Hi Z —
If one assumes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is simply a prolongation of pagan triunes within a Christian context, one will miss the point of what the doctrine is aiming at.
It is an axiom of the Trinity that one cannot state precisely what it is like, because it transcends all cosmological determination. One can point to the Trinity by analogy, but only as long as one is aware that this is an analogy, it is not exactly what it is.
The Fathers tried all manner of analogy — candle, flame and light; flame, light and heat; (hot)iron, heat and light, and so forth, but the better analogies were drawn from a correspondence in human nature — soul, intellect and will, and notably the lover, the loved, and their love — all far transcending the cosmological triunes of antiquity that usually figured the procession of the seasons, and the rites of fertiltiy, etc. Again, always remembering that the metaphor is analogous, and not a precise definition ... as soon as one says, the Trinity is, one is in error. The best we can say, is the Trinity is like ...
Note also that Father, Son and Holy Spirit avoid the obvious pitfall of gender determination at a metagender level, but inescapably use the closest and most informal terms to express a relationship — Father / Son — and a relationship bound in mutuality Father / Son / Spirit — that is the pattern for all subsequent relationship, and the pattern of right-relation, in the manifesting Kosmos. But again, one should remember that the Second and Third Person of the Trinity 'processes' from the first not by any organic manner, so in this sense even 'sonship' is only analogous ... but a fitting and acceptable reality because there is none better, physically nor spiritually.
No teaching can transcend the physical fact of the Person who is Jesus Christ.
If one assumes the teaching to be purely a metaphor, then unless there is a pre-existing foundation for the transferant reference of object of the metaphor itself, it is a fallacy. It is, again for the sake of precision, as best as we are able, that the Fathers sought to define the Mystery in such a way as to eradicate the possibility of error, as much as is possible. The absundancew of erroneous assumptions with regard to the Trinity today are due to the ignorance both of Scripture and of Christianity's philosophical tradition.
The Christian doctrine asserts certain a priori fundamentals — that God is utterly transcendant, that man is contingent, that if indeed there is the possibility of 'union' between the two, and Scripture states explicitly that there is ... then how is such a union possible between two natures that are as unalike as it is possible to be?
If Divine Union is a reality, and not a meaningless metaphor then the Principle of Union must exist in the Deity in principio before it can exist in nature ... if it's not in the Deity, then it's nothing more than a fantasia — one cannot unite with a nature that does not allow of the principle of unity. Therefore, if Union is indeed possible, the Principle of Unity must exist within the Godhead, before any subsequent determination, and it is this that separates the Trinity from all pagan cosmological triunes that preceded it.
Such being the case, the Way of the Union is determined by God, and the conditions established at the foundation of the world, conditions ameiorated only by Grace, which is a Gift of the Holy Spirit, mediated by the Son.
+++
The meaning of Jesus Christ, as a human being, and as a person, can only be properly understood in the light of Trinity in which He is begotten and of which He is the physical Incarnation.
The meaing of man, as a human being, as a nature, and as a person, can only be properly understood in light of the Trinity, in which resides the Logos of all, and the logoi of all individuation.
If one assumes that the incarnation is not a reality, but is simply a metaphor to address something utterly 'other', then the issue is self-defeating, Scripture says God made heavens and the earth, and that both are metaphysically 'good'. A metaphorical interpretation robs the material of its goodness, and assumes the physical has no intrinsic value — from here it's a short step to those pagan and/or gnostic doctrines that insist the material world is essentially evil, and exists contra to the will of God ... a place of necessary containment that needs to be adandoned at the first available opportunity ... not what Scripture says at all.
If one is talking of Trinity, and hasn't read the Fathers, and especially Augustine and Aquinas ... then really the 'empty vessel' analogy applies.
+++
Lastly, the first errors to occur are the last to go away, and Docetism, Cerinthusianism, Appolinarianism, etc., abound, and none moreso than in these days with rely on sentiment rather that objectivity to state what must be true 'because that's what I want to believe'.
The same worn out old dualities are asserted in the face of every teaching to resolve it. Only in Trinity is duality transcended, without reducing everything to a pantheistic monism that mocks both God and man.
Thomas
If one assumes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is simply a prolongation of pagan triunes within a Christian context, one will miss the point of what the doctrine is aiming at.
It is an axiom of the Trinity that one cannot state precisely what it is like, because it transcends all cosmological determination. One can point to the Trinity by analogy, but only as long as one is aware that this is an analogy, it is not exactly what it is.
The Fathers tried all manner of analogy — candle, flame and light; flame, light and heat; (hot)iron, heat and light, and so forth, but the better analogies were drawn from a correspondence in human nature — soul, intellect and will, and notably the lover, the loved, and their love — all far transcending the cosmological triunes of antiquity that usually figured the procession of the seasons, and the rites of fertiltiy, etc. Again, always remembering that the metaphor is analogous, and not a precise definition ... as soon as one says, the Trinity is, one is in error. The best we can say, is the Trinity is like ...
Note also that Father, Son and Holy Spirit avoid the obvious pitfall of gender determination at a metagender level, but inescapably use the closest and most informal terms to express a relationship — Father / Son — and a relationship bound in mutuality Father / Son / Spirit — that is the pattern for all subsequent relationship, and the pattern of right-relation, in the manifesting Kosmos. But again, one should remember that the Second and Third Person of the Trinity 'processes' from the first not by any organic manner, so in this sense even 'sonship' is only analogous ... but a fitting and acceptable reality because there is none better, physically nor spiritually.
No teaching can transcend the physical fact of the Person who is Jesus Christ.
If one assumes the teaching to be purely a metaphor, then unless there is a pre-existing foundation for the transferant reference of object of the metaphor itself, it is a fallacy. It is, again for the sake of precision, as best as we are able, that the Fathers sought to define the Mystery in such a way as to eradicate the possibility of error, as much as is possible. The absundancew of erroneous assumptions with regard to the Trinity today are due to the ignorance both of Scripture and of Christianity's philosophical tradition.
The Christian doctrine asserts certain a priori fundamentals — that God is utterly transcendant, that man is contingent, that if indeed there is the possibility of 'union' between the two, and Scripture states explicitly that there is ... then how is such a union possible between two natures that are as unalike as it is possible to be?
If Divine Union is a reality, and not a meaningless metaphor then the Principle of Union must exist in the Deity in principio before it can exist in nature ... if it's not in the Deity, then it's nothing more than a fantasia — one cannot unite with a nature that does not allow of the principle of unity. Therefore, if Union is indeed possible, the Principle of Unity must exist within the Godhead, before any subsequent determination, and it is this that separates the Trinity from all pagan cosmological triunes that preceded it.
Such being the case, the Way of the Union is determined by God, and the conditions established at the foundation of the world, conditions ameiorated only by Grace, which is a Gift of the Holy Spirit, mediated by the Son.
+++
The meaning of Jesus Christ, as a human being, and as a person, can only be properly understood in the light of Trinity in which He is begotten and of which He is the physical Incarnation.
The meaing of man, as a human being, as a nature, and as a person, can only be properly understood in light of the Trinity, in which resides the Logos of all, and the logoi of all individuation.
If one assumes that the incarnation is not a reality, but is simply a metaphor to address something utterly 'other', then the issue is self-defeating, Scripture says God made heavens and the earth, and that both are metaphysically 'good'. A metaphorical interpretation robs the material of its goodness, and assumes the physical has no intrinsic value — from here it's a short step to those pagan and/or gnostic doctrines that insist the material world is essentially evil, and exists contra to the will of God ... a place of necessary containment that needs to be adandoned at the first available opportunity ... not what Scripture says at all.
If one is talking of Trinity, and hasn't read the Fathers, and especially Augustine and Aquinas ... then really the 'empty vessel' analogy applies.
+++
Lastly, the first errors to occur are the last to go away, and Docetism, Cerinthusianism, Appolinarianism, etc., abound, and none moreso than in these days with rely on sentiment rather that objectivity to state what must be true 'because that's what I want to believe'.
The same worn out old dualities are asserted in the face of every teaching to resolve it. Only in Trinity is duality transcended, without reducing everything to a pantheistic monism that mocks both God and man.
Thomas
