Trinity

[Thomas]

Hi Joe —

Originally Posted by Joedjr

If you are trying to find some commentaries The sword project has a few.

There are, in my mind, no better commentaries on Scripture than those of the Patristics (1st - 7th century). The triple benefit of these is that:
1 - They are closest to the source and the oral traditions;
2 - They are philosophers of serious stature (most of 'em);
3 - They are mystics of profound depth and insight (most of 'em).

After that, it's commentaries on these commentaries.

Last night I was reading St Maximus the Confessor and came across a work in which he shows how the architectural pattern of a church reflects the structure of the soul ... and then how the structure and ascent through the Liturgy is a contemplation on the the life of the soul ... just something whilst flicking flicking through the pages ... I was looking for writings on moral theology, and found such a staggeringly profound interpretation of Platonic procession and return (exitus and reditus) most modern commentaries would be hard pressed to even match for its simplicity ... the modernist rejection of tradition really is a 'baby out with the bathwater' scenario, and anyone who wants to understand Scripture without recourse to the Patristics is, I would suggest, reading the text in a very dim light.

Originally Posted by Joedjr

Hmm, tradition, now that sounds like a whole new thread in the making.

As you might gather, if you look carefully I think you'll find my wife in the distance making 'Don't start him talkin!' gestures ...

Thomas

[Heliotrope]

Greetings,

This is my first post here (apart from an introduction). I am picking up a loose end from the beginning of the thread, so I apologise if my comments are a little disruptive of the conversational flow.

Originally Posted by mee

THROUGHOUT the ancient world, as far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. And after the death of the apostles, such pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.

Amongst the Abrahamic religions, evidence of syncretism from pagan traditions is considered prima facie proof of corruption and falsehood.

This seems to be based on an assumption that pagan thought is necessarily devoid of divine inspiration. Why so? Why is syncretism a bad thing?

With Kindness,
H

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Heliotrope, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Amongst the Abrahamic religions, evidence of syncretism from pagan traditions is considered prima facie proof of corruption and falsehood.

This seems to be based on an assumption that pagan thought is necessarily devoid of divine inspiration. Why so? Why is syncretism a bad thing?

The point you bring up is one that Christian scholars do struggle with.

If I may point to a passage of scripture that has long guided me in this question:

Romans 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Romans 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

Romans 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Romans 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

-emphasis mine

It is from this passage that I have come to a bit less traditional and politically severe stance than most Christians.

The short answer to your question; "Why is syncretism a bad thing?" is political power. There's simply no escape from the historic facts.

As to whether it is good or bad, I suppose some has to do with perspective. From the perspective of those extending and entrenching political power, it is a good thing. From the perspective of those having their political power ceded, it is a bad thing. In the ebb and flow of human history it is neither good nor bad, it simply is.

From the perspective of one seeking to unite with the Divine Providence that Christians know as the Heavenly Father, it seems to me such attitudes against syncretism are misdirected, unnecessary and negative energies created and wasted. I find I do not have to hate other paths in order to love the path I am on. I am a bit partial though, I hope you don't mind that.

While I see no need to be on the offense, I do put up a particularly strong defense. So if by syncretism it is meant a melding of traditions, or a "picking and choosing," then I would have to disagree. In my humble opinion I believe the great traditions are great only in their entirety and completeness. When haphazardly taken apart and reconstituted I think some important ingredients get left out of the mix. Can and should the great traditions "get along?" My answer is yes. Can and should the great traditions be somehow merged? Besides the inherent logistical nightmare, I still come to the conclusion that "no" is the most appropriate response, for the reason just given. Important ingredients get left out.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Greetings,

This is my first post here (apart from an introduction). I am picking up a loose end from the beginning of the thread, so I apologise if my comments are a little disruptive of the conversational flow.Amongst the Abrahamic religions, evidence of syncretism from pagan traditions is considered prima facie proof of corruption and falsehood.

This seems to be based on an assumption that pagan thought is necessarily devoid of divine inspiration. Why so? Why is syncretism a bad thing?

With Kindness,
H

because according to the bible the true God is the one that should be worshiped ,and the true God is the most high

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.PSALM 83;18

[juantoo3]

What was created on the sixth day of creation? Even before Eden?

[mee]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

What was created on the sixth day of creation? Even before Eden?

You will find it in the bible

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by mee

You will find it in the bible

Indeed, I have. Have you?












psst, hint: Nations, goyim, gentiles....and it was *very* good

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Greetings,

This is my first post here (apart from an introduction). I am picking up a loose end from the beginning of the thread, so I apologise if my comments are a little disruptive of the conversational flow.Amongst the Abrahamic religions, evidence of syncretism from pagan traditions is considered prima facie proof of corruption and falsehood.

This seems to be based on an assumption that pagan thought is necessarily devoid of divine inspiration. Why so? Why is syncretism a bad thing?

With Kindness,
H

What a lot of religions possess is a system of representations and symbolisms. This is actually one link Christianity has with paganism. It's the use of symbols and representations.

There is a distinction between symbols used in Christian and symbols used in "paganism," but there's also some overlap between the two.

Some see Christianity as a pagan religion, even if one was to adhere only to the fundamentalist approach.

If there's a reason why Christians don't like syncretism, it is because of what "pagan" symbols represent. Yes it's all about representation. The pagan symbols represent something "heathen." They represent "idolatry." Just exactly what constitutes "idolatry" is another question/issue. I suppose it depends on one's perspective. I disagree with the idea that all so-called "pagan" symbols are forms of "heathen-ness" and "idolatry." I believe a symbol is only "pagan," "heathen" or an "idol" if you are trying to connect to something or someone that isn't God, His Holy Spirit, or something consecrated and dedicated to God.

That is perhaps how we should decide what makes a symbol pagan, heathen or an idol. We should ask ourselves if it is because it's been dedicated to and consecrated by God.

Symbols and concepts otherwise have no meaning and no inherent paganism, or heathen-ness. If symbols are representations of concepts, then it follows that they are only pagan when we associate to them something that isn't sacred or consecrated/dedicated by/to God.

Jews actually have greater restrictions against so-called idolatry (Avodah Zarah I think it's called). What Christians have is somewhat more relaxed standards. What is idolatry to a Jew isn't idolatry to a Christian. Some Jews won't go into churches because of the cross and other symbols they might find there, and also because members of the congregation may "pray for them" in Jesus' name. Devotion to Jesus is seen as idolatry from a Jewish point of view. From my point of view, though, Jesus' name has been consecrated by God and therefore it is legitimate for me to use it. I might add that it may be illegal and unlawful for a Jew, but not unlawful for a Christian.

In this regard I am saying that although I disagree that certain symbols are not really "pagan," I recognise that some people will be offended by the mixing of such symbols because of what they represent. They will want to keep their traditions "clean" of such symbols.

Divine inspiration? For me, anything consecrated by, dedicated to and ordained by God possesses divine inspiration. Anything that has "religious and spiritual value" but is not somehow consecrated and dedicated by God is what I might consider "pagan."

Religion is often (well, almost always) dominated by perceptions. Paganism means different things to me, than say, self-proclaimed pagans. I may see "pagan" as something unclean and unholy, but you may not ascribe the same meaning to "pagan." To you, pagan objects are "sacred."

If that is the case, if you present to me something that is sacred, don't call it "pagan" because I think of it as something unholy. If you believe you experience God through your devotion to those "pagan" objects, please say so. That way, I won't have to think that I'm devoting myself to something "unclean."

Christians can use Jesus' name to reconsecrate and rededicate the so-called "pagan" object for their own path/tradition, as their leader's name has been consecrated by God. Actually what I mean by that is that a Christian community can "reconsecrate" objects used by a pagan community for God's purposes to connect and bond with that pagan community. I don't mean that Christians will actually have uses for "pagan" objects. From this perspective of mine, there is nothing unholy about these objects, except that people might be connecting with something that doesn't connect them to God.

If both the Christian and pagan communities both seek a relationship with God, then I see nothing unholy in the alliance. They have common ground. The "pagans" do not really devote themselves to something unclean. They just have a different way of conceptualising their relationship with God. The problem will only arise if Christians and "pagans" dislike each other's symbols. Christians don't want their faith "corrupted" by pagan symbols and pagans are offended and insulted by Christians chanting Jesus' name. We are kept apart mainly by how we treat each other's symbols and religious concepts.

[Pico]

Check it out: God is Triune

[Thomas]

Hi Heliotrope —

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

This seems to be based on an assumption that pagan thought is necessarily devoid of divine inspiration.

Following from Saltmeister's post — nice post, btw, Saltmeister — an interesting distinction we as Catholics make between 'pagan' and 'Christian' symbols is not so much what they signify, but rather what they reveal. Thus in many pre-Christian cultures there are indeed triunes, and these are usually modelled on fertility rites or the psychodynamic play of human nature.

As we approach Easter, for example, it comes as no surprise to me that the celebration of Christian rite is tied to the seasons and the moon, for Easter is the exemplar of exitus/reditus, procession and return, birth-death-rebirth ... it's not that the Christian rite 'copies' the pagan, but rather the Christian rite reveals in a concrete and sacramental manner a degree of interiority that the pagan can only allude to.

What marks the uniqueness of the Trinity for me is that it treats of the interior life of God, whereas most other triunes (I think all the Western ones) treat of the exterior and essentially cosmological aspect.

The closest I know of is the Brahminic Satcitananda.

Thomas

[mee]

Originally Posted by Pico

Check it out: God is Triune

Should You Believe It?

DO YOU believe in the Trinity? Most people in Christendom do. After all, it has been the central doctrine of the churches for centuries.

In view of this, you would think that there could be no question about it. But there is, and lately even some of its supporters have added fuel to the controversy.

Why should a subject like this be of any more than passing interest? Because Jesus himself said: “Eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” So our entire future hinges on our knowing the true nature of God, and that means getting to the root of the Trinity controversy. Therefore, why not examine it for yourself?—John 17:3, Catholic Jerusalem Bible (JB).

Various Trinitarian concepts exist. But generally the Trinity teaching is that in the Godhead there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; yet, together they are but one God. The doctrine says that the three are coequal, almighty, and uncreated, having existed eternally in the Godhead.

Others, however, say that the Trinity doctrine is false, that Almighty God stands alone as a separate, eternal, and all-powerful being. They say that Jesus in his prehuman existence was, like the angels, a separate spirit person created by God, and for this reason he must have had a beginning. They teach that Jesus has never been Almighty God’s equal in any sense; he has always been subject to God and still is. They also believe that the holy ghost is not a person but God’s spirit, his active force.

Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”—The Paganism in Our Christianity.

If the Trinity is true, it is degrading to Jesus to say that he was never equal to God as part of a Godhead. But if the Trinity is false, it is degrading to Almighty God to call anyone his equal, and even worse to call Mary the “Mother of God.” If the Trinity is false, it dishonors God to say, as noted in the book Catholicism: “Unless [people] keep this Faith whole and undefiled, without doubt [they] shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: we worship one God in Trinity

There are good reasons, then, why you should want to know the truth about the Trinity.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Pico

Check it out: God is Triune

check out post 71

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by mee

Should You Believe It?

DO YOU believe in the Trinity?

Yes and yes. the bible clearly shows in a number of ways that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by mee

check out post 71

I did, and the link ... and the content of that site is full of misdirection and error.

Not the least being that The Trinity was taught by Ignatius, who was a disciple of St John, before the end of the first century.

Thomas

[mee]

Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?

IF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.

First-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11.

What did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].”

Jesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27.

Thus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.

Since the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?