Yogananda on the Trinity

[wil]

I was hoping this discussion would eventually get to the meaning of hypostatic union of the divine and human, so that we could at least make some sense of the idea of becoming more human in a divine way, which I believe it what it's all about.

Trinity

Father Son Holy Ghost

Mind Idea Expression

 

[seattlegal]

Fr Gilles Emery recently published a book that explains the purpose of Trinitarian theology. I hope to purchase it to fill in the rather big gaps I am left with in the wake of this discussion. The title is Trinity, Church, and the Human Person.

I was hoping this discussion would eventually get to the meaning of hypostatic union of the divine and human, so that we could at least make some sense of the idea of becoming more human in a divine way, which I believe it what it's all about.

Galatians 5 covers that pretty well, imo.

However, it seems our discussion has concluded with a circular argument to the effect that Church doctrine must be accepted as true because the Church said so. This is a very dangerous position from which to argue because the logic can be used to defend any position, regardless of its merits.

Tradition has value but is not self-validating. But that is how the Church has defined it. This approach strikes me as incompatible with the ecumene of humanity. As I understand it, the Church was commissioned to call the
world to a universal priesthood, not to become an exclusive and finite community founded on cult doctrine that even by Bro. Thomas admission lacks official statement.

I'm concerned the approach in question could actually be interfere directly with building the community of faith inaugurated by Jesus, whose mission was to expand in the direction of universal practice the applicability of the L-rd's goal for perfecting fellowship among humankind in a manner that far transcends medieval notions of corporate ecclesiology.

I think Galatians 5 covers this, in a general way, as well.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Well it is, as the Church alone is enabled to interpret Scripture: "unto you it is given ..." (Matthew 13:11).

Thomas, this is an extraordinary misapplication of a Bible quote. Matthew 13:11 reads as follows: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you." There is no mention of scripture. The "knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom" language would seem to designate a noumenal state that that is completely unrelated to ecclesiastic/ministerial functions.

You cite John 14:17 and John 15:26. There is nothing in either of these two passage to suggest that receiving the Holy Spirit is linked to ordination. Moreover, receiving the Holy Spirit does not give anyone authority to promulgate doctrine about the nature of an unknowable G-d. Your reading of these passages is seriously askew and downright sloppy.

Let's look at the John 15:26. "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." Jesus tells the disciples that he will be sending them the Holy Spirit. Why does the Holy Spirit need to be directed if it is co-equal with Christ Jesus and the Father?? If the Holy Spirit was a volitional person, why was this not reflected in what Jesus said ? ....Maybe you could find some forced, convoluted explanation. But in case you're interested, Rev. Dr. Kelly has suggested that the scene supports Binitarian doctrine. I agree with him.

One other thing: there is no suggestion that "knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom" can be equated with knowledge of G-d's nature. "The Kingdom" is the quality of relationships between/among believers. Some theologians say that it does not include institutions (e.g., the Church).

Let's look at the John 14:17. "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him." It seems the Holy Spirit is totally dependent on the Father's action.

Jesus does not direct the Holy Spirit himself. He says he will call upon the Father to make it happen. This suggests that all three persons have different powers. Implication: they are not co-equals. Thus John 14:17 doesn't even support Binitarian doctrine, let alone Trinity doctrine. Moreover, the passage provides no indication that noumena implies priestly authority, let alone authority to promulgate doctrine about the nature of an unknowable G-d.

 

[seattlegal]

1 John 2
I recommend reading the whole chapter, but here are a couple of excerpts:

12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of His name. (S)
13 I am writing to you, fathers,
because you have come to know the One who is from the beginning. (T)
I am writing to you, young men,
because you have had victory over the evil one. (U)
14 I have written to you, children,
because you have come to know the Father.
I have written to you, fathers,
because you have come to know the One who is from the beginning.
I have written to you, young men,
because you are strong,
God's word (V) remains in you,
and you have had victory over the evil one.
<...>


20 But you have an anointing (AF) from the Holy One, (AG) and you all have knowledge. [f] 21 I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? (AH) He is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son can have the Father; (AI) he who confesses the Son has the Father as well. (AJ)
Remaining with God

24 What you have heard from the beginning must remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son (AK) and in the Father. (AL) 25 And this is the promise that He Himself made to us: eternal life. (AM) 26 I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 The anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you don't need anyone to teach you. Instead, His anointing teaches you about all things, (AN) and is true and is not a lie; just as it has taught you, remain in Him. (AO)​

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, this is an extraordinary misapplication of a Bible quote. Matthew 13:11 reads as follows: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you." There is no mention of scripture. The "knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom" language would seem to designate a noumenal state that that is completely unrelated to ecclesiastic/ministerial functions.

Of course there's no mention of Scripture, these are the men who wrote it! This is the experience from which it flows. This is 'prior to', silly billy! Scripture, Tradition, Ecclesiology, the Life in and of the Church, it all flows from this ...

... But you have set your heart against the Church and, in so doing, albeit unwittingly, against it's Founder.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas, in your Post #59 you contend that the "Church alone is enabled to interpret Scripture: by virtue of having been given knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven." We were talking about the Church (presumably an extension of the disciples) interpreting Scripture versus going beyond scripture to develop new doctrine (e.g., the Christian Trinity). I made the distinction between interpreting scripture and promulgating new doctrine. I'll say it again: to interpret Scripture is not the same as developing new doctrine and teachings about G-d.

It seems you want to argue that "knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom" is a condition for being able to promulgate new doctrine about G-d's nature. That being the case, one would expect to see to that effect in Matthew 13:11, the passage you cited. But there is no mention of that at all or even anything like that.

Further, in Mark 16:15 Jesus tells his disciples to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone." That's authorizing them to develop new doctrine either. I don't understand where you get some of these ideas. The Bible tells us something very different.

Of course there's no mention of Scripture, these are the men who wrote it!

I was referring to Jesus' teachings. His disciples didn't write the material that appears in the Old Testament either. But to get back on topic: there is nothing in Matthew 13:11 to suggest that having "knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom" qualifies anyone - a disciple or otherwise - to develop and communicate new teachings different from what Jesus had passed on about G-d. You made that up!

From your previous post:

"Paul is acknowledging him (Christ Jesus) as heir and ruler of the world from the beginning"

There is no way to confirm or disconfirm Jesus' "eternal Begotten-ness." At this point we are at a doctrinal impasse. But you might recall Matthew 1:18 telling us that Jesus was born of Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. I'm sure you can make the case that "being born" means something different from being born. To me, being born is what it is to have a beginning as a finite, time-bound, created being. It means the person is not eternal.

I realize I'm speculating on underlying motivation, but here's the impression I'm getting: you want to convince us - and possibly yourself - that the Bible supports the Church's authority. In the process of developing this argument you confound being enabled to interpret Scripture with having authority to develop and communicate new, non-Scriptural teachings. It's as though you see your mission is to save corporate ecclesiology even if means making the Scripture say things is doesn't say or claiming to find Biblical support where there is none.

If you would kindly consider putting the traditionalist agenda on the back burner for a bit, so that we can have a real discussion. Thank you.

... But you have set your heart against the Church and, in so doing, albeit unwittingly, against it's Founder.

This sounds like somebody is trying to twist my arm.

 

[Bandit]

There is no way to confirm or disconfirm Jesus' "eternal Begotten-ness." At this point we are at a doctrinal impasse.

that is one of those things that they just made up because they could never explain the other stuff they just made up. Though it works very well if you can picture a baby chicken hatching from the same egg a gazillion times eternity going in both directions...it just never stops rehatching itself out of the same shell, like a western sci-fi of a human head in a jar.

The biggest error of all is when they had to create new theology defintions of words to explain the stuff they made up and could never explain it when those defintions begin to contradict each other. They defaulted from the original hebrew & greek for their own imaginary words and definitions. That is when you hear, shut up and be silent or we will silence you for you.

 

[Bandit]

Trinity

Father Son Holy Ghost

Mind Idea Expression

3 headed black snake.

I was thinking about a siamese triplets? or would it be siamese triplet?