Why the Trinity?

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not the one here who has a problem accepting that something can be eternally (eternally in the sense of timelessly, not everlastingly in time) caused or created. (It’s a logical relationship, not a temporal one. There is nothing illogical about that.) What I have a problem with is that some here refuse to acknowledge that to be eternally begotten is to be eternally procreated.

I don’t have a problem accepting that “the Holy Spirit (eternally) originates, (eternally) has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father” - provided that there is a legitimate metaphysical reason to make such a postulation. (And apparently, Orthodox theologians think there is).

Apparently the Catholics have a legitimate metaphysical reason for them to make their postulation also? Or no?

What I have a problem with is the contrary teaching and understanding was given to you. You don’t want to hear it even though it has a legitimate metaphysical reason

That’s called a “double standard”? Yes?

Again its your burden of proof to explain how God was “procreated”. And how the Holy Spirit originates. You must have some idea as your quick to inject words like “procreate”.

And no I don’t want read what you don’t know about the EO.

How did this occur?

 

[oldburkes]

Please allow a non-philosophy student to provide entertainment for intermission here:

This reminds me of the day I watched an engineer take two hours to establish a reference point for elevations on a set of brick steps I was installing on a huge front porch. When he was all done, his calculations matched exactly the marks I had placed previously, using the foundation and the front door.

Sorry for the intrusion.

 

[Counterpoint]

Apparently the Catholics have a legitimate metaphysical reason for them to make their postulation also? Or no?

What I have a problem with is the contrary teaching and understanding was given to you. You don’t want to hear it even though it has a legitimate metaphysical reason

That’s called a “double standard”? Yes?

The title of this thread is “why the Trinity?” So, if you believe that Catholics have a legitimate metaphysical reason to make such a postulation, then please share it. I’m listening.

Again its your burden of proof to explain how God was “procreated” And how the Holy Spirit originates. You must have some idea as your quick to inject words like “procreate”.

To beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means! What exactly aren’t you getting?

Also, why do I have to explain how the Spirit originates?

 

[Counterpoint]

Who has denied that? Not me. Not only eternally procreated, but procreating. God eternally begets within himself who he is in three persons.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I did not mean to imply that you did. But if you are truly interested in learning who has, then I would direct you to the following thread:

The Theology of the “Eternally Begotten”

 

[GaryTaylor]

The title of this thread is “why the Trinity?” So, if you believe that Catholics have a legitimate metaphysical reason to make such a postulation, then please share it. I’m listening.

Why is because that’s how the one God revealed Himself, thus its a self revealed truth of God.

I did begin to explain to which your statement was “I don’t understand” but you didn’t say what you didn’t understand, and it was a side comment to another, pretty rude no? . To which then the EO arrived via wiki pedia. But the problem is you don’t understand what they are saying either. Thus I fail to see “why” words are injected from their language, when you don 't understand what they are saying to begin with and they indeed follow the Councils. You also didn’t want to hear that. Which is why your understanding of them is lacking and I refuse to listen to you butcher it. And I will show you why …

To beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means

Only to you and according to what you think the EO stated with Merriam Webster to confirm what you misunderstood.

This too I explained, you insist on seeing this in daily 3-dimemsional terminology of human nature as opposed to an analogous structure to understand spirit-supernatural . Its language to explain supernatural intelligence-communication of spirit through will. The original Greek is monogenes huios. There are no direct equivalent words in English with the exact same meaning. Its understood to mean only child, unique.

Procreate is a moot topic in apostolic teaching which arrives from your misunderstanding of the EO which you injected here in what you “thought” was elevating your own undefined theory. To which you didn’t bother to actually read what they are actually stating, nor did you consider the source, the language or the Councils. Then astonishing as it is, they became your defense to explain your own theory in contesting the CC.

Rather absurd.

Communicate and proceed become interchangeable between Greek and Latin to explain the occurrence.

Also, why do I have to explain how the Spirit originates

You don’t have to explain anything, you volunteered to participate here because you have a “theory” you think trumps 2000 years of scholars and genius in the Church, but you can’t explain? And again you have a misunderstanding of the EO, the Saint this came from is known. And he is not saying what you think here. Nor is the EO.

“The Holy Spirit, ‘who has his origin in the Father’ [John 15:26], who inasmuch as he has his origin in him, is not a creature. Inasmuch as he is not begotten, he is not the Son; inasmuch as he is the middle of the Unbegotten and the Begotten, he is God.” St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 31

He is explaining this…

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me:

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes forth from with the Father, he shall bear witness concerning me;

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father–the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father–he will testify about me.

So I have no idea what you are taking about. What the Church is saying is the persons are distinct from each other only in regards to their mutual relationship. If the Father has the power to communicate the Divine essence through the Holy Spirit (which is the same thing as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds, in the Latin sense, from the Father), it follows that the Son must have exactly the same power, since Father and Son are the same in every respect except in their mutual relation, they will remain as one throughout.

co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Here’s the problem. The Muslim will argue that “revelation” has clearly informed “reason” that God is not triune, that Jesus is not God incarnate, and that Jesus himself “will deny having ever claimed divinity at the Last Judgment.”

Yes, and some people still try to tell me that an airplane can’t take off from a treadmill, or that .999repeating is not equal to 1 - in both cases attempting to use pure reason and not referencing revelation. Some people are wrong.

 

[davidv]

I’ve never heard a sensible, reasonable, rational, convincing argument or explanation for the trinity.
In fact, most Christians I know don’t even understand it.

.

You have never heard what you are asking for because it doesn’t exist. The true nature of the Trinity is a revealed truth which cannot be arrived at rationally.

Any Christian that claims they understand (fully) the Trinity, is not speaking truthfully.

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

The articles of the Catechism surrounding the one above, expound on the topic of the Trinity further.

 

[Counterpoint]

Why is because that’s how the one God revealed Himself, thus its a self revealed truth of God.

Translation: “I can’t explain the metaphysical reason why God is triune. Therefore, I can’t explain why I accept this to be true other than the fact that I do.”

I did begin to explain to which your statement was “I don’t understand” but you didn’t say what you didn’t understand, and it was a side comment to another, pretty rude no? . To which then the EO arrived via wiki pedia. But the problem is you don’t understand what they are saying either. Thus I fail to see “why” words are injected from their language, when you don 't understand what they are saying to begin with and they indeed follow the Councils. You also didn’t want to hear that. Which is why your understanding of them is lacking and I refuse to listen to you butcher it. And I will show you why …

One of the problems here is that I find your verbal communication to be unintelligible.

Only to you and according to what you think the EO stated with Merriam Webster to confirm what you misunderstood.

To beget is to procreate, If it doesn’t mean that, then there is absolutely no reason to characterize the Father as the Father and the Son as the Son. (If we cannot agree on the meaning of words, then it will be impossible to verbally communicate each other.)

This too I explained, you insist on seeing this in daily 3-dimemsional terminology of human nature as opposed to an analogous structure to understand spirit-supernatural . Its language to explain supernatural intelligence-communication of spirit through will. The original Greek is monogenes huios. There are no direct equivalent words in English with the exact same meaning. Its understood to mean only child, unique.

I find this to be more unintelligible gibberish.

Procreate is a moot topic in apostolic teaching which arrives from your misunderstanding of the EO which you injected here in what you “thought” was elevating your own undefined theory. To which you didn’t bother to actually read what they are actually stating, nor did you consider the source, the language or the Councils. Then astonishing as it is, they became your defense to explain your own theory in contesting the CC.

If “procreate” is moot, then it is debatable. The very fact that you are conceding it is debatable is conceding that I have point.

You don’t have to explain anything

That’s correct. I don’t.

you volunteered to participate here because you have a “theory” you think trumps 2000 years of scholars and genius in the Church, but you can’t explain?

It’s not MY theory. It’s the position of Orthodox Christianity. What does “originate” mean according to Orthodox Christianity? It means that the Holy Spirit “has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone.” (source: Wikipedia: Filioque)

And again you have a misunderstanding of the EO, the Saint this came from is known. And he is not saying what you think here. Nor is the EO.

“The Holy Spirit, ‘who has his origin in the Father’ [John 15:26], who inasmuch as he has his origin in him, is not a creature. Inasmuch as he is not begotten, he is not the Son; inasmuch as he is the middle of the Unbegotten and the Begotten, he is God.” St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 31

I would suspect that he understands “creature” to mean temporally created, not eternally created. At any rate, to have one’s eternal origin in the Father is to have one’s “cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father.” And to be eternally begotten is to be eternally procreated because to beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means. To argue otherwise is render the term “begotten” meaningless. (To reiterate: It is not possible to verbally communicate with each other if we cannot agree on the meaning of words. Any attempt to do so would prove nothing but an exercise futility, which this discussion is clearly proving to be.)

So I have no idea what you are taking about.

To have one’s “cause for existence or being form the Father” means to have one’s “cause for existence or being from the Father,” And if you cannot understand that, then we have reached an impasse upon which it will not be possible to continue this discussion. To reiterate: We cannot verbally communicate with each other if we cannot agree on the basic meaning of words.

 

[Della]

So, really, this whole thread has been about the Filioque and not the Trinity at all. Sorry, I won’t debate this issue with you in the philosophy forum. Take it to the Non-Catholic forum where it belongs. Good-bye.

 

[davidv]

Translation: “I can’t explain the metaphysical reason why God is triune. Therefore, I can’t explain why I accept this to be true other than the fact that I do.”

One of the problems here is that I find your verbal communication to be unintelligible.

To beget is to procreate, If it doesn’t mean that, then there is absolutely no reason to characterize the Father as the Father and the Son as the Son. (If we cannot agree on the meaning of words, then it will be impossible to verbally communicate each other.)

I find this to be more unintelligible gibberish.

If “procreate” is moot, then it is debatable. The very fact that you are conceding it is debatable is conceding that I have point.

That’s correct. I don’t.

It’s not MY theory. It’s the position of Orthodox Christianity. What does “originate” mean according to Orthodox Christianity? It means that the Holy Spirit “has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone.” (source: Wikipedia: Filioque)

I would suspect that he understands “creature” to mean temporally created, not eternally created. At any rate, to have one’s eternal origin in the Father is to have one’s “cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father.” And to be eternally begotten is to be eternally procreated because to beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means. To argue otherwise is render the term “begotten” meaningless. (To reiterate: It is not possible to verbally communicate with each other if we cannot agree on the meaning of words. Any attempt to do so would prove nothing but an exercise futility, which this discussion is clearly proving to be.)

To have one’s “cause for existence or being form the Father” means to have one’s “cause for existence or being from the Father,” And if you cannot understand that, then we have reached an impasse upon which it will not be possible to continue this discussion. To reiterate: We cannot verbally communicate with each other if we cannot agree on the basic meaning of words.

When you insist on your definitions of the words, which are different than the definitions as they apply to describing the trinity, you are equivocating and you conclusions are fallacious.

 

[GaryTaylor]

To beget is to procreate

However, the Greek word monogenes does not have a single equivalent corresponding word in English. Its understood to mean only child, unique Your conclusion is based on a false assumption. Sorry you have no response and think the Greek translation is gibberish.

If “procreate” is moot, then it is debatable. The very fact that you are conceding it is debatable is conceding that I have point.

Above, Merriam Webster won’t do piggy backed to your false conclusion above.

It’s not MY theory. It’s the position of Orthodox Christianity. What does “originate” mean according to Orthodox Christianity? It means that the Holy Spirit “has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone.” (source: Wikipedia: Filioque)

Addressed …

Again wrong “The Holy Spirit, ‘who has his origin in the Father’ [John 15:26], who inasmuch as he has his origin in him, is not a creature. Inasmuch as he is not begotten, he is not the Son; inasmuch as he is the middle of the Unbegotten and the Begotten, he is God.” St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 31

I would suspect that he understands “creature” to mean temporally created, not eternally created. .

Odd specifically stated is “is not a creature” There’s no indication of creature, none.

" And to be eternally begotten is to be eternally procreated because to beget is to procreate. That’s what the term means. To argue otherwise is render the term “begotten” meaningless…).

Wrong and its addressed already

" (To reiterate: It is not possible to verbally communicate with each other if we cannot agree on the meaning of words. Any attempt to do so would prove nothing but an exercise futility, which this discussion is clearly proving to be.).

And why would “anyone” accept this is light of your obvious error?

To have one’s “cause for existence or being form the Father” means to have one’s “cause for existence or being from the Father,” And if you cannot understand that, then we have reached an impasse upon which it will not be possible to continue this discussion. To reiterate: We cannot verbally communicate with each other if we cannot agree on the basic meaning of words].

No causality only correlations between events.

 

[Counterpoint]

When you insist on your definitions of the words, which are different than the definitions as they apply to describing the trinity, you are equivocating and you conclusions are fallacious.

I am not equivocating, you are. Moreover, you have completely render the term “begotten” meaningless. There is absolutely no reason to characterize the Father as the Father and the Son as Son if “beget” does not mean “to procreate.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not equivocating, you are. Moreover, you have completely render the term “begotten” meaningless. There is absolutely no reason to characterize the Father as the Father and the Son as Son if “beget” does not mean “to procreate.”

The issue is the correct translation which is not as you suggest. Thus meaningless is placed in its correct understanding. What there is not reason for is the injection of procreate.

The question then becomes why do we call the Father the Father and the Son the Son. However God is Spirit he is neither male nor female.

 

[Counterpoint]

So, really, this whole thread has been about the Filioque and not the Trinity at all. Sorry, I won’t debate this issue with you in the philosophy forum. Take it to the Non-Catholic forum where it belongs. Good-bye.

No, this thread is about “Why the Trinity?” However, when certain individuals could not muster up any kind of argument to explain why God should be triune, they became flustered and decided to hijack the thread instead.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, this thread is about “Why the Trinity?” However, when certain individuals could not muster up any kind of argument to explain why God should be triune, they became flustered and decided to hijack the thread instead.

Oh you have a flair for drama?

Come, come now, Issues with being indirect? The fact of the matter is you reverted to an indefensible point.

Prove to me God is male and perhaps we could revisit the idea human generation. Do you now see the analogous structure?

 

[Counterpoint]

The question then becomes why do we call the Father the Father and the Son the Son.

If “begotten” doesn’t mean anything in the dictionary sense of the term (and according to you, it doesn’t), then it is an inappropriate metaphor. The same holds true for the terms “father” and “son.”

 

[Counterpoint]

Yes, and some people still try to tell me that an airplane can’t take off from a treadmill, or that .999repeating is not equal to 1 - in both cases attempting to use pure reason and not referencing revelation. Some people are wrong.

Whatever.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If “begotten” doesn’t mean anything in the dictionary sense of the term (and according to you, it doesn’t), then it is an inappropriate metaphor. The same holds true for the terms “father” and “son.”

Well, begotten is somewhat explained by language barriers. The metaphor is ancient, while I agree It has its points of contention which I suggested with male/female. I don’t think its incorrect to view God as a Father figure, I’m sure this occurred naturally, thus the sequence of events. I also agree the terminology requires a great deal of reading since imho what often transpires is precisely what occurred here, Its not a wrong or right, just a reality to be contended with. I concede there’s difficult language here.

Anyway my apology if I upset you. That wasn’t my intention.

 

[Counterpoint]

In fact, most Christians I know don’t even understand it.

Agreed.

I’ve never heard a sensible, reasonable, rational, convincing argument or explanation for the trinity…

God actualizes himself (or his “self”) through the three-fold dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Agreed.

God actualizes himself (or his “self”) through the three-fold dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

This is extremely illogical statement if we assume the generally understood meanings of the words ‘dialectic’ and ‘process’.
But I see it coming that you’ll have new definitions for these words…