The truth about Trinity

[taijasi]

Taijasi,

Which points are you confused about?

Nick,

I had always placed Siva as corresponding with `The Father' in Christianity. In one sense, I think this author agrees - and I'll hold to that. Brahma I would have said is Holy Spirit and Third Logos, yet this article suggests that Siva also appears as `The Father' ...

Then there's the refreshing reminder that the Holy Spirit is Feminine, which we - and I - know. Sometimes it is neuter. But this is 2nd Logos and not 3rd, as I would have thought, and did think. In combination, the 1st and 2nd Logoi produce a `Son,' the 3rd Logos.

Best of all, the article helps clarify and remove this entire discussion from the realm of `property' of some one tradition or religion. In that sense, most of us already recognize that the concepts, the attempt to understand the transcendent, and to discuss what esotericists call `the Seven Rays' - is a challenging task, no matter what one's background. In the context of this discussion on the Trinity, there is probably more information in the article than most folks will find useful. In the very least, it whets the appetite ...

... and we have experts on that present, as well.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry to interpose, but ...

I had always placed Siva as corresponding with `The Father' in Christianity. In one sense, I think this author agrees - and I'll hold to that. Brahma I would have said is Holy Spirit and Third Logos, yet this article suggests that Siva also appears as `The Father' ...

There is none but an assumed correlation. The relation between the Persons of the Trinity is a very real one; the Trimurti is a strategy of the era of 'Hindu homologation', an attempt to combine three quite distinct and unrelated deities. Neither one of the Trimurti claim any dependence upon the other. The doctrine never caught on in India, but has found much currency in the West, where everyone was trying to come up with a 'grand plan' to combine all the world's religions.

If more evidence was needed, the functions accorded to the Trimurti – creation, maintenance, and destruction – bear no correlation to those accorded to the Trinity.

Then there's the refreshing reminder that the Holy Spirit is Feminine, which we - and I - know.

We call it Sophiology in the Christian Tradition, but again, it is well known the Trinity is not determined by gender – their masculinity is all part of the analogy of their Persons, a preventative against a misreading of begotten.

In the Orthodox Church, sophiology has been condemned as heretical by the Patriarch of Moscow and other Orthodox hierarchs, who "...recognize the teaching of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia the Wisdom of God as heretical".

Orthodox icons and cathedrals with names often translated as "Saint Sophia" do exist, but they do not refer to a specific individual, human or divine, named "Sophia". Rather, they are a mistranslation of Ἁγία Σοφία, or "Holy Wisdom", which is a convention used in the Orthodox Church to refer to Our Lord.

In combination, the 1st and 2nd Logoi produce a `Son,' the 3rd Logos.

Nope. The Son proceeds from the Father alone, but He does not 'produce' Him. that is quite clear, and indisputable.

Best of all, the article helps clarify and remove this entire discussion from the realm of 'property' of some one tradition or religion.

If you believe that you can pipe down then.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Taijasi,

There are many misunderstandings about the Three Logoi, some of which you have pointed out. I will put up several posts to cover some of the misunderstandings.

The article correctly lists Siva as the Third Logos.

A great deal of confusion exists as to Brahma the First Logos vs. Brahma the Third Logos. The Third Logos is correctly spelled Brahmā (accent on the second a), whereas The First Logos is correctly spelled Brahma (no accent on the second a). We can see many examples of this incorrect spelling in the literature. I am wondering if your confusion of Brahma as the Third Logos is due to this spelling problem. (Many authors, when translating Sanskrit and other languages into English, tended to strip off all diacritical marks, causing these types of errors.)

 

[Hermes]

Guru, Guide, Master

The early christians did not believe in the Trinity. According to history, In year 325 A.D the trinity was establish in the Council of Nicea. This means that the Trinity was established 325 years after Jesus died. Therefore the trinity was not approved by God. and It was not approved by Jesus (because Jesus didn’t live while the trinity was established). The word trinity does not exist in the bible, and the formulation of the Trinity is not mentioned in the bible neither. Therefore trinity is based on falsehood and has nothing to do with the original teachings of christianity. And it is obvious that christianity has become distorted.

Most christians believe that Jesus was God’s son. If Jesus was God’s son, then when does he become God? Because if someone is a son, then he one day must become a father. As we can see, the belief that Jesus was the son of God, is illogical and it is based on falsehood. God can not have a son. God is not a human being. Only a human being can have a son. If God had a son, then it would exist two Gods. And that would be illogical. Therefore, when Jesus is described as God’s son in the bible, it should not be understood literally. The word son, in the bible, most likely have a symbolic meaning. In the bible, other persons are also described as the sons of God. For example, David is described as the Son of God in the bible (See Psalms 2:7).

Many christians even go as far claiming that Jesus was God. They claim that Jesus was God reincarnated. If Jesus was God, then why did christians believe that he died? As we know, God is immortal. But human beings die. So since Jesus died he could not have been immortal. Ergo, Jesus was not God. If Jesus was God, then why did he prayed to God? Does a god need to pray to a god? That would be completely illogical and absurd. The reason why Jesus prayed to God, was because he was a human being and needed help and support from God. In the bible, it says that Jesus prayed to God (see Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42, Matthew 26:44 and Luke 5:16).
There is not a single verse in the bible, where it says that Jesus is God. The christians who claim that Jesus is God, has misunderstood the whole christian religion. And they have ignored the original teachings of christianity. All messengers that came before Jesus were humans. So it makes no sense when people claim that Jesus was more than a human. Noah, Abraham, Jakob, Isak, Josef, Moses, and Muhammed were only humans. So Jesus was just a human, just like all of the other messengers.
Many people wonder when the doctrine of the Trinity began for the first time in our history. There were many doctrines of the Trinity in the past. But most likely the doctrine of a trinity was established for the first time in ancient Babylon. According to historians, this civilization flourished around 5000 years ago. Here is a list of the trinity gods of different religions:

Babylon: King, Prince and Queen.
Egyptian religion: Osiris, Horus and Isis.
Indian religion: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
Phoenician: Baal, Ashtoreth and Tammuz.
Greek religion: Zeus, Apollo and Hera.
Roman religion: Jupiter, Mars and Venus.
Christianity: The Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is a pagan doctrine taken from other religions, which became a part of Christianity. Trinity does not belong to the original teachings of Christianity. Those who established the Trinity in the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D were most likely inspired by pagan religions. As i mentioned earlier, the Trinity was established 325 years after Jesus died. Therefore the trinity was not approved by God. And It was not approved by Jesus (because Jesus didn’t live when the doctrine trinity was established).

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Taijasi,

You said,

"... the Holy Spirit is Feminine, which we - and I - know."

--> I take issue with the idea of equating the Holy Spirit with the Second Logos and also with the idea of the Holy Spirit being feminine. The concept of the Logoi is present in several of the world's religions, but the idea of the "Holy Spirit" is not.

The forms of the Triple Logos which are common to several religions are:

God
Mother
Son

or

Spirit
Matter
Our universe

The Catholics teach:

God
Mary
Jesus

...where spirit is spirit, Mary symbolizes "the pre-cosmic substance from which universes are created" and Jesus symbolizes our universe, which was temporarily created from pre-cosmic substance (and will cease to exist in the Big Crunch). These ideas are common to many of the world's religions.

But the idea of

Father
Son
Holy Spirit

are known only to Catholicism and are not reflected in any other world religion. In my opinion, trying to equate God-Mary-Jesus with Father-Son-Holy Spirit is like trying to shove round pegs through square holes. Even Genesis exclusively teaches the idea of Spirit-Matter-Universe (God-Mary-Jesus), if only we know where to look for it.

 

[Thomas]

Taijasi,

There are many misunderstandings about the Three Logoi, some of which you have pointed out. I will put up several posts to cover some of the misunderstandings.

Can you open your own thread on the topic, as its unrelated to this thread?

 

[wil]

three logos...

the metaphor in the Trinity extends to being in the Trinity...

Just as the only begotten is continually begotten

Our Father he said...not MY Father....

There are infinite Trinities in the Trinity


G!d Mary Jesus
G!d Merry Jesus
G!d Marry Jesus


Holy Spirit as Feminine? G!d as feminine...

Principle/Universal Law
Thought/Concept
Ether/primordial stew

 

[Thomas]

three logos...

I know. As this is a 'made up' doctrine, nothing to do with the Trinity, nor indeed the Abrahamic Traditions, Greek Philosophy, etc., I've asked if they can take their discussion elsewhere.

the metaphor in the Trinity extends to being in the Trinity...

I'm not sure what metaphor you're referring to?

Just as the only begotten is continually begotten

Quite.

The theological term for this dynamism when referring to the Trinity, is perichoresis in Greek, circumincession in Latin, meaning 'rotation' or 'circulation', to point to the fact that the Three are One, and that all Three are in each One ... sometimes coinherence is used ... 'proceed' is OK, but 'produce' is definitely barking up the wrong tree.

It's the subtle nuances of the doctrine that most people are unaware of. Indeed it's surprising how many people have a lot to say about what the Trinity is or isn't, when it's clear they don't even know what the doctrine says.

Our Father he said...not MY Father....

Oh dear, Wil ... I know you like saying this, but you do know you're wrong.

When Jesus speaks of Himself and the Father, He says 'My Father'. When He instructs His audience, He says 'Your Father' — check it out if you don't believe me.

That would indicate that He's talking about two different 'fathers', His, and everyone else's So where are you gonna go with that?

Only in Matthew does Jesus say 'Our Father' – so taking a leaf from your book, we can write that off as unreliable – but then He's teaching the community a prayer, so the 'our' does not include Himself, rather the 'our' refers to the community ...

And Luke simply tells them to say 'Father', no possessive pronoun at all!

There are infinite Trinities in the Trinity

And yet there isn't ...

But you can probably spin as many examples as there are opinions! Whether either relate to the Trinity is another matter.

 

[wil]

He instructs the audience to say YOUR father...

Proved my point. We are all the sons and daughters of G!d.

More than that, we are G!d expressing in this plane of existence....all of us...all material objects...expressing as aspects of the one.

 

[Thomas]

He instructs the audience to say YOUR father...

Exactly. Not His.

Proved my point.

Nope. Actually you're proving mine.

We are all the sons and daughters of G!d.

Metaphorically speaking, as you would be the first to point out.

We are all the sons and daughters of the planet, of the West, the First World, of cheap gas and shopping malls, of consumerism run rampant. Of our nation's flag, of our community, of the 60s, our political structures. Our habits. Our virtues and vices.

We're sons and daughters of all sorts of things, and not all of them good.

Heck, we're sons and daughters of the Atomic Age, anyone born after the 50s has a significantly higher quantity of radio active material in their very bones ...

But not actually. Actually, we're the children of our mum and dad.

More than that, we are G!d expressing in this plane of existence....all of us...all material objects...expressing as aspects of the one.

Very Romantic, but claiming 'divine paternity' gives us carte blanche to do whatever tickles our fancy... Rather lacking critical discernment, don't you think?

I mean, I don't want to start listing things like rape, murder, child abuse, self harm ... you know what I mean ... but do you really think that is God expressing Himself?

Really?

 

[wil]

yup.... all of creation is G!d.

I scramble the potential offsrping of His hens and add peppers and onions and eat them all for my benefit.

Thousands of dino's died so I can fly across the oceans polluting the air....all good.

Crusades, Holocausts, of His creation.

What you think He would blame the former administration?

 

[Thomas]

yup.... all of creation is G!d.
What you think He would blame the former administration?

I think you've so convinced yourself of your divinity, you've forgotten what it means to be human.

 

[wil]

lol... You callin me a heretic? Because I say we are children of G!d? Because I say the divine is within and all around us?

et tu Pilate?

I am, a spiritual being having a human experience.

G!d is, experiencing, through us.

Just because I can't see the good in the moment, or in my life does not mean it isn't.

 

[Thomas]

lol... You callin me a heretic?

Naw ... just human.

Because I say we are children of G!d? Because I say the divine is within and all around us?

We are, aren't we? But is that saying we are inherently divine? Not really.

et tu Pilate?

Lol! From you? The man who questions any notion of 'truth' as utterly fallible? Please!

I am, a spiritual being having a human experience.

Or is it a human being having a spiritual experience?

Either way – we can argue both – it's all of a piece, for good or ill. The discernment is in figuring out which is which!

(And, by the way, I think 'a spiritual experience' is somewhat over-worked. But I think the writings of the mystics assure us that the authentic 'spiritual experience' is of the Other, not of ourselves!

We might come to know ourselves better on reflection, but it is the reflection of the finite in the face of the Infinite, the ephemeral in the face of the Eternal.

Everybody wants to be loved, Wil, to be identified with the Good.

If we could only love with the same ardent desire we have to be loved!

G!d is, experiencing, through us.

Ooh, that's very anthropomorphic! I really don't think God needs us to work out who He is. There is nothing God can 'experience'! You're thinking of God in human terms.

You got it the wrong way round, bro!

The message of the Trinity is the perfecting of us, not us perfecting God.

God is God. He has no need to further perfect Himself.

The whole trace of human existence is man's desire to know, tainted by his desire to possess. (The one thing he was warned against, and chose to ignore, according to Genesis.)

But don't put that on God. God is not a man, and is not confined by man's horizons.

Just because I can't see the good in the moment, or in my life does not mean it isn't.

Sadly, doesn't mean it is, either. To simply say 'everything is good' just reduces the meaning of everything to nothing.

And sometimes we have to face the fact that if the moment is not evidently good, then perhaps there's something amiss that needs putting right, and that might well require a sacrifice of sorts ...

That's a very Trinitarian thing to do.

 

[wil]

....
Ooh, that's very anthropomorphic! I really don't think God needs us to work out who He is. There is nothing God can 'experience'! You're thinking of God in human terms.

You got it the wrong way round, bro!

....

God is God. He has no need to further perfect Himself.

Sorry about be anthropomorphic about HIM... this is fun.

I didn't intend to imply that we were perfecting G!d (G!d is a principle, not being .... but is, not loving...but love, not personal, no list keeping....

We are expressions of the one, not just you and I, the ants and rocks as well... a panentheism...but you knew that.

 

[donnann]

Sorry about be anthropomorphic about HIM... this is fun.

I didn't intend to imply that we were perfecting G!d (G!d is a principle, not being .... but is, not loving...but love, not personal, no list keeping....

We are expressions of the one, not just you and I, the ants and rocks as well... a panentheism...but you knew that.

god has a personality from which all personalities come from. he can be defined as much as we are because we are in his image.

 

[Thomas]

Sorry about be anthropomorphic about HIM... this is fun.

I rather hoped you'd get the point and see your errors.

I didn't intend to imply that we were perfecting G!d

You did rather imply that God seeks 'experience'.

We are expressions of the one ...

Lol! 'experience', 'expression' ... same mistake. You're thinking of God as being like you again.

And some people might wonder – people working at the coal face of human suffering – what, precisely, your 'g!d' is expressing?

l... a panentheism ...but you knew that.

Haha! Whoa! Stop confusing the issue.

I'm not a panentheist – as well you know – and neither are you, although you might think you are. I wish you were, it would be a step in the right direction!

 

[Thomas]

It might be good to get back to thinking of the Trinity in meta-cosmic terms.

The idea of God 'experiencing' or 'expressing' is cosmological, it's building an image from the ground up and so we tend, as I'm arguing with Wil, to build our own psychologies into the image of the Deity.

The same with the Trimurti of 'creation-maintenance-destruction', that's looking at the way of the world, and determining God thereby.

God, in the Christian Tradition, informed by Greek philosophy, transcends the classical 'transcendentals' of Parmenides and Plato, The One, The Good and The True. Aristotle focussed on 'The One' as primary, as both Good and True are relative terms and relate to rational creatures, who became conscious of the not-so-good and the not-quite-true.

Inevitably a discussion of the Trinity falls back into human language, but, being human, what other terms do we have? The point is always remember we are talking in analogous terms, and we tend to try and use precise terms because the topic is so easily confused.

On pantheism:
The Trinity is not dependent on, nor determined by, the Cosmos. God did not come into being with the Big Bang. God is not a created nature, as everything within the Cosmos is. God is not a 'thing' as other things are, and although we predicate certain aspects to the Divine – God is a Spirit, God is Love – like Truth and Beauty, these are the concepts of rational creatures.

We assume God to be rational. If not, then any debate is pointless!

But the world in not God, nor did God produce the world from His own substance or being. Creatio ex nihilo is fundamental to this issue. Matter is not a by-product of a process within the Divine.

As I have consistently argued, God is Immanently present to creation, indeed God underpins its existence, but that does not mean that God is creation.

Modern panentheism was born out of the Romance Movement, primarily German Idealism. To offer a perspective:

Abrahamic Theism
Sees God as being distinct from the world. The difference between the nature of God and the nature of Creation is infinitely vast. The Uncreate and the created. God is utterly transcendant, whilst simultaneously Immanently present to and in the world, but not as the world.

Pantheism
Stresses the identity of God and the world ontologically. Pantheism inescapably renders both the Deity and the world as conditional, all distinctions are temporary. There is often a strong sense of necessity in God's creation of the world, so that God as God must express deity in creation.

Panentheism
Maintains the ontological distinction between God and the world (I'm not sure you do, Wil?)

Panentheism generally emphasizes God's presence in the world without losing the distinct identity of either God or the world, specific forms of panenethism, drawing from a different sources, explain the nature of the relationship of God to the world in a variety of ways and come to different conclusions about the significance of the world for the identity of God.

Transcendence
God is un-contained, unlimited by any other being or reality.

Immanence
God's presence to the world.

Some panentheists see monotheism as limiting the affirmation of God's immanence. If the divine presence is indeed transcendent, then God's presence and activity within the world is an intervention of the supernatural within the natural. God, then, is absent from the natural except in specific cases of intervention.

This is not the case in orthodox Christianity, as we do not see 'immanence' in opposition to 'transcendence', rather we view everything as having God as its first cause, but also free, in the case of rational creatures, to make choices.

It seems to me, in dialogue with pan and panentheists, that:
1: It enables man to believe himself inherently divine. A kind of the 'I'm OK, You're OK' cliché of the pop psychology of the counter-culture.
(This was not the case prior to recent history. Man has never been so self-obsessed as he is today.)

2: It enables man to assert the freedom to choose is more important than the choices made. My choice is necessarily good, because I choose to make that choice. Its the point Mattieu Ricard (the French Tibetan Buddhist and media-regarded as 'the happiest man in the world') makes often – people exercise their freedom to make choices, blissfully unaware that the choices they make are nothing more than the whims of the moment. Look inside the mind, and there isn't a 'mind', there's a monkey, pushing the buttons and pulling the stops ...

I rather think the aim of meditation is the discipline of the mind. Beginner's Mind is ill-disciplined, and yet in this state the beginner wants to determine the nature and the course of the engagement.

Such is the mind that declares what the Trinity is, or isn't, with glib abandon.

Beginner's mind want the gratification, but is rather less disposed to put in the effort.

People who talk about 'finding what's right for me' are just affirming the whim of the moment, which becomes the habit of tomorrow. A self-fulfilling prophecy. At the start of the journey, you're not equipped to make any such determination. What is being sought is too often gratification.

As the wise old Zen master said. "Enough talk. Zazen!"

To even begin to understand the Trinity, you have to make space in your mind.

 

[wil]

Such is the mind that declares what the Trinity is, or isn't, with glib abandon.

To even begin to understand the Trinity, you have to make space in your mind.

Lol....quite the diatribe for someone who comes to the well with an empty cup.

Again Thomas... your beliefs are your beliefs...they are fine for you and yours...not so for me and mine.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids...

 

[Thomas]

So dismissive, so egotistical, and so offensive.

Thanks for reminding me just how much time spent here is time wasted.