The truth about Trinity

[Gordian Knot]

There is a difference though. All the other examples you mentioned are words whose meaning has changed over time. The older meaning has gone out of favor for the newer one. Still one meaning though. You mention gay in today's world and most everyone knows what you are talking about.

Trinity, though has not just changed with time. The definition has also multiplied to the point that one really does not have a clue what someone is referring to without asking for further information that explains their spiritual/religious stance.

 

[wil]

How about *** then? Gonna light one up? These words still have multiple meanings...

I wear thongs on my feet, not a banana hammock. We use bad for bad and bad for good, we hook up our tv and hook up with others, we hang up the phone and deal with our hang ups

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PPf3aaZmUw


Trinity to a Mormon is different than that to a Catholic and both differ to me, and I differ to Talijasi.... and the inchworm, chrysalis and butterfly may have differing answers if you asked each one....that are only one...

 

[Thomas]

The divine Trinity is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Metaphysically we understand these to refer to mind, idea, and expression, or thinker, thought, and action.

This is anthropomorphism, not metaphysics.

The doctrine of the trinity is often a stumbling block, because we find it difficult to understand how three persons can be one. Three persons cannot be one, and theology will always be a mystery until theologians become metaphysicians.

Oh dear, what a muddle. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a theological doctrine, not a metaphysical doctrine, so the above point is quite wrong, and I've no idea how the author came to it, or why.

God is the name of the all-encompassing Mind. Christ is the name of the all-loving Mind. Holy Spirit is the all-active manifestation. These three are one fundamental Mind in its three creative aspects.

Nope, that's Modalism.

I don't mind people finding new expressions for things, it's just a shame they get it so wrong, or invent one to suit themselves.

I raise the point because there seems to be an assumption that God has a mind, like we have minds. That God is creative like we are creative. The 'metaphysics' is all 'arsey-versey' to use a colloquialism.

Metaphysically explained, the terms used are: Mind, Idea, and Expression.

Oft repeated, but where, and by whom? Nowhere have I come across this in the history of the doctrine.

This is not the Trinity revealed in Scripture – this is self-validating anthropomorphism posing as metaphysics.

It's anthropomorphism through and through, projecting an idealised image of man onto God – this is the 'old man sitting on a cloud' reworked for the New Age.

 

[Thomas]

in our lifetime these have changed meanings...

This rather assumes that because some things have changed, all things have changed ... and therefore you dismiss any definition that doesn't suit on those grounds.

It's a fallacy.

Nor does it mean we're free to invent definitions, for that very reason.

 

[Thomas]

Yes the word Trinity had a meaning when it began... The Surprising Origins of the Trinity Doctrine | United Church of God

The bias of this article makes it risible. This is one of your 'agenda writings', Wil, clear as day.

For example:

The Trinity becomes official doctrine
The teaching of the three Cappadocian theologians "made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture" ( The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "God," p. 568).

A: It is stated in Scripture, that's where the doctrine comes from.

B: Prior to 381 there is material written evidence to show that the Church taught a Triune faith of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Check out:
Clement of Rome (d. 99), Ignatius (d 117), The Didache, Justin Martyr, St Polycarp, St Theophilius, Tertullian (of course), St Hippolytus, Origen, Novatian (who wrote "On The Trinity" c256) ...

So your article is 'economical' with the truth ... if I wrote this in an essay I'd be hauled over the coals.

 

[Thomas]

Trinity, though has not just changed with time.

No. Good point.

The definition has also multiplied to the point that one really does not have a clue what someone is referring to without asking for further information that explains their spiritual/religious stance.

Only because everyone subsequently began making up their own definitions to suit themselves ... but you're quite right.

As in all things, I look to the source, and work from there:
A: What is the original idea (which we can get a fairly clear idea from the writings available to us, much as some might like to muddy the waters).
B: Does the same idea prevail today?
C: If not, why not?

The 'metaphysical meaning' posted above, for example, takes the notion of 'Mind' as its key, and filters the doctrine accordingly, and in so doing makes anthropomorphic mistakes.

Similarly when people say the Holy Trinity is the equivalent of the Trimurti, or other triunes of Antiquity, all it says to me is they haven't read the doctrine, because they go o to assert things that the doctrine doesn't.

 

[wil]

LOL Thomas you are freakin Hilarious!!!

Mind, Idea, Expression is anthropomorphism....yet Father, Son, Holy Ghost is not....hee heee

Stated in scripture?? If it was stated in scripture it wouldn't have been invented a couple hundred years later.

Not New Age Thomas, New Thought, New Thought grew out of the Transcendentalist movement with Thoreau and Emerson, moving on with Phinius Quimby, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles and Myrtle Filmore and Ernest Holmes.

 

[taijasi]

Only because we're on a Christian/Abrahamic forum, I'd have to go with the more conventional definition that `God' is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost/Spirit - exactly as most Christians affirm and loosely recognize. This is the Trinity, as it's come to be defined. But ask your resident theologian and staunch Catholic for a simple, PRACTICAL definition of such. Ask him to eschew all unnecessary obfuscation - a task which I myself probably cannot easily tackle - in his definitions and response. Further, press him to give you practical examples of how this definition of the Trinity means a hill of beans difference to him, to yourself[ves], to other Christians, to Catholics or to anyone. Ask him. And hold him to it.

I would suggest that he may not be able to tell you much. He will find it easy to refer you to St. Augustine, or to the liturgy, or to a printed resource which has meant much to him ... say, the Bible, or an Apocryphal resource [Gospel of Thomas, for instance]. But will he give you a straight answer, one from the heart and one that means anything which you can sink your proverbial [thought-]teeth into? I doubt it. On that point, I challenge him.

In fact, I challenge any of you to speak from the heart, experience and directly - and tell ME, or any of us, something about the Trinity. And I will take the same plunge, since I, too, will find this difficult, if pressed. But if you can't speak from this level, from the heart, and from your direct experience ... then who cares what Jesus said? Who cares what is Abrahamic, or what Moses encountered? What difference does it make (truly, directly or indirectly), in YOUR life - and in the lives of those around you?

Dare, if you are a person like me, to tie this in with what you have learned and even experienced in, and/or because of, other religions ... but again, try and do this from a more practical basis than simply stating: Thus have I learned, or thus have I heard. The reason I put it this way is, not that I think you are necessarily wrong, for I would agree that God is `Father, Son and Holy Spirit,' but the meaning of these terms and designations is what matters, not whether or not you can quote the liturgy, express all of this in Latin or Sanskrit, or refer us to eleventy-five hundred odd sources that resonate with you. All of this is secondary, after all. The test is how it has changed or impacted you, and this is something I don't mind answering, since although I may not relate the most intimate or personal of experiences and impacts, I can in the very least attempt to brings things together on a practical level.

So give it a go, Thomas. Without a doubt, wil would accept the challenge. Correct? And if anyone else bothers, I will try to do likewise, with more than my usual attention to clarity and brevity ... say, in English rather than with references to Eastern traditions. Not that we shouldn't be aware of tie-ins, but of course, if we are seeking to address what is [at] the very heart of Christian theology, then perhaps we should try and be clear about just what the Trinity is, and means, to us personally - or semi-personally.

Just a thought ...

 

[wil]

Mind, Idea, Expression

Creator, Concept, Conceptualized

Thoughts in mind appear in kind.

What you think about you bring about.

Tis the power of focused thought...aka prayer.


It ain't that hard to use this in your life...

 

[Thomas]

LOL Thomas you are freakin Hilarious!!!

Oh dear, really? I rather think you miss the point.

Mind, Idea, Expression is anthropomorphism....

D'you think it's not? We call it the analogy of psychology. It's defining God according to the human model. That the Divine Mind is like our minds ...

And even then, it's limited and inaccurate. Augustine's 'Memory, Intellect and Will' is far more comprehensive and useful overview of 'Mind'. Your triune makes no reference to the Will (which powers, whereas the Mind illuminates).

If I were to paraphrase the African Doctor I would say 'Wisdom, Intellect and Will', preferring 'wisdom' to 'memory' ... but that's just the way I see it, and I readily admit that wisdom is memory contemplated by the intellect.

Another favourite of mine is the Hindu satcitananda, or 'Being, Consciousness and Bliss', although the error here is to again assume an anthropomorphic determination, especially with regard to 'bliss', which we tend to read in a highly subjective and sentimental manner, ie the feelgood factor.

Furthermore, Son and Holy Spirit are not 'mindless', they have their own distinct 'act', their own 'personality' and therefore their own 'mind' – or as you might say, 'their own agenda'! Again the Mystery of the One and the Three – nor do they 'borrow' the mind of the Father, so Mind is predicated of all three, not just one, so is therefor inaccurate when predicated of one person of the Trinity to the exclusion of the others.

Agreed that Idea, in itself and all its subsequent forms, belongs to the Second Person, the Logos. In that sense Logos correlates with the Hebrew Memra, The Hindu Aum and the latin verbum.

The expression or realisation, the creative act of the Logos, in all its manifold forms are called logoi (cf 1 Corinthians.), so in that sense is totally wrong.

Expression is just too vague. It in no way encompasses the particular activity of the Third Person, the Holy Spirit, which is the Perfection of what the Second Person has brought into being.

So that's one right, two wrong, if we're talking about the Holy Trinity received from the Tradition, and not making up your own.

+++

yet Father, Son, Holy Ghost is not....hee heee

That's right, it's not. The terms are analogous, and the best and most efficacious analogies we have.

Stated in scripture?? If it was stated in scripture it wouldn't have been invented a couple hundred years later.

Well, working backwards, it wasn't 'invented', the very terms 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit', and their particular attributes, are founded in Scripture.

Rather than scoff, prove me wrong.

So it was never 'invented', that's a ridiculous comment. But we do now see it as inchoate, that is, not 'fully formed', but nevertheless later affirmations, and the eventual dogmatic determination of the Councils, does not contradict those early expressions, but rather explains and illuminates them. In theological circles we call it 'unpacking'. It's still going on. It always will. The Holy Trinity is a Mystery that will always transcend us.

Quantitatively, we know a lot more. Qualitatively, we're saying nothing that what was said 2,000 years ago.

Tertullian came up with the term in the 3rd century. But he wasn't introducing something new, he did not invent the doctrine, he just came up with a nifty term for it.

The assumption of 'invention' also indicates a poor opinion of human insight and divine inspiration. Are all unity's doctrines invented? Is New Thought an invention?

Not New Age Thomas, New Thought, New Thought grew out of the Transcendentalist movement with Thoreau and Emerson, moving on with Phinius Quimby, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles and Myrtle Filmore and Ernest Holmes.

Yep. All part of the Romance Movement. According to your sources, it's based on English and German Idealism.

The whole doctrine is founded on Scripture.

I am somewhat amused by your insistence, on the one hand, that everyone is entitled, if not obliged, 'to find their own answers' and construe their own subjective interpretations of scripture regardless of 'facts' or 'tradition' or 'evidence' ... which you choose to dismiss as unreliable on all manner of grounds ... and yet never question the fallibility of the interpreter!

I also note that when offered answers in line with yours, that's inspiration, and when they're not, that's invention!

Nowhere does the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity exist in metaphysics, outside of those systems informed by Christianity, so why your writer thinks it takes a metaphysician to solve a theological 'problem', I have no idea. It seems to me the 'problem' lies with the author's incomplete grasp of his source materials.

I don't have a problem. I can bang on about the Holy Trinity until the cows come home ... for me it's the 'universal answer of everything'!

Oh ... and by the way, if the Trinity is 'invented' then at what point did we invent the idea of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete as spoken of in John 14:16 and 24?

And nowhere does your metaphysical definition encompass the idea of Perfection and Truth, Advocate and Councillor, as is Scripturally predicated of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thomas]

Mind, Idea, Expression

Creator, Concept, Conceptualized

Thoughts in mind appear in kind.

What you think about you bring about.

Tis the power of focused thought...aka prayer.


It ain't that hard to use this in your life...

Nice aphorisms ... but all anthropomorphisms, and time-bound, and as such nothing at all to do with the Trinity.

 

[taijasi]

Mind, Idea, Expression

Creator, Concept, Conceptualized

Thoughts in mind appear in kind.

What you think about you bring about.

Tis the power of focused thought...aka prayer.


It ain't that hard to use this in your life...

I am reminded of the book, `As a Man Thinketh' ... and the expression I've heard in esoteric circles which affirms: Where attention goes, energy flows.

 

[wil]

Oh dear, really? I rather think you miss the point.


D'you think it's not? We call it the analogy of psychology. It's defining God according to the human model. That the Divine Mind is like our minds ...

Well gall darn good thing 'Father' and that picture on the chapel ceiling doesn't do anything horrendous like that!

And even then, it's limited and inaccurate. Augustine's 'Memory, Intellect and Will' is far more comprehensive and useful overview of 'Mind'. Your triune makes no reference to the Will (which powers, whereas the Mind illuminates).

Calling G!d the divine mind of all creation is limiting? I'd say it is in your mind, since this is what you claim, but it is not in mine. Are you saying Augustine references Father as Memory? Jesus as Intellect and the Holy Spirit as Will?? (as that is the topic, or have you changed horses midstream) We see Will as represented by Matthew... is one of the 12 powers of G!d bestowed on man.

If I were to paraphrase the African Doctor I would say 'Wisdom, Intellect and Will', preferring 'wisdom' to 'memory' ... but that's just the way I see it, and I readily admit that wisdom is memory contemplated by the intellect.

We see Wisdom as represented by the disciple James as divine judgment. Intellect is a thing, knowledge is nothing without discernment and action.

Another favourite of mine is the Hindu satcitananda, or 'Being, Consciousness and Bliss', although the error here is to again assume an anthropomorphic determination, especially with regard to 'bliss', which we tend to read in a highly subjective and sentimental manner, ie the feelgood factor.

again, good thing Father isn't anthropomorphic in your view as you throw that out as derogatory so often.

Furthermore, Son and Holy Spirit are not 'mindless', they have their own distinct 'act', their own 'personality' and therefore their own 'mind' – or as you might say, 'their own agenda'! Again the Mystery of the One and the Three – nor do they 'borrow' the mind of the Father, so Mind is predicated of all three, not just one, so is therefor inaccurate when predicated of one person of the Trinity to the exclusion of the others.

All for one and one for all my brother... they work in tandem, in unison as one...

Agreed that Idea, in itself and all its subsequent forms, belongs to the Second Person, the Logos. In that sense Logos correlates with the Hebrew Memra, The Hindu Aum and the latin verbum.

The expression or realisation, the creative act of the Logos, in all its manifold forms are called logoi (cf 1 Corinthians.), so in that sense is totally wrong.

Expression is just too vague. It in no way encompasses the particular activity of the Third Person, the Holy Spirit, which is the Perfection of what the Second Person has brought into being.

So that's one right, two wrong, if we're talking about the Holy Trinity received from the Tradition, and not making up your own.

+++

I'm not making up my own.... I'm following teachers I respect.... just as you. Teachers who are all dead and gone...just as you. and no, none of the analogies or thought are perfect and complete....tis the nature of the beast...it all coalesces or falls apart based on our own understandings. Yours is too much for me....mine is not enough for you... what others glean from the discussion is upto them. Some think I am a lost nutcase...and that is alright with me!

That's right, it's not. The terms are analogous, and the best and most efficacious analogies we have.


Well, working backwards, it wasn't 'invented', the very terms 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit', and their particular attributes, are founded in Scripture.

Rather than scoff, prove me wrong.

You made the statement, I asked you to point to the scripture... I didn't scoff, you said it was invented (word not in use prior....aka invented)

So it was never 'invented', that's a ridiculous comment. But we do now see it as inchoate, that is, not 'fully formed', but nevertheless later affirmations, and the eventual dogmatic determination of the Councils, does not contradict those early expressions, but rather explains and illuminates them. In theological circles we call it 'unpacking'. It's still going on. It always will. The Holy Trinity is a Mystery that will always transcend us.

Quantitatively, we know a lot more. Qualitatively, we're saying nothing that what was said 2,000 years ago.

Tertullian came up with the term in the 3rd century. But he wasn't introducing something new, he did not invent the doctrine, he just came up with a nifty term for it.

The assumption of 'invention' also indicates a poor opinion of human insight and divine inspiration. Are all unity's doctrines invented? Is New Thought an invention?

Sure, they were NEW THOUGHT... lol..fun stuff...but the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary is largely based on the metaphor, symbolism and meanings of words from the Hebrew and Aramaic. The lay Jews and Rabbis that I have given the book to enjoy the hell out of it. And use it in their studies and teachings.

Yep. All part of the Romance Movement. According to your sources, it's based on English and German Idealism.

The whole doctrine is founded on Scripture.

I am somewhat amused by your insistence, on the one hand, that everyone is entitled, if not obliged, 'to find their own answers' and construe their own subjective interpretations of scripture regardless of 'facts' or 'tradition' or 'evidence' ... which you choose to dismiss as unreliable on all manner of grounds ... and yet never question the fallibility of the interpreter!

I also note that when offered answers in line with yours, that's inspiration, and when they're not, that's invention!

I don't discriminate between invention and inspiration...where do you get that?

Nowhere does the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity exist in metaphysics, outside of those systems informed by Christianity, so why your writer thinks it takes a metaphysician to solve a theological 'problem', I have no idea. It seems to me the 'problem' lies with the author's incomplete grasp of his source materials.

I don't have a problem. I can bang on about the Holy Trinity until the cows come home ... for me it's the 'universal answer of everything'!

Oh ... and by the way, if the Trinity is 'invented' then at what point did we invent the idea of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete as spoken of in John 14:16 and 24?

And nowhere does your metaphysical definition encompass the idea of Perfection and Truth, Advocate and Councillor, as is Scripturally predicated of the Holy Spirit.

Blessings on this fine day Thomas!

 

[taijasi]

Here is a mantram that comes to mind, relevant to the discussion and touched upon by some of these posts ...

In the center of the Will of God I stand.
Naught shall deflect my will from His.
I implement that will by love.
I turn towards the field of service.
I, the Triangle divine, work out that Will
Within the square, and serve my fellow men.

~Discipleship in the New Age, Vol. II, p. 141
​

Another one, short & sweet, comes from the same source, same page:

I strive towards understanding.
Let wisdom take the place of knowledge in my life.
​

 

[Thomas]

... But ask your resident theologian and staunch Catholic for a simple, PRACTICAL definition of such. Ask him to eschew all unnecessary obfuscation ... press him to give you practical examples of how this definition of the Trinity means a hill of beans difference to him, to yourself[ves], to other Christians, to Catholics or to anyone. Ask him. And hold him to it.

I would suggest that he may not be able to tell you much. But will he give you a straight answer, one from the heart and one that means anything which you can sink your proverbial [thought-]teeth into? I doubt it. On that point, I challenge him.

In fact, I challenge any of you to speak from the heart, experience and directly - and tell ME, or any of us, something about the Trinity.

But if you can't speak from this level, from the heart, and from your direct experience ... then who cares what Jesus said? Who cares what is Abrahamic, or what Moses encountered? What difference does it make (truly, directly or indirectly), in YOUR life - and in the lives of those around you?

Dare, if you are a person like me, to tie this in with what you have learned and even experienced in, and/or because of, other religions ... but again, try and do this from a more practical basis than simply stating ... The test is how it has changed or impacted you, and this is something I don't mind answering, since although I may not relate the most intimate or personal of experiences and impacts, I can in the very least attempt to brings things together on a practical level.

So give it a go, Thomas. Without a doubt, wil would accept the challenge. Correct? And if anyone else bothers, I will try to do likewise, with more than my usual attention to clarity and brevity ... say, in English rather than with references to Eastern traditions. Not that we shouldn't be aware of tie-ins, but of course, if we are seeking to address what is [at] the very heart of Christian theology, then perhaps we should try and be clear about just what the Trinity is, and means, to us personally - or semi-personally.

Just a thought ...

Ooh, I must say, if I had my samurai head on (I was, for a while, an iaidoka of the Muso Shinden Ryu), yours would have been between your feet before you finished the first paragraph. This is all rather insulting, isn't it?

And on what grounds should we accept you as the benchmark by which anyone is judged?

But as I have my Christian head on, I will offer you an answer. Two, in fact.

The first is, that you receive any answer at all signifies a Christian act on my part, because, quite frankly, the way the question is posed doesn't deserve an answer.

Indeed, if I were to wax Biblical, I might respond with a 'I shake off the dust from my feet at you', but as you've already ruled out Biblical or historical references, I'll respond in the contemporary vernacular - the meaning is pretty much the same – and say simply that if someone spoke to me like that I'd politely ask them to 'fuck off' my karma, I suppose. My Gaelic roots.

The second, as I know you hold much store by such determinations, an exoteric and an esoteric answer:

Exoteric answer: Prayer.
When you are in prayer, you are in the Holy Trinity.
Prayer is theosis in action.
(Whether that strikes a chord with you is between you and you, but if you've never experienced it, please don't jump to the conclusion that no-one else has. And if you have, that you're the only one who can.)

Esoteric answer: Kenosis.
Any authentic act of self-giving, which is a self-emptying, towards the good of another, is Trinitarian.
(Pity I have to qualify that, but the world is the way it is.)

The Good as such, and thereby any formal and necessarily contingent, good, resides in a priori God, there is no good that we can do that takes God 'by surprise' – His surprise at our doing it is another matter altogether! )

It is embodied in Christ, who is the Good incarnate, and is brought to its transcendental fullness by the power of the Holy Spirit. (Only God can render an act truly sacramental, and the act itself might appear in all its aspects infinitely mundane. We live in faith and hope, after all.)

These might be 'technical terms' to you, they're not to me. They're real. They are the reasons behind me, when I show myself. I have my own proofs (which are, of course, mine alone) but they do (sometimes) have material consequences, and this fruitfulness, seen and remarked by others (there's my proof, although it is not itself mine) in this world and, hopefully, speak of me in the next.

 

[wil]

It is human to answer words with words, not Christian, our jails are full of Christians.... it is animal nature to knock off someone's head because of their words

We are always in the holy trinity...in him I live and breathe and have my being... look neither here nor there we are in the midst...

It is our choice to act otherwise....yes words can hurt and we should watch our words....but also we are the ones that allow words to affect us... (its all about me)

Ah but we get to the crux of the biscuit eventually after all the rhetoric...

They are real to me! (yes to each of us it is all about me)

I have my own proof!

That is it in a nutshell!! What works for you, resonates with you, is practical and helps you! That is what it is all about.

What works for wil works for wil, what works for taijasi works for tiahasi, what works for Thomas works for Thomas.

I'll not say any of it is wrong for YOU, it simply isn't right for me.

Religion is like a penis, it is fine that you have one, but don't wave it in my face and if you try to shove it down my throat, we got a problem!

This is a discussion about our views on the Trinity...and there are more than three of them (views that is) and each of us gravitates to that which works in our lives, that is only sensible. We all follow the teachings of the Christ in our own way, we all have our own understandings of Christ and the Trinity in our own way... how cool is that? Dang groovy if you ask me. (and even if you dunt)

 

[Thomas]

Can I ask respondents to be less reactive and more objective?

It is not simply a matter of 'what works for me'. We cannot rewrite the law to suit ourselves any more than the dogmas of tradition.

Some people 'live and move and have their being' in Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride – not God at all – so to predicate it all of God is so glib as to be an offence to plain common sense, let alone God.

I talk about the Holy Trinity, and you talk about penises ...

 

[Gordian Knot]

"Religion is like a penis, it is fine that you have one, but don't wave it in my face and if you try to shove it down my throat, we got a problem!" Wil.

Okay that is the most hilariously blasphemous comment of the entire thread, if not the entire site! Words of wisdom? Not so much. Laying it all out there in the most say-it-as-you-see-it fashion possible? Yeah. Definitely!

 

[taijasi]

This segment of a teaching on The Three Logoi was especially refreshing for me, while ago. There are several points I was confused about, or feel I have always had straight - but didn't. And how may I confirm any of them? Indeed, how to address that ...

The Three Logoi

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Taijasi,

Which points are you confused about?