking as a Course student. And from the perspective of the Course, Jesus is a human being who realized the Christ within him by recognizing the Christ in his fellow human beings.

It wouldn’t and couldn’t be that “Jesus is a human being who realized the Christ within him by recognizing the Christ in his fellow human beings”.

Christ is the Greek word for the Hebrew word Messiah and Messiah/Christ simply mean anointed by God.

Christ/Messiah does not mean God, does not mean Saviour, it simply means that someone is anointed by God for some reason or another.

Cyrus, the Persian in the Old Testament, was a “Christ” which as I have already said simply means “anointed by God”.

Jesus may have come to the realization that He was chosen by God, just how I do not know, and I believe, not know but believe, that somewhere along the line Jesus came to the realization that He was God, just how I do not know this either but we are not God and when Jesus said something to the effect, ‘isn’t it written that ye are gods’, this is quite a bit different that saying, 'isn’t it written that ye ARE God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Counterpoint;11953729]You are the one who is confused. “Begotten” and “generated” are interchangeable terms.

Lol… I asserted “you are confused” so as to trigger a response from you to clarify your position, I did not expect a finger pointing match lol… I will yield to such actions.

You appear to be translating “Begotten” or “generated” to space and time. For clarification the Church does not relate the begetting, the “begotten” as a procession made in time and space. It is here where we begin the complex of misunderstandings.

The “Begotten” is revealed in time and space in the human nature of Jesus Christ. While the begetting and the begotten takes place eternally.

**Human reason example; When you talk or speak a word from your human nature. Do you send your spoken word to another to be understood by you? We call this communication or revelation of one to another.

When you speak a word from your being,(human nature) did you not send your word to another and did not your own word which possesses all of your intellect and will was begotten by you, did you not “father” your own word and send it out to make known your will? Please stay with me here, you asked for a reason for my faith in the Trinity.

Do you pretend not, that the word you speak did not come from your mind (intellect) heart, conscience? The latter are never seen, we can relate to these latter as your word proceeds from them, and all of them, although distinct from one another, each one is distinct in procession from the whole you. They all begin and have their being and share their existence with your human nature, all different in what they are, yet they are all of you one person. Thus God created man in His own Image and Likeness.**

God did not make us god’s, God created man in His Image and Likeness, that images His Love and His procession of life and love, making us “little god’s” that images His likeness to multiply in His Love and subdue creation, His gift to man in Love.

You “father” your word, in other words, your word comes from your being, your word is you, although distinct in procession, your word was begotten by you and as you live existing in time and space, the words you speak are always begotten of you, because you beget or father your word and you send your word to another to reveal your self to the other.

God created us in His likeness, the difference is, we beget or father our own words in space and time, they are heard and then are subject to space and time. When God begets His Word, and only begets ONE begotten, God the Father moves and acts from eternity existing. And what is eternal is eternally living and being existing with no beginning and no end.

It is revealed by God that His Word is distinct from the one who begets (Father) who sends HIs Word and John inspired by the Holy Spirit writes; and that Word was in the beginning…and the Word is God.

That is why our human words can only motivate another from human words to inspire another human being to act. Our words can hurt another as well as motivate another.

God’s Word is a eternal living person with no beginning and no end, because God lives and breathes, please do not take breathing literally.

The Word of God is a living person, The Word of God is the creative cause, who is sent from the Cause (Father) possessing all what the Father gives the Son.

So when the Church professes that the Father eternally begets the only begotten Son. What she claims is God is living, revealing, acting, moving, breathing =begetting eternally in His presence, in Trinity of persons, to make known His presence in creation by the Trinity of living persons, not by nature (creation) which returns to dust

Creation returns to dust, the Son is never created for the Son comes from eternity the Father and we crucified Him and buried Him, yet the incarnate Word was never subject to decay (creation) for He raised from death and returned to heaven eternity.

For the begotten Son to be created or regenerated in time and space, God would have to contradict himself and return to the dust from which creation came, after our sin crucified His flesh, and God himself allowed our human nature which He took upon Himself to will His humanity for our sake to die the death on our behalf, when He said “it is finished” He Himself commended His life back into the Father’s hands, not subjected it to creation.

peace be with you

 

[GaryTaylor]

"Therefore, this being the case, it is absolutely impossible for all the matter in the universe to condense (or have condensed) into a single point or singularity, or to become “infinitely dense.” This would be tantamount to matter’s complete yielding to attraction, which would require and presuppose the cancellation of the moment of repulsion, which is impossible as repulsion is an essential element of the concept of Matter. "

The thinking is wrong, as it omits …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

Plausible there’s another theory to reconcile?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Counterpoint, module-two

magiscenter.com/reason/spitzer_videos_reas.html

Here Faith-Reason-Science are working together.

In the proposal of Hegel and Miracles, reason and faith fell apart? Yes or No?. Counterpoint the idea is “not” to end up like Helen S.

And science and faith are unreasonable thus far? Yes or No?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The doctrine of divine simplicity holds that each and every attribute of God is ontologically identical with every other attribute.

Your beginning to lose my faith of your sources and your knowledge of True Christianity Counterpoint.

“Divine Simplicity” is not a doctrine Counterpoint. You appear to be jumping all over the place by cons trueing Christian terminologies and definitions.

I thought we got pass this, that theology, philosophy, theories and professional opinions “divine attributes of God”, are never a doctrine in the Catholic Church. Doctrines are binding on all Christian believers, they are subject to change, they are divine revelations defended, defined and clarified against heretics and heresies.

The divine attributes of God are reflected in human words that speak of what God reveals of Himself. Man speaks of these attributes described in human wisdom never reach a definition to define God’s true Essence of God’s True being.

When speaking of God and His attributes however can never contradict with God’s Word =scripture. When we speak of one attribute of God, it must never contradict with the whole of scripture which includes both old and new Testaments, and you can take that to the bank. In these you attempted a contradiction, when you falsely claimed that John was confused, when John speaks from his epistle not his gospel of God is Love there is a difference of what is being communicated to the readers here, but never a contradiction, when it is revealed God is Spirit.

My comment touched on the whole of scripture God is Love, God is Spirit, when you held John to God is Love which caused your contradiction and confusion of John.

Thank you for the exchange here; I will yield, because the post’s are becoming circular to me.

I hope to gain some new insights from your perspectives which drew my interest. Much has been communicated here, I had hoped you would engage further into these depths of the mysteries of God, which I am willing to go. But your exchanges are allowing the dig to transpire, because you neglect to ask the question, instead hold to your position without substance to justify them in theory and opinion.

Peace be with you Counterpoint, happy Easter Jesus is risen and lives.

 

[Counterpoint]

I thought I found you to be an intellectual here a free thinker if you will;, I viewed your post, it never defines “divine inspiration”. You correctly defined motivation of the human type not of the divine source.

Humans can inspire another human with human words to motivate the receiver to act on one owns behalf.

Divine Inspiration is revelation. Divine inspiration, is the Third person of the Trinity, Holy Spirit. moving in and through the prophets who write or prophecies what the Spirit reveals to them. The revelation of the divine inspiration is not the prophets own “inspiration.”.

You’re missing the point.

Question: Who ultimately decides what is or what is not divinely inspired?

Answer: Each individual ultimately decides that for him or her self.

 

[Counterpoint]

The “Second Person” of the Trinity always was, Jesus wasn’t always was.

That the “Second Person” of the Trinity would be Incarnated was part of God’s Plan even before creation and before creation there was only God, (the First, Second and Third Persons of the Trinity) but Jesus, God-Incarnate, did not yet exist.

One could say that the Incarnation was known before creation therefore known from eternity therefore eternally known but there was not begottenness among the First, Second and Tlhird Persons of the Trinity, the only begottenness was in the Incarnation, in other words, the Second Person of the Trinity was NOT begotten by the First Person of the Trinity.

“Eternally begotten” does not refer to the Incarnation. Even if there were no creation, Catholicism would still hold the second person to be eternally begotten. And the fact that you did not understand it simply makes my point, namely, that the phrase “eternally begotten” means “eternally procreated.”

 

[Counterpoint]

Lol… I asserted “you are confused” so as to trigger a response from you to clarify your position, I did not expect a finger pointing match lol… I will yield to such actions.

You appear to be translating “Begotten” or “generated” to space and time.

No, I am not. I understand the term “eternal” in the context that I am using it to mean “timeless” or “atemporal.” So, I am stating emphatically and unequivocally that “eternally (“eternal” in the sense of being timeless or atemporal) begotten” means the same thing as “eternally generated” or “eternally procreated.”

 

[Counterpoint]

Your beginning to lose my faith of your sources and your knowledge of True Christianity Counterpoint.

“Divine Simplicity” is not a doctrine Counterpoint. You appear to be jumping all over the place by cons trueing Christian terminologies and definitions.

In theology, the **DOCTRINE **of divine simplicity says that God is without parts.(source; Wikipedia: Divine simplicity)

I thought we got pass this, that theology, philosophy, theories and professional opinions “divine attributes of God”, are never a doctrine in the Catholic Church. Doctrines are binding on all Christian believers, they are subject to change, they are divine revelations defended, defined and clarified against heretics and heresies.

The divine attributes of God are reflected in human words that speak of what God reveals of Himself. Man speaks of these attributes described in human wisdom never reach a definition to define God’s true Essence of God’s True being.

Aquinas defined God’s essence as existence itself.

“God is the only being whose essence is existence itself.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If we take negative theology to its extreme, then we can never say anything positive about God. I do not hold such an extreme position. However, it would appear that you do. And if that is your position, then I suggest you stop engaging in any kind of “God talk” whatsoever.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Still, we are talking one in proportionality, generation without “cause” and not only a implicit comparison, divinely revealed by God. Course from here a- Course is compatible as to “how” miracles occur outside of, to within time. Time is indeed a learning experience for mankind. I propose the mystical experience as explained by the Father is evidence of the point of miracles or signal grace correctly understood in regard to private revelation being a reality. What also appears to be confirmed is faith as the first theological virtue has a responsibility to be maintained, seems to me the professors was sucked out of her. The denial was of Jesus Christ (apparently), when He provided the miracle so the story goes?

catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Faith.htm

Losing Faith:

Because faith is a supernatural gift of God, and because man has free will, we can freely reject faith. When we openly revolt against God through our sin, God can withdraw the gift of faith. He will not necessarily do so, of course; but should He do so, the loss of faith can be devastating, because truths that were once grasped through the aid of this theological virtue may now become unfathomable to the unaided intellect.

Point being this too is at odds

In the intellect the likeness is that which is understood. God the Father understands and enunciates Himself, a nature numerically the same is communicated. In God being and intellect are the same.

Aside from this is the larger point to reconcile outside the time continuum which reconciles with the four fundamental interactions of nature, the others being electromagnetism, the weak interaction and gravitation.=big bang, that said I don’t know that Hegel can’t be reconciled. I’m seeing difficulties and a going against the grain of what a preponderance are inclined to believe.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Counterpoint;11956022]Aquinas defined God’s essence as existence itself.

“God is the only being whose essence is existence itself.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

That’s incredible. Aquinas defined God’s essence?

I am inclined to let that go just as an opinion, because it is never a doctrine. Do I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas opinion? Absolutely not.

God’s existence or essence is never questioned within Christianity, thus God’s existence need not be made doctrine.

I know of no doctrine in Catholicism that defines God’s essence. My limited understanding of all the Doctors and theologians of the Church including St. Thomas Aquinas admit themselves that God’s essence does not come down to us, and is incomprehensible this side of death.

In keeping with the OP here; The doctrine of the Trinity does not define God’s essence. The Trinity reveals God’s presence is made known to our humanity from the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The professed Nicene Creed does not even go as far as defining God’s essence, when faith professes that the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

Aquinas definition of God’s essence never makes into the Nicene Creed. If Aquinas is the only human to be able to define God’s essence, don’t you think it would of at least made it into the Creed which professes our doctrinal Catholic faith?

If we take negative theology to its extreme, then we can never say anything positive about God. I do not hold such an extreme position. However, it would appear that you do. And if that is your position, then I suggest you stop engaging in any kind of “God talk” whatsoever.

Counter point; Every Catholic doctrine proclaimed and every Saint canonized in Catholicism is made in the Negative. In fact Infallibility is a negative doctrine.

Because what Catholic posters are revealing to you here, has already been measured up to the negative, scrutinized to the fullest by what is most humanly possible in the negative.

Your Wikipedia definition touches on this subject about Catholicism already. Any theological undertakings for the Catholic Church to consider, must subject itself through the scrutiny in the negative by Church standards which exceed any human standards of scrutiny. Once the subject survives the Church’s scrutiny if it survives whole? the negative becomes a positive.

If the subject does not contradict God’s revelations or the Church’s apostolic Traditions. The positive of the subject can receive a “Nihil Obstate”= nothing obscures Church teaching or it can receive a “Imprematur”= Let it be printed.

St. Thomas Aquinas definition of God’s Essence has only reached the status of “Nihil Obstate and the Imprematur”. It is never a doctrine.

Now taking your opinion here in regards to the “begotten and generation” of the Son from the Father. If your opinion does not survive the Laity scrutiny here when measured up against what we already proclaim is Truth revealed for over 2000 years since the resurrection.

When it appears your view or opinion of the “begotten” would never reach a world re-known status of Nihil Obstate or Imprematur, let alone will not survive a scrutiny by our dead Doctors and dead theologians writings on the subject, never mind the living Catholic theologians today.

You see Counterpoint; I make no bones with your philosophical undertakings. I am just measuring them against what God has already revealed to our humanity.

I truly pray that God’s peace be with you;

Gabriel of 12

 

[jochoa]

If God has compatibilist free will, then this implies that any act he has chosen to perform could not have been otherwise. So, his choice to create could not have been otherwise.

Your use of could limits God. I prefer: God’s choice to create would not have been otherwise, even though God could have chosen otherwise. If it couldn’t have been otherwise, then this implies the lack of choice. I could choose to steal from the next store I visit, but I would not steal from the next store I visit.

But the point I am making is that God’s disclosure occurs through our spiritual faculty or intuitive mind which works in conjunction with our analytical mind.

God discloses Himself to us by more means than those you mentioned. God also discloses Himself to us through feelings, history, science, others and exclusively Himself in Jesus.

How can something be conscious and not conscious at the same time? Sounds condradictory. Right?

Not at all, but I have learned there is a far greater being than sleeping.

Three distinct persons are three separate persons.

Sure, three distinct human persons are three separate persons, but three distinct Godhead persons are three united, without any separation, persons.

To beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means. If you deny that, then you render the term meaningless.

Beget in essence means to bring about. God, the Father brings about the Begotten Son without creating.

I encourage you to recognize the wiser understanding of the word because applying your method to the Course renders the Course meaningless, in that:
Being means to be; Not Being means to not be; yet the Course shares that being is not being.

Now although I know the Son and the Holy Spirit are not created, I do recognize an eternal procreation of God, as His Church.

Thank you very much for the extended discussion! I am really enjoying learning from you!

 

[Counterpoint]

That’s incredible. Aquinas defined God’s essence?

Yes, he did. And I just provided you with his definition.

I am inclined to let that go just as an opinion, because it is never a doctrine. Do I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas opinion? Absolutely not.

It would appear that you do. If God’s essence is not existence itself, then Aquinas’ metaphysical system falls completely apart.

Presence of God is a term used in Catholic theology and devotion.

In theology, it refers to the belief that God is present by His Essence everywhere and in all things by reason of His Immensity.(source: Wikipedia: Presence of God (Catholicism)

 

[orang]

Well ,

By reason of his immensity explains and refers to the individual reading, who cannot hide from God,. ( same error in talked about quote, the impact and meaning in the expression and intent is completely discarded in these attempts to change the meaning themselves. ( Immensity)

It doesn’t mean God Himself is in all, a tree or a giraffe and so on including chaos or things like the person-hood of bundy or the person-hood of stalin, hitler and the many person-hoods in jail who “ultimately decided” what is a divine inspiration and what is not…
.
Man is a social being by nature. Things decided and things which would be ultimately decided which are important, fail to meet any standards at all without recognizing and giving consideration to what man has come to value a second opinion.

Noticed understandings below :

So, I am stating emphatically and unequivocally that “eternally (“eternal” in the sense of being timeless or atemporal) begotten” means the same thing as “eternally generated” or “eternally procreated.”

E·ter·nal
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life.
2.
perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.

Gen·er·ate -use generated in a sentence

verb (used with object), gen·er·at·ed, gen·er·at·ing.
1.
to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.
2.
to create by a vital or natural process.

Bring

verb (used with object), brought, bring·ing.
1.
to carry, convey, conduct, or cause (someone or something) to come with, to, or toward the speaker: Bring the suitcase to my house. He brought his brother to my office.

Into
—used as a function word to indicate entry, introduction, insertion, superposition, or inclusion

 

[Tom_Baum]

“Eternally begotten” does not refer to the Incarnation. Even if there were no creation, Catholicism would still hold the second person to be eternally begotten. And the fact that you did not understand it simply makes my point, namely, that the phrase “eternally begotten” means “eternally procreated.”

I don’t know exactly what “eternally procreated” might mean but if it means that first there was the First Person of the Trinity then the Second Person of the Trinity then God is, by definition of God, not a Trinity.

The Trinity is only the Trinity if the Trinity always was not that it came to be whether in eternity or otherwise.

As far as me or anyone else understanding or not understanding is immaterial since either God was ALWAYS a Trinity or God is NOT a Trinity, there is absolutely no wiggle room here since, by defition, God is unchanging.

God becoming One of us did not change God, it changed God’s relationship with God’s creation in that God became a part of God’s creation instead of just the Creator of God’s creation.

However, if there was no creation, how could it be that “Catholicism would still hold the second person to be eternally begotten” since there would be no Catholicism since Catholicism is part of creation?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gods essence, Counterpoints argument…

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

Btw do you ever concede when incorrect. How do you make progress otherwise? Cause must precede its effect, with no time I fail to see how that’s remotely possible. I’m arguing a supernatural explanation for the universe. I’m saying you cannot reason that the explanation of the Universe is not God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Counterpoint;11957028]Yes, he did. And I just provided you with his definition

.
St Thomas Aquinas (doctrine) teaching only proves that God exist in His Essence. St. Thomas Aquinas never goes on to define what the Essence is in terms of knowing fully God’s True Essence of being.

I introduce to you my position from St. Basil, teaching of God’s Essence, which St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching of God’s Essence never contradicts.

**St. Basil; **“His operations come down to us, but His Essence remains beyond our reach”…God exists and from His invisible Essence which we cannot comprehend fully, moves us to faith and belief in Him, which please God to reward them that seeks him" (Heb. 11:6)

It would appear that you do. If God’s essence is not existence itself, then Aquinas’ metaphysical system falls completely apart.

How did you deduce from my post’s that would of lead you to believe God’s essence is not existence"?

The Essence of God is eternally existing, that is my professed faith. That substance of the Essence of God’s being existing is never defined by human standards.

Jesus reveals that everything the Father has, the Father gives to the Son, and everything the Father does, the Son does likewise, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (not made) there is no creation being made within this divine economy. As you have agreed, it is an eternal begetting of the begotten.

In this revealed procession (begetting and begotten) gives name to the Father and the Son, who reveals the one who begets and the one who is begotten, and because the one who begets, who is Father is greater than the one who is begotten, the only begotten Son of the Father.

We cannot deduce this without the Holy Spirit present, because whenever there is one person of the Trinity present, all three are never divided or separated in their Essence hidden from each distinct person reveals in what is consubstantial of three persons being existing One God.

The Essence of God is existing in each of the persons of Father and Son, which the Church professes in what that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. To conclude that in what is consubstantial of three persons divine One God this Essence is never made.

The Essence of God does not proceed from no one. The persons of the Trinity proceeds. in the begetting from one principle without principle the Father, in the only begotten Son of the Father who sends the Son, the Holy Spirit proceeding eternally from both the Father and the Son, because the Father and the Son is One.

In case your wondering, this is not my theology, I have only commented and reflected from the thoughts of ;

St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. “God the Father is above all and in all ( in case any one was wondering where I got the “all” from) God the Son, who is through all, thus with the Holy Spirit there is a perfect Trinity,…never divided…There is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; Nor anything super induced, as if at some former period it was nonexistent, and at the some later period it was introduced, and thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides forever”…

Do you find your philosophy in contradiction to these Catholic Saints teachings? if so where?

On another side note here, Check out what St Augustine says; “For if the Son has of the Father what ever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him…and the Son is born of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally. The Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both”…

Do you think St. Augustine believes that the Son was literally born of the Father by human standards or divine revelations?

 

[Counterpoint]

I don’t know exactly what “eternally procreated” might mean but if it means that first there was the First Person of the Trinity then the Second Person of the Trinity then God is, by definition of God, not a Trinity.

That’s because you don’t know exactly what “eternally begotten” means.

However, if there was no creation, how could it be that “Catholicism would still hold the second person to be eternally begotten” since there would be no Catholicism since Catholicism is part of creation?