GlorytoGod
There is a River
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]thats really deep man
[/FONT]
Yogananda on the Trinity
- Thread starter GlorytoGod
- Start date
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]thats really deep man
[/FONT]
That's a really deep man.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]thats really deep man
[/FONT]
Can't remember how long it took me to just be able to pronounce his name, have yet to understand all of what he is trying to say... but like Tich Naht Han love the way he relates his beliefs to Christian understandings.
Indeed it is deep ... but sadly, inaccurate, being an interpretation of one doctrine according to the principles of another.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Three and One, the same in substance and essence, different only according to relation.
The Hindu doctrine renders Son and Spirit as subsequent and temporal manifestations of the One within a cosmological context. This is not what the traditional Christian doctrine says.
Thomas
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Three and One, the same in substance and essence, different only according to relation.
The Hindu doctrine renders Son and Spirit as subsequent and temporal manifestations of the One within a cosmological context. This is not what the traditional Christian doctrine says.
Thomas
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
It is really deep.
It reminds me of the String Theory.
What a pleasure to see a story that brings together different faiths including science.
Group hug.
It reminds me of the String Theory.
What a pleasure to see a story that brings together different faiths including science.
Group hug.
I believe the concept put forth is that man receives an understanding from spirit and writes it down. Man interprets this thought and turns it into religions. Depending on the experience, demographics, knowledge, language, understanding, abilities of the man receiving the understanding and the man writing down the understanding, the actual true nature of spirit can be distorted somewhat.
I believe that it is as easy to tear apart the specifics of any one doctrine as it is to decide to tear apart those that are trying to understand a number of doctrines and their connections between each other.
As a member of an interfaith site, I honor those that look outside the box and not stuck in their own we are right and you are wrong concepts.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
You seem to need a group hug smiley.
Here's the coding to the one in my album that you can use.
[noparse]
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thomas,
Do you really mean Church doctrine whenever you say "Christian doctrine"?
Shiva create Vishnu and Brahma.
What is the criteria for "traditional"?
Do you really mean Church doctrine whenever you say "Christian doctrine"?
OK. But the Father did not create the Son or the Spirit.
That which was taught by the Apostles, and hasn't been substantially trivialised by skeptics, or restricted according to what seems reasonable to me (whoever 'me' might be).
Nope. The Mystery of the Blessed Trinity is common to Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Patriarchies, and although we do have a local dispute about the procession of the Third Person, there is no dispute about the circumincession (Gk perichoresis) of the Three Persons in the one God.
Actually, if you can get hold of Vol II of the Philokalia, you'll find St Maximus' '100 Sentences on Knowledge' which addresses the Doctrine of the Trinity and which should blow most people's socks off:
The Father is in the Son, wholly and entirely,
The Father is in the Holy Spirit, wholly and entirely,
The Son is in the Father, wholly and entirely,
The Son is in the Holy Spirit, wholly and entirely,
The Holy Spirit is in the Father, wholly and entirely,
The Holy Spirit is in the Son, wholly and entirely.
Each is God, wholly and entirely, and the divinity rests in each, wholly and entirely.
God is not divided, proportioned, aportioned, shared out, shared in, or in any other way diffused among the persons
Each Person is wholly and entirely God,
Each person is wholly and entirely Himself.
Wherever the One Person is, there the other two are also.
Thomas
Well I disagree with your interpretation, which boils down to "because I can show that someone can get something wrong, ergo its best to assume that everybody gets everything wrong" which is faulty logic, but totally in line with your doctrine of skepticism and 'the critical minimum'.
As you do on numerous occasions. It would be useful if you could put something of equal value back in its place, but you never do. Your posts here serve only to unsettle or cast doubt on the faith of others, and provide nothing in return, having none to offer, which is why I confront you more than any other, especially when you present as 'fact' what all agree is only a thesis, and some of yours are more fragile and assumptive than the thesis they seek to undermine.
The very fact that Yogananda has interpreted the Trinity according to his own doctrine shows he's not thinking outside the box, is he? He's fitting the Trinity into his own box.
In the name of interfaith, I would be a hypocrite if I 'honoured' an untruth or an error for the sake of appearing as a friend — a better friend would say, 'no, that's not quite right ...'
If you check back, I have posted on this site about the triune 'Sat-Cat-Ananda' which I feel is also close to an expression of the Trinity — but it's not quite there, either.
If by interfaith you mean what one believes doesn't matter, all that counts is we all get along ... then that's not interfaith, that's just sentimentalism.
Thomas
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thomas,
To which you replied:
I have no way of disputing this.
To which you replied:
What did the Apostles say about the Trinity?
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I have an idea.
Why don't we have another thread where we nit-pick over details that were unknowable in the first place.
That'll be new.
Why don't we have another thread where we nit-pick over details that were unknowable in the first place.
That'll be new.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Maybe call it "Pondering Unponderables."
Most anything in Religion, Faith, and Theology would fit in.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I haven't heard that before.
No. It's a matter of faith — Revelation is not 'accessible' to reason, else we would arrive at that data under our own intellectual light.
Well we can safely assume:
1: They profess a belief in God the Father;
2: They profess a belief in Jesus Christ as Son of God, born as a man, crucified, died and resurrected in the flesh;
3: They profess a belief in the Holy Spirit as truly distinct from the Father and the Son.
Working back:
They believed in Jesus Christ as a person, all historical argument aside, there are no real grounds for thinking that they did not believe He was man, and he was God.
They were taught to address the Father as a person, as the very term 'abba' denotes a person, in relation to another person. That is, although the term 'father' can be adduced of a creator, a maker, etc., it does not imply quite the depth of intimate relation that abba implies.
They taught the Holy Spirit as being God, like the Son, but like the Son simultaneously other than God, the Father, and as such as a person, in that as the Son chose to make himself known as a person, and revealed the Father as a person, then it is fitting to regard the Holy Spirit, in its absolute equality with the Father and the Son, as a person.
That an explicit Trinitarian doctrine is not expressed is simply explained: For one, there was no serious theological dispute about the matter, as there was no such dispute about the Son until the Arian controversy, that called for a more sophisticated doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Peter says of Cornelius: "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" (Acts 10:47). Not received Jesus, or even the Spirit of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit as other.
St Paul was preaching the Holy Spirit as distinct and personal from the outset of his ministry — exegetes of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions teach that, and the Anglican exegete Henry Barclay Swete (1835-1917) has shown such by his knowledge of Greek.
"and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" 1 Corinthians 12:3. See also Ephesians 1:13, 3:5, 4:30 and 1 Thessalonians 4:8.
It is accepted that Ephesians, for example, was written after Paul's martyrdom, about 80AD, but by someone thoroughly steeped in Pauline theology. This makes this letter contemporary with the Synoptics.
The Book of Acts, written by Luke about the same time, is called The Gospel of the Holy Spirit — And in Peter's first discourse at Pentecost he says "But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" Acts 2:38.
Until then, the disciples had assumed that the return of the Messiah would signal the re-establishment of the Davidic Kingdom — when He told them to wait in Jerusalem, He was asked "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Acts 1:6.
So Peter's preaching of the Son and the Holy Spirit, as God and yet distinct from the Father and each other, begins after Pentecost — it is a subsequent revelation and not part of Jesus' pre-Ascension teaching, although once realised, the preparation for it can be seen in the teaching of Christ whilst on earth, and foreshadowed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
It's worth noting that many claim the Holy Spirit is an invention of the Johannine Community, whereas the above indicates evidence long before the Gospel of John. The Gospel does however 'explain' something of the silence of the matter in the Synoptics, when he says "Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive, who believed in him: for as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John 7:39).
It's also worth noting that anything we say about the Trinity can only be analogous, as we cannot conceive of the Trinity, any more than we can know what it's like to be God. Thus even the concept of 'person' is analogous in that sense, but being as Christ used it, if it's good enough for Him, it's good enough for us, and the idea of person expresses in a way that no other term can, the degree of intimacy of union spoken of in the Christian Tradition.
Thomas
nativeastral
fluffy future
quote seattlegal;I haven't heard that before.
well he's the one with the big p*** so it had to be him!
N
Nick_A
Guest
You are creating a conflict where it doesn't exit.
You've read the expression I am that I am as the name of God which is also translated I shall be that I shall be. These are names of God. But the point is that "I" by itself is insufficient. I needs "am." This is a bit complicated to get into now but taking "am" as creation itself as part of the name of God, creation is a necessity.
The Trinity that comprises "I" is outside time and space. However the Trinity of "Am" is a vertical cosmological relationship that creates "NOW," "I Am" is the union of the unmanifest with the manifest, no-thing with every-thing.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The first official statement of doctrine was issued by the Counsel of Nicaea in 352 A.D. Apparently it was included as a last minute addition. Still there was no consensus on the matter at the time even though it had been vigorously debated. The Arian controversy was much latter.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Bro. Thomas' rendering that "there was no such dispute about the Son until the Arian controversy" is only one take on what happened. But it seems there is more than one view.
It seems Trinitarian doctrine actually became more of an issue AFTER the Church found Arius (250–336 AD) to be a heretic -- a finding it would retract. Later the Church would retract its retraction!
The controversy over Arianism began to rise in the late 3rd century and extended over the greater part of the 4th century and involved most church members, simple believers, priests and monks as well as bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Yet, such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the 3rd and 4th centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines.
Interestingly, Constantine tried to put an end to the Trinitarian issue without reference to theological basis. Having become the sole emperor, he
concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order. He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay.
our group has the answer, faith tell us so. no our group has the answer, faith tell us so. no no our group has the answer, faith tell us so. and so it goes. each group has the only answer? Hmm. So some come to explore what the different answers provide, perhaps there are similarities or sameness of idea. The original idea, where does it come from? When was it shared? How has it been influenced by it's surroundings? There's only validity in one group?
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
That's what I've been trying to tell 'em joe!
They would rather argue the number of hairs on the the angels dancing on the head of the pin.
And they'll find a way to split those too.
They would rather argue the number of hairs on the the angels dancing on the head of the pin.
And they'll find a way to split those too.