I think you have something there, but I’m not exactly sure what it is.
So did Sathya Sai Baba, He was considered by his followers to be an avatar (an incarnation of God) who performed various miracles (materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects, miraculous healings, resurrections, clairvoyance, bilocation, etc.). In fact, an online female friend (one of his devotees) sent me via mail a small sample of “vibuthi” (the holy ash he allegedly materialized). She told me to place some of the ash on my tongue to receive healing. Do you believe it would have been rational for me to do so?
Thanks for your consideration!
Although you could term it a game to play, I enjoy considering it as an invitation to the most amazing experience!
Yes.
God as Father, God as Son (Logos) and God as Spirit are revealed in Scripture. The synthesis of these revealed truths as the Trinity came from the teaching authority of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. That is why I mentioned in my previous post “the revelation of Scripture and the Church.” I am not (and never was) opposed to the notion that philosophy and metaphysics can give us insight into the reality of the Trinity. What I do oppose is your assertion that the Trinity can be be known through metaphysical and philosophical inquiry alone, and more to the point, that faith in revelation is per se unreasonable.
While interesting, all words have an etymology. The problem is that neither Heraclitus nor Aristotle identified Logos as God, much less a person of God. The Hellenic Jews used the term, although as part of a revealed religion and not as part of the concept of Trinity. If anything, it appears that the etymology of the word “Logos” undercuts your position that revelation is blind faith, unnecessary for understanding the Trinity.
And? Hinduism is also a revealed religion. Relying upon it for your conclusions only reinforces my argument. The Buddhist Trikaya references potential attributes of the human person, not of a theistic God; which of course it wouldn’t since this idea is foreign to Buddhism.
Why not make it simple by invoking one rule, namely, the “Golden Rule” (a.k.a. the “ethic of reciprocity”)?
But it appears your Trinity requires that there be a creation.
Although it is acceptable to keep it simple with graceful truths such as the “Golden Rule,” the reason one should explore complexities of grace is to better help others understand the Wisdom in Grace, especially because sensible arguments are more compelling.
Sure. However, with God, creation is certain. Therefore, God will always be the Holy Trinity.
If you were the person who created everything, the Holy Trinity is your means to completing your greatest creation.
God’s existence is eternal (i.e timeless). As such, there is no “before” or “after” with God, just an ever-present “now.”
Well, the CCC teaches in Article 460 that "The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “The Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”
But it appears that you are arguing that the creation is necessary. Moreover, you appear to be arguing that God is triune because the creation demands it. I don’t necessarily have a problem with this view. But I believe Catholicism does.
Thanks for the link, Mr. Clean.
The “eternally begotten” is co-eternal with God, Right?
I’m glad you understand the unique status of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit throughout eternity.
For further clarification, although with God, creation is certain, creation is not necessary. God does not need to create, nor needs to be the Holy Trinity. Instead, God wants to be the Holy Trinity because God wants to share love with others.
Emphasis mine.
Although in consideration of God as a nature, the Son is co-eternal with God. In consideration of God as a person, the “eternally begotten” is God, and not “anyone else.”
Are you arguing that God could have chosen not to be triune?
No. I am sharing that God always chooses to be the Holy Trinity.
Chooses or wills? (Choice implies that it could have been otherwise.)
Here I am again offering my two cents without reading everyone else’s opinions;