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
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.