Why the Trinity?

[Linusthe2nd]

In “On the Trinity,” St. Augustine explains that the Son’s mission was “to manifest God’s love… and unify us as His Mystical Body.” I know some theologians interpret that as referring to the Christian Church, but I would argue that “Mystical” is the tip-off that it refers to the world-soul, or what I have called the Universe Absolute Supreme Allsoul – the “body of Christ,” in the second coming. I touch on this in my website (Preview page 8), but I have a whole chapter on it in my book. You might appreciate the following quote from page 52, i.e.:

"Philo, St. Paul, St. John, Plotinus, and St. Augustine all saw a vital connection between the Old Testament figure of Adam and the New Testament Logos (Christ or World-Soul).

 “For Augustine (354-430), Adam is more than the first human; he is the source of all souls... the entire human race was in Adam, the Christianized World Soul, before he sinned; this is why we share his guilt... As we were all one in Adam, and ‘fell’ in Adam, so we are also all one in Christ (the second Adam), and in a sense Christ is ‘all of us’... It does appear that Augustine affirms that through Christ, the soul will rise above its original station... ascending to the higher part of the **World Soul**.” Farabi’s Virtuous City and the Plotinian World Soul – G. M. Bonelli, P.114/8 & 125.

In the Bible, St. Paul tells us that as, “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit (the Supreme Being)… The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven… And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” 1 Cor. 15:45-49.

According to St. Paul, union with Christ is union with God. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22. So at the second coming we are no longer “in Adam,” but then we are “in Christ,” and renewed creations linked with the life of Christ. The most important truth in Christianity is that we are made alive in Christ, signifying human souls becoming at one with God, without loss of individual self.

It is said that in his epistles, St. Paul uses the expression “in Christ” and its various equivalents 165 times. Paul uses “in Christ” to characterize an all-inclusive personality, in whom believers find themselves incorporated in a communal union with Christ. It is a real connection, but not an absorption or obliteration. Being “in Christ” individually and communally is objective rather than subjective. It is not merely a metaphor or figure of speech, but a simple reality. Prayer, meditation, cosmic consciousness, samadhi, mukti, kensho, nirvana, etc., are all reputed to be channels of communication between the individual and the Almighty Allsoul.

If God is “all in all” 1 Cor. 15:28, then all are one with God, or all are in God, but not necessarily all are God. This teaching has been called Panentheism. Like classical theism, panentheism resists the identification of God with the world. Rather, by saying that the world is “in” God, panentheism holds that God is more than the world.

Panentheism agrees with pantheism in denying the idea – taught by classical theism – that the world is purely a contingent creation of a deity who could have existed apart from this or any other world. By saying, instead, that it belongs to the very nature of God to be in relation to a world, panentheism implies that, although our particular world is contingent (created), its most fundamental principles are necessary.

The essential unity of all souls with the Supersoul (Allsoul) is a fundamental postulate of the Hindu religion, which has long had a tradition that Lord Vishnu is the existential Supreme Being (God) and sustainer (preserver) of the universe, while Krishna is the 8th experiential incarnation of Vishnu. Thus, Krishna is the World-Soul or the Self of all men: “O Lord of Death, I (Krishna) am the Self seated in the heart of all beings. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings.” Bhagavad Gita 10.20.”

What do you think?

The Catholic Church does not believe in a " world soul " in any configuration whatsoever. Nor did Christ or the Apostles ever teach such a thing. Not even Paul. If you are going to talk about Catholic teaching and beliefs you are not free to interpret them for yourself. Cathlics are certainly are not going to change their beliefs. If you want the Catholic Church to take part in your search for peace, you will have to take us as we are.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?

Note: This is a philosophical forum (at least, it purports to be one). So, I am asking a philosophical question and I am expecting a philosophical response - some kind of argument that appeals to my rational sensibilities.

It should be minimally good, evil and neutral. Why, because God cannot simply be good and create a being with free will which can do evil, since the being has to have the ability to create. He has to neutral thought since otherwise he is not just. Hence God is trinity.

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

A very noble interprize. However, the place to start is for each to give an absolutely clear understanding of what he understands by the Divine Reality he calls God.

I believe in One God manifest in the Trinity - united in spirit, universal in mind, and three in personality. I’m hoping that you and readers on this forum can help me answer some of the following questions regarding the nature of the Divine Reality, i.e.:

Is the creation a product of God’s nature or his will? Does God have freedom of will? If freewill is the prerogative of personality, does the Qur’an have a point in speculating that the individual wills of the free persons of the Trinity may eventually conflict, and then each would tend to “take their portion of the kingdom and go their own way?”

In order to account for the creation while maintaining the freewill of God, many theologians posit an Ontological Trinity (immanent or essential) and an Economic Trinity (historical or creational). For some, these are equivalent, or just two versions of the same thing. For others, this is not so clear, and the God of creation is not fully God as God outside of creation.

Some theologians maintain that while the members of the Trinity are all equal, and there is no essential “ontological” subordination, there is a functional “economic” subordination. Others worry that this ends up in two trinities, which they see as a highly unpalatable implication. The essential problem is to combine the identity with the distinction of the persons of the Trinity – same substance (essence), but individual functional appropriations and relationships.

Recognizing that time is an illusion in the bigger picture, my speculation on three snapshots of the Trinity at different ‘times’ or ‘ages’ (existential, experiential, and absonite) attempts to resolve this theological debate (see my Preview p. 18-21).

What do you think?

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Aloysium]

The Catholic Church is God’s Church. Other religions may have something right but the Church’s teaching represent the best understanding thus far of what has been truly revealed by God.

. . . the individual wills of the free persons of the Trinity may eventually conflict, and then each would tend to “take their portion of the kingdom and go their own way?”

No. Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

. . . The essential problem is to combine the identity with the distinction of the persons of the Trinity – same substance (essence), but individual functional appropriations and relationships. . .

The Trinity is a mystery. I live in hope and trust that when I will see God face-to-face, the simplicity of this truth will be known to me.

. . .Recognizing that time is an illusion in the bigger picture, . . .

It is no illusion. I will die, and though I am free to choose in any moment, my actions being written in the sand, at my death in their final form, they will eternally be “set in stone”. You can see why I would have trouble with a view that sees time as illusory, since it can be understood as the foundation of who I am in eternity. You and I are no illusion.

 

[runningdude]

I find a sensible argument to be more compelling than one that is not. I’m actually a trinitarian. But my trinitarianism is based on reason…on some kind of rationale. As I see it, if we aren’t able to articulate a reason for why God should be triune, then we have no reason to believe that God is triune. It’s that simple.

So, with that in mind, I pose the following question(s): Why the Trinity? Why should we believe that God is triune? What metaphysical problem(s) does it solve?
…

Human nature is that we are spirit and flesh. Divine nature is that he is one God in persons. There need not be a reason why this is so; it is simply a divine attribute.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I believe in One God manifest in the Trinity - united in spirit, universal in mind, and three in personality. I’m hoping that you and readers on this forum can help me answer some of the following questions regarding the nature of the Divine Reality, i.e.

" universal in mind " is a little vague. Catholics would say that each member of the Trinity shares the same nature, are of one mind. But the Divine mind is not shared by men or the substances of the created world.

Is the creation a product of God’s nature or his will?

Logically, from his will. Ontologically, from his being because in God all things are identical, that is why Catholics say that he is Simple ( undivided or composed in any way).

Does God have freedom of will?

Yes.

If freewill is the prerogative of personality

Yes.

does the Qur’an have a point in speculating that the individual wills of the free persons of the Trinity may eventually conflict, and then each would tend to “take their portion of the kingdom and go their own way?”

No. You have to remember the theology of Islam derives from ancient, heretical Christian sects that they encountered on their trade routes.

In order to account for the creation while maintaining the freewill of God, many theologians posit an Ontological Trinity (immanent or essential) and an Economic Trinity (historical or creational). For some, these are equivalent, or just two versions of the same thing. For others, this is not so clear, and the God of creation is not fully God as God outside of creation.

And Catholicism would not agree with any of that.

Some theologians maintain that while the members of the Trinity are all equal, and there is no essential “ontological” subordination, there is a functional “economic” subordination. Others worry that this ends up in two trinities, which they see as a highly unpalatable implication. The essential problem is to combine the identity with the distinction of the persons of the Trinity – same substance (essence), but individual functional appropriations and relationships.

Catholicism would not agree to any of this.

Recognizing that time is an illusion in the bigger picture, my speculation on three snapshots of the Trinity at different ‘times’ or ‘ages’ (existential, experiential, and absonite) attempts to resolve this theological debate (see my Preview p. 18-21).

What do you think?

That you are wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

Linusthe2nd… Thank you for your gracious response. I agree with you that the individual members of the Trinity have freewill (at least within the limits of Trinitarian unity). The Qur’an might be right that eventually there would be a catastrophic disagreement if the Godhead were only two, but apparently three persons guarantees that a minimum of necessary harmony will always be found.

Similarly, I argue (Preview p.19 at www.religiouspluralism.ca) that the difference between the ‘original’ existential Ontological Trinity (which is/was immutable and in which the creation was only potential) and the ‘present’ experiential Economic Trinity is resolved by a postulated ‘future’ absonite (neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite) Ultimate Trinity. And of course, these are merely three “snapshots” of (or perspectives on) the one Trinity Absolute, at different stages or ‘times’ of the unfolding of heaven, earth, and all that is.

As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. But only the Ontological or Paradise Trinity is infinite, past-eternal, and immutable. If the Economic Trinity as revealed in recent history is the same “identical” way the Trinity has always existed, then the crucifixion was inevitable and everything is predestined. Then, God the Son at least is/was not free, so you see the problem that many thoughtful theologians have.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[Aloysium]

. . . . If the Economic Trinity as revealed in recent history is the same “identical” way the Trinity has always existed, then the crucifixion was inevitable and everything is predestined. Then, God the Son at least is/was not free, so you see the problem that many thoughtful theologians have. . .

I have no idea what an “Economic Trinity” would be. It is not stated in scripture nor by various Catholic sources including the Catechism that I recall. This sounds like just one more among numerous heresies espoused by different individuals during the history of the Church. It does not surprise me that “many thoughtful theologians” might find a problem with Catholic teachings. I assumed there was more to what you were saying in earlier posts, than I now see is warranted.

 

[annem]

Samuel Stuart Maynes

                   Recently, a number of theologians have suggested that the Trinity may provide the key to an inclusive theology of religions

The essential unity of all souls with the Supersoul (Allsoul) is a fundamental postulate of the Hindu religion, which has long had a tradition that Lord Vishnu is the existential Supreme Being (God) and sustainer (preserver) of the universe, while Krishna is the 8th experiential incarnation of Vishnu. Thus, Krishna is the World-Soul or the Self of all men: “O Lord of Death, I (Krishna) am the Self seated in the heart of all beings. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings.” Bhagavad Gita 10.20.”

What do you think?

Dear, dear Samuel,

As much as Christians everywhere want to reach out and be inclusive, it is not possible to blend pantheism with Christianity. Ever. In any way.

We all want you to turn to Christ. Plead with you to do this.

But pantheism is not only a logical impossibility, it has frankly caused untold harm to humanity. Witness India. The bottom fourth of the population is chained to a cruel caste system that has caused starvation and persecution and unending sorrow. How many thousands of years has pantheism forced the Dalits to suffer and the rich to be indifferent?

Any Brahmin would tell you it was the fault of the Dalits that caused them to suffer. They earned their current misery in a past life. They are incarnated now as Dalits due to past behavior, so let them starve to death. Aid in any way would be a hindrance,.

Pantheism cannot accept the idea of truth or of good and evil. Such concepts are part of the illusion, the Maya, of all that is this life. The pantheistic entity itself caused all the millions who starved to death, crying, and the serial killers, and the babies dying from being exposed because they are girls. The pantheistic entity sees no difference between evil and good. But it’s so much worse than that, because in pantheism the entity itself is the evil and good.

The idea that anyone thinks it would be possible to ‘blend’ pantheism with the God of Christianity simply staggers me.

No, not possible.

Furthermore, this sort of logical debate we are engaging in now is not even possible in most forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. Both, classically, reject logic and debate as being pointless, because everything is Maya. Which is, of course, why the Catholic church invented science, not China.

And while you may be able to drag out a few sayings about the Hindu gods that may sound vaguely like Christianity, no one - no one! - acquainted with their stories would compare them to Christ. The stories about the Hindu gods show them as murderers, or vain, or silly, selfish and amoral. And trying to make them concepts a la Jung just won’t work. You’re still stuck with the stories about their amoral behavior.

Of course, you can only judge them moral or amoral based on Christianity, since in pantheism real morality doesn’t exist.

May God truly flood you with light, and with joy, Annem

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd… Thank you for your gracious response. I agree with you that the individual members of the Trinity have freewill (at least within the limits of Trinitarian unity). The Qur’an might be right that eventually there would be a catastrophic disagreement if the Godhead were only two, but apparently three persons guarantees that a minimum of necessary harmony will always be found.

Similarly, I argue (Preview p.19 at www.religiouspluralism.ca) that the difference between the ‘original’ existential Ontological Trinity (which is/was immutable and in which the creation was only potential) and the ‘present’ experiential Economic Trinity is resolved by a postulated ‘future’ absonite (neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite) Ultimate Trinity. And of course, these are merely three “snapshots” of (or perspectives on) the one Trinity Absolute, at different stages or ‘times’ of the unfolding of heaven, earth, and all that is.

As C. S. Lewis might have put it, there never was a “time” when the Deity Absolute was not the Father of the Son, and with him, coordinate of their Holy Spirit. But only the Ontological or Paradise Trinity is infinite, past-eternal, and immutable. If the Economic Trinity as revealed in recent history is the same “identical” way the Trinity has always existed, then the crucifixion was inevitable and everything is predestined. Then, God the Son at least is/was not free, so you see the problem that many thoughtful theologians have.

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

I’m sorry but I didn’t understand a word you said. You have wrapped the Trinity up in terms foreign to me. I’ll stick to the Trinity I know, thanks. And I advise Catholics on this Forum to do the same.

Regards
Linus2nd

 

[Andrew_Graham]

Hello All,

Re: Is God Triune?

The term “God” whether used in the OT or NT is always used with singular pronouns, such as “I, you, he. himself…” and also construed with singular verbs, such as “is, was…”? The problem here for the Trinitarian, is how does one reconcile the above with “one God” and the above usage of the above terms, as they are used of one person and one person only, not two or three persons, the same is seen in John 17:3, where Jesus calls another person “you, the only true God” and it will be noticed, yet again, that the terms “you” and “only” (Greek: “se” and “monon”) are used, “you” is a singular pronoun, “only” a singular adjective!

How do Trinitarians answer the above, can they explain how the singular terms used above can slide from their purely singular sense and meaning into that of a plurality, so that such plurality can accommodate not one person in the singular terms “you” and “only”, but three?

Consider:

In John 17:3 we see that the 2nd person of the Godhead says that only the 1st person of the Godhead is the, “you, the only true God”, how is it possible for one person of the Godhead to say, that only the 1st person of the same Godhead is “you, the only true God”, when the 2nd and 3rd persons are also supposed to be also…!

Regards,

Andrew (JW - Apologist)

 

[tonyrey]

One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility.

Three Persons are Love in its unity and creativity.

 

[Andrew_Graham]

Hi Tonyrey,

"One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility.

Three Persons are Love in its unity and creativity. "

Reply,

Part I

This is 4th century articulated Trinitarian theology speaking and not the bible!

You have not answered how the singular pronoun “you=se” and singular adjective “only=monon” can suddenly lose their singleness and slip or glide into some sort of plurality , thus allowing for more than one, “you” and “only”, Jesus meant what he said or he did not, you cannot have three “you-s” and three “only-s”, as this would contradict what Jesus meant and contradict the law of non contradiction!

Here is an example from one of my essays, a “Rebuttal to the Trinitarian writer/scholar, Robert Bowman”:

Why you should not believe in “WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY” book by, Robert M. Bowman, Jnr.

Extract:

“In the bible God is referred to with singular pronouns, such as “I, you, me and him”; Trinitarians say that three persons constitute ‘one divine being’, Trinitarians are reluctant to define the word “being” because, the term “being” is a synonym for the terms “substance, nature, essence” especially the term “ousia” (Aristotle). Trinitarians might argue, that God does refer to himself in singular terms is not at odds with Trinitarianism, as God is ‘one substance, nature…ousia’! Trinitarianism understands the term “being” as a synonym for the terms “substance, nature…” but also understands the term “ousia” also as a synonym for the term “being” so that the terms “being, substance, nature, essence and ousia…” constitute and refer to the “one God” (the reader must keep a close watch on this term “ousia” because it plays an important part in Trinitarian theology, though many are totally unaware of it – Bowman isn’t though). Trinitarians see God using (and being used of him by his servants) singular personal pronouns toward himself i.e. “I, you, me and him”, but still insist that such terms are not out of harmony with Trinitarian theology, as God is one substance, nature, ousia! How does God being referred to by singular personal pronouns, such as “I, you, me and him”, result or is obtained from the terms “substance, nature, ousia”, the fact and reality of this matter is that it is Trinitarian word play, built upon Trinitarian theology!”

letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/why-you-should-not-believe-in-why-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity-book-by-robert-m-bowman-jnr

The paper deals with how Trinitarians use and understand the term “ousia” and the English term “being” and “God”!

Incidentally, I was a Trinitarians for over 20 years, studied classical and koine Greek and English, and the major Greek philosophers and Patristics…!

I sent Bowman the essay and he has never answered, he demanded that I post no more rebuttals to him on his Face-Bok home page and has removed all my rebuttals to him (I know why and so does he) Bowman has also banned me from his “Yahoo-Group”, not for any rudeness on my part, but that he cannot answer and again, he knows why!

Mark 13:32 posed a big problem for Bowman, as my essay to him dealt with the metaphysical side of such a text, when pertaining to the Trinity, as in dealing with the “God/man” Trinitarian belief and the so-called unified nature, as how is it possible for Jesus the God/man" with a unified nature and one centre of consciousness* to know 100% and not know 100% simultaneously?

• Only one centre of consciousness is allowed for a single person, if there are two centres of consciousness, then there are two persons, Jesus either had two centres of consciousness (therefore, two persons) or he had one centre of consciousness (one person) Trinitarians postulate, that Jesus was one person, but had one unified “nature”, human and divine, simultaneously, that being the case, there would now essentially be one nature, but that this nature is one in the sense that it is a “unified nature” and that being the case, what one knew (human) the other would know (divine) simultaneously and vice versa, it should therefore, be impossible for one to 100% know and not the other 100% not know and vice versa!

Regards,

Andrew Graham

 

[tonyrey]

Hi Tonyrey,

"One Person is the apotheosis of Egocentricity.

Two Persons are the apotheosis of Infertility.

Three Persons are Love in its unity and creativity. "

Reply,

Part I

This is 4th century articulated Trinitarian theology speaking and not the bible!

You have not answered how the singular pronoun “you=se” and singular adjective “only=monon” can suddenly lose their singleness and slip or glide into some sort of plurality , thus allowing for more than one, “you” and “only”, Jesus meant what he said or he did not, you cannot have three “you-s” and three “only-s”, as this would contradict what Jesus meant and contradict the law of non contradiction!

Here is an example from one of my essays, a “Rebuttal to the Trinitarian writer/scholar, Robert Bowman”:

Why you should not believe in “WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY” book by, Robert M. Bowman, Jnr.

Extract:

“In the bible God is referred to with singular pronouns, such as “I, you, me and him”; Trinitarians say that three persons constitute ‘one divine being’, Trinitarians are reluctant to define the word “being” because, the term “being” is a synonym for the terms “substance, nature, essence” especially the term “ousia” (Aristotle). Trinitarians might argue, that God does refer to himself in singular terms is not at odds with Trinitarianism, as God is ‘one substance, nature…ousia’! Trinitarianism understands the term “being” as a synonym for the terms “substance, nature…” but also understands the term “ousia” also as a synonym for the term “being” so that the terms “being, substance, nature, essence and ousia…” constitute and refer to the “one God” (the reader must keep a close watch on this term “ousia” because it plays an important part in Trinitarian theology, though many are totally unaware of it – Bowman isn’t though). Trinitarians see God using (and being used of him by his servants) singular personal pronouns toward himself i.e. “I, you, me and him”, but still insist that such terms are not out of harmony with Trinitarian theology, as God is one substance, nature, ousia! How does God being referred to by singular personal pronouns, such as “I, you, me and him”, result or is obtained from the terms “substance, nature, ousia”, the fact and reality of this matter is that it is Trinitarian word play, built upon Trinitarian theology!”

letusreason.thoughts.com/posts/why-you-should-not-believe-in-why-you-should-believe-in-the-trinity-book-by-robert-m-bowman-jnr

The paper deals with how Trinitarians use and understand the term “ousia” and the English term “being” and “God”!

Incidentally, I was a Trinitarians for over 20 years, studied classical and koine Greek and English, and the major Greek philosophers and Patristics…!

I sent Bowman the essay and he has never answered, he demanded that I post no more rebuttals to him on his Face-Bok home page and has removed all my rebuttals to him (I know why and so does he) Bowman has also banned me from his “Yahoo-Group”, not for any rudeness on my part, but that he cannot answer and again, he knows why!

Mark 13:32 posed a big problem for Bowman, as my essay to him dealt with the metaphysical side of such a text, when pertaining to the Trinity, as in dealing with the “God/man” Trinitarian belief and the so-called unified nature, as how is it possible for Jesus the God/man" with a unified nature and one centre of consciousness* to know 100% and not know 100% simultaneously?

• Only one centre of consciousness is allowed for a single person, if there are two centres of consciousness, then there are two persons, Jesus either had two centres of consciousness (therefore, two persons) or he had one centre of consciousness (one person) Trinitarians postulate, that Jesus was one person, but had one unified “nature”, human and divine, simultaneously, that being the case, there would now essentially be one nature, but that this nature is one in the sense that it is a “unified nature” and that being the case, what one knew (human) the other would know (divine) simultaneously and vice versa, it should therefore, be impossible for one to 100% know and not the other 100% not know and vice versa!

Regards,

Andrew Graham

Your argument amounts to saying God is the Supreme Egoist!

It ignores all the references by Jesus to His Father and the Holy Spirit.

The history of Christianity is full of men and women who claimed to be inspired by God and interpret Scripture better than the Church which selected the authentic writings which constitute the Old and New Testaments. That is why there are thousands of Christian sects all purporting to convey the true message of Jesus. Why should we believe Charles Russell was right and all the others wrong?

 

[Samuel_Maynes]

As much as Christians everywhere want to reach out and be inclusive, it is not possible to blend pantheism with Christianity.

annem… You are misreading my posting #245. Please take another look at that, especially where I say: “In his epistles, St. Paul uses the expression “in Christ” and its various equivalents 165 times. Paul uses “in Christ” to characterize an all-inclusive personality, in whom believers find themselves incorporated in a communal union with Christ. It is a real connection, but not an absorption or obliteration… If God is “all in all” (I Cor. 15:28), then all are one with God, or all are in God, but not necessarily all are God. This teaching has been called Panentheism. Like classical theism, panentheism resists the identification of God with the world. Rather, by saying that the world is “in” God, panentheism holds that God is more than the world.”

Also, please see my Preview p.8 at www.religiouspluralism.ca, where I argue as follows: “The concept of the Worldsoul, Allsoul, Supersoul, Oversoul, etc. may be regarded as a form of panentheism, which is a composite of the terms “pan,” meaning all or everything, “en,” meaning in, and “theism,” meaning God. “Process Panentheism” seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism does, or indentifying the world with God as pantheism does. Panentheism (all in God) embraces a synthesis of active free souls, in the process of discovering, reconstructing, and experiencing their mutual identity, mingled and melded in a Supreme Allsoul, creating a future that includes the past in the present.

In taking onboard the Buddhist idea of the Unconditioned and the early Christian idea of the Supreme (more recently process panentheism), we begin to see that in a rational pluralistic worldview, major religions do reflect the psychology of One God in three basic personalities, unified in spirit and universal in mind – analogous to the orthodox definition of the Trinity. In fact, there is much evidence that the psychologies of world religions reflect the unity of One God in an absolute Trinity.”

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is 4th century articulated Trinitarian theology speaking and not the bible!

Nicaea, Chalcedon, Ephesus, etc., were all based on how to understand the historical Christ, especially as we read in the Gospels.

as how is it possible for Jesus the God/man" with a unified nature and one centre of consciousness* to know 100% and not know 100% simultaneously?

He has two natures…

• Only one centre of consciousness is allowed for a single person, if there are two centres of consciousness, then there are two persons, Jesus either had two centres of consciousness (therefore, two persons) or he had one centre of consciousness (one person) Trinitarians postulate, that Jesus was one person, but had one unified “nature”, human and divine, simultaneously, that being the case, there would now essentially be one nature, but that this nature is one in the sense that it is a “unified nature” and that being the case, what one knew (human) the other would know (divine) simultaneously and vice versa, it should therefore, be impossible for one to 100% know and not the other 100% not know and vice versa!

Regards,

Andrew Graham

When we say “Persons” when talking about the Trinity, it is speaking entirely about relations, not “centers of consciousness”. There is only one divine will.

 

[CrossofChrist]

In fact, there is much evidence that the psychologies of world religions reflect the unity of One God in an absolute Trinity.”
QUOTE]

There’s very little evidence at all, actually. At least if you understand the Trinity as understood by the Church.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Incidentally, I was a Trinitarians for over 20 years, studied classical and koine Greek and English, and the major Greek philosophers and Patristics…! . . .

You came here, and made a personal reference so I don’t feel this is overstepping boundaries:
This could be the source of your difficulty understanding the Trinity - not enough time spent praying, participating in the mass and sacraments. I believe that the Holy Spirit has enlightened more people by means of their involvement in the Church, than others in their focussed study of the meanings and derivations of words, even if they are in scripture.

 

[Andrew_Graham]

Your argument amounts to saying God is the Supreme Egoist!

It ignores all the references by Jesus to His Father and the Holy Spirit.

The history of Christianity is full of men and women who claimed to be inspired by God and interpret Scripture better than the Church which selected the authentic writings which constitute the Old and New Testaments. That is why there are thousands of Christian sects all purporting to convey the true message of Jesus. Why should we believe Charles Russell was right and all the others wrong?

Reply,

Hello tonyrey,

Thank you for your opinion, but you have not addressed anything at all; let’s try another one!

If the “Holy Spirit” is truly a person, then consider this; both Father and Son are spoken of using the personal singular masculine pronouns “I, he, him…” in Greek (notice, in Greek) when it comes to the “pneuma hagion” [holy spirit] there is not a single instance in the Greek, of the NT, where any personal pronoun is used of such “pneuma hagion” and one would think it only reasonable, that, if such was a person, at least one personal pronoun in the entire NT would be used of such “pneuma hagion”, but there isn’t and to top it, in Hebrew “spirit” [ruach] is feminine, as in Hebrew, there are only two (grammatical) genders i.e. masc and fem!

Trinitarian translators pull the wool over their lay readers eyes, and the vast majority are not acquainted with Greek, so translate the Greek neuter impersonal pronoun “ho” [it/which] into the wrong English pronoun, turning the Greek impersonal pronoun “ho” [it/which] into the English personal pronoun “he/him…”, as though such blatantly biased translation is supposed to impartially translate the correct Greek pronoun, as though, such was, “hos” [he/him…] but in fact, these translators are really misleading their readers, as the true pronoun is in fact neuter impersonal pronoun “ho”, not the masculine personal pronoun “hos”!

Perhaps you could clarify my possible misunderstanding, and point out where I need correcting on the above and without reverting to any Trinitarian theology or other traditional man made jargon!

By the way, I am not inspired by God and neither, am I interpretaing scripture, I am reading the original Greek and comparing it with English Trinitarian translations, the inspiration and interpretation, I leave for others and for them to decide on interpretattion!

NB,

“That is why there are thousands of Christian sects all purporting to convey the true message of Jesus. Why should we believe Charles Russell was right and all the others wrong? :confused”

Reply,

You must ask others that, you must stick to, what you said, rather than play the digression card:

“…the Church which selected the authentic writings which constitute the Old and New Testaments.”

That is exactly what I have done, I have stuck to the original koine Greek and not digressed to the point of mentioning, Russell or the Inquisition or scandals within your Church, as such serves no purpose and only tears down and does not build up!

Kind Regards,

Andrew

 

[Andrew_Graham]

Reply,

Hello tonyrey,

Thank you for your opinion, but you have not addressed anything at all; let’s try another one!

If the “Holy Spirit” is truly a person, then consider this; both Father and Son are spoken of using the personal singular masculine pronouns “I, he, him…” in Greek (notice, in Greek) when it comes to the “pneuma hagion” [holy spirit] there is not a single instance in the Greek, of the NT, where any personal pronoun is used of such “pneuma hagion” and one would think it only reasonable, that, if such was a person, at least one personal pronoun in the entire NT would be used of such “pneuma hagion”, but there isn’t and to top it, in Hebrew “spirit” [ruach] is feminine, as in Hebrew, there are only two (grammatical) genders i.e. masc and fem!

Trinitarian translators pull the wool over their lay readers eyes, and the vast majority are not acquainted with Greek, so translate the Greek neuter impersonal pronoun “ho” [it/which] into the wrong English pronoun, turning the Greek impersonal pronoun “ho” [it/which] into the English personal pronoun “he/him…”, as though such blatantly biased translation is supposed to impartially translate the correct Greek pronoun, as though, such was, “hos” [he/him…] but in fact, these translators are really misleading their readers, as the true pronoun is in fact neuter impersonal pronoun “ho”, not the masculine personal pronoun “hos”!

Perhaps you could clarify my possible misunderstanding, and point out where I need correcting on the above and without reverting to any Trinitarian theology or other traditional man made jargon!

By the way, I am not inspired by God and neither, am I interpretaing scripture, I am reading the original Greek and comparing it with English Trinitarian translations, the inspiration and interpretation, I leave for others and for them to decide on interpretattion!

NB,

“That is why there are thousands of Christian sects all purporting to convey the true message of Jesus. Why should we believe Charles Russell was right and all the others wrong? :confused”

Reply,

You must ask others that, you must stick to, what you said, rather than play the digression card:

“…the Church which selected the authentic writings which constitute the Old and New Testaments.”

That is exactly what I have done, I have stuck to the original koine Greek and not digressed to the point of mentioning, Russell or the Inquisition or scandals within your Church, as such serves no purpose and only tears down and does not build up!

Kind Regards,

Andrew

Here is a simple question for Trinitarians!

Re: John 1:1?

In John 1:1 is the apostle saying Who “the Word” was or WHAT “the Word” was?

Careful on how you answer, no digressions please, spin, cliche or rhetoric!

Regards,

Andrew