The Trinity

[BrotherMichaelSky]

I see the cart before the horse in this thread - even though it looks to have been a simple exercise in gathering threes.....

The Doctrine of the Trinity was created by a worldly institution.... it has very little bearing on the Triune concept of Godhead - other than the Triune concept being the source for the creation of more dogma....

In my opinion the concept is simply trying to explain how our Father's Laws are set up.
by way of explanation :
the highest level of creation contains the ONE - one concept explains God on this level
next level down ( i prefer octave - seems appropriate to me ) there are multiple Laws being observed, which explain Our Father...
next octave of lower vibration, there are a great many Laws which must be understood to understand our Father.

and each level below that adds more differentiation, and much more must be understood before a picture of Our Father emerges....
and so on, and so on......

so the concept is trying to explain that there is a specific direction from which to approach Our Father if we truly want to understand him.... we must seek the connection within - which has a direct connection to Our Father, so that we may find Him in simplicity.

 

[Thomas]

Senses are extensions of the mind, not the other way around.

Wouldn't evolution say differently? Organic life possesses rudimentary senses, but without mind?

I would still argue however that the mind is 'empty' and receives data from the senses, so the epithet holds, I think?

Are you not suggesting 'intelligent design'?

My belief is that Our Subjective Universe shapes our Objective Universe.

Agreed, but still I would say the mind receives data of the objective universe through the senses, and shapes its reality accordingly.

It's the great Monad theory . . . we are a singularity, the nanosecond we become aware/conscious there is a division, a duality, there is now our True Self and this Objective Self that spirals downward in frequency until it becomes physical and is thus incarnate into the Objective Universe.

I can agree on many points, but I think there are certain clear distinctions in the Traditions that put forward these metaphysical models which tend to get overlooked.

The biggest error is to confuse the 'I' that is the Monad / Singularity / One / Logos / Self / whatever with the existential 'i' that is you and me ... they're not the same thing at all.

The latter 'i', you and I, is ephemeral, contingent, subsistent ... it is not some 'fracture' of the Monad, nor an emanation, nor is it a mode of the Monad's self-knowing ... no mode of existence can come anywhere near adding to the Monad, nor does the Monad 'learn' anything by 'realising' Itself in any other mode than Itself, for any other mode than Itself is infinitely less than it, Itself, is ... what is there to know it does not already know?

It's a huge assumption that you, or I, or the cosmos, or any number of infinite universes, can teach the Monad anything ... by its very nature the Monad suffers no determination nor necessity, nor does it suffer division or duality ... I think this is anthropomorphism again?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

But it is shaped by them ...

'Nothing is in the mind that was not first in the senses' still holds true.

If there were no senses, the mind would have no data to play with.

God bless,

Thomas

What about God being in our minds then? Spiritual experiences of a sensory nature are considered to be a sign of makyo in eastern traditions.

You can also find this makyo/devil's cave concept and its association with sensory nature in the Bible at James 3:13-18 and 2 Thess 2, especially verses 9-12. (Also known as antichrist)

 

[Etu Malku]

Wouldn't evolution say differently? Organic life possesses rudimentary senses, but without mind?

I would still argue however that the mind is 'empty' and receives data from the senses, so the epithet holds, I think?

Are you not suggesting 'intelligent design'?


Agreed, but still I would say the mind receives data of the objective universe through the senses, and shapes its reality accordingly.


I can agree on many points, but I think there are certain clear distinctions in the Traditions that put forward these metaphysical models which tend to get overlooked.

The biggest error is to confuse the 'I' that is the Monad / Singularity / One / Logos / Self / whatever with the existential 'i' that is you and me ... they're not the same thing at all.

The latter 'i', you and I, is ephemeral, contingent, subsistent ... it is not some 'fracture' of the Monad, nor an emanation, nor is it a mode of the Monad's self-knowing ... no mode of existence can come anywhere near adding to the Monad, nor does the Monad 'learn' anything by 'realising' Itself in any other mode than Itself, for any other mode than Itself is infinitely less than it, Itself, is ... what is there to know it does not already know?

It's a huge assumption that you, or I, or the cosmos, or any number of infinite universes, can teach the Monad anything ... by its very nature the Monad suffers no determination nor necessity, nor does it suffer division or duality ... I think this is anthropomorphism again?

God bless,

Thomas

I guess in the end, we don't really know these answers, but it's fun to philosophize!

 

[Thomas]

Human nature or nature itself?

Same thing. God is a 'nature' only analogously.

I don't believe Jesus was God, but I do believe he was God's son.

I find that somewhat contradictory ... but then it depends how you define 'son'?

His heavenly father being the spiritual, his mother being physical, and he being a composition of both.

Then that makes Him neither one nor the other?

We too have been given the breath of life. We are both born of our earthly parents, and of our spiritual father.

I don't think that's a tenable argument, in that you're treating 'life' and 'God' as synonyms. If it were true, then 'life' would be a proof of God.

Could love and Word be more akin to descriptors than actualities?

Not really, in that act and potency coincide in God, therefore God is what He is, rather than is like a descriptor (then again, of course, God is beyond description).

Most Christians view the Word to be Jesus who they further proclaim is God. I disagree with this, as the Word (logos) describes the Spirit behind our Creator.

Well the Prologue of John says otherwise.

Word / Verbum / Logos / Memra ... proceed from God, you seem to reverse the process, in direct contradiction of both Old and New Testaments?

For instance one might read John 1 like this: "In the beginning was love...

You might, but then you'd miss the point that John was making.

To me, love defines God as it is the Spirit behind God.

You're posing two Gods now?

Love is the Spirit of life, and Jesus embodied this Spirit fully.

I would dispute that, in that you're compounding 'love', 'spirit' and 'life' into one thing. A thing is determined as living according to its act. Not all acts are acts of love ...

Couldn't then love be the Wisdom of our Creator and the Word (Logos) through which all things were made? Couldn't God have made ALL things through love? Isn't love the Spirit and Wisdom of our Creator? Did Jesus not embody love fully? Did he not personify what it means to live through this Spirit and fulfill the will of God?

I would say He did personify it, because He is the Incarnation of It.

He is that which He personifies, He is the Source of Life, not simply someone who is more fully alive than any other — that point is made again and again in the New Testament.

The trinity to me is this: Spiritual (father), physical (mother) and child (son).

The point is, that's not the Trinity of Christianity, and again and again I keep saying, triunes such as you offer are determined according to human nature and predicated of God, they're anthropomorphisms, and nothing at all to do with the doctrine as expressed in Scripture.

So you can have your own private definition, but that's not what Christianity is or says. All I can say is I find provate definitions insufficient.

We all are part of God's family...

I rather think this is sentimentalism speaking now. If that we true, then we can do what we like to whom we like with impunity, and God's greatest quality would be His irresponsibility.

You think a rapist or child abuser or mass murder is equally part of God's family, fulfilling God's will?

You don't think, at any point, God, having granted His creation the freedom to refuse His love, cannot say 'on your own head be it'?

You think He was kidding when He said 'as you sow, so ashall you reap?' You think He was kidding when He said 'I don't know you?'

You do realise that when Christ, in His Discourse at the Last Supper, said, "I pray ... " He was indicating that it is not guaranteed?

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: [10] And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

but until we embrace the Spirit (essence) of God which is love, we will remain on the path of destruction...

Yes ... but we will still not know God, we will simply be doing what we were supposed to be doing in the first place.

Love is the Logos as far as I'm concerned...

Of course, and the Logos is Love ... but 'love' and 'logos' tell us different things.

... and when we are reborn of the Logos, which is the Spirit and Wisdom of God, we can know life, just as Jesus knew life.

Because we are in Him, which is the whole point!

Not because we each and every one become our own little Jesus, which many assume themselves to be ... if that was true, then each and every little Jesus would have to suffer the same fate, and the message of Scripture is that He did it, because we can't ...

... remember 'God sent His only son' — He didn't pick some poor bloke's name out of the lottery hat.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

What about God being in our minds then?

Agreed, but then, "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?" Job 11:7.

I would say man starts by aligning God with his sensible experience, then the more she comes to understand the world, the more she understands it is not God ... and finally, as God is not an object, as God is not a thing as other things are, then God can never be known ... and yet ...

... is not the proof of God for the sage not in what the sage knows, but that she knows? And what it means to be able to say "I know"?

Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
Tao Ching 1:5-6

Can 'observing without desire' be likened in this case to knowing the implication of what it means to know, rather than seeking to know all that can be known (or not known) if that makes sense.

Just a thought,

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The Doctrine of the Trinity was created by a worldly institution....

That tells me you don't really understand it.

it has very little bearing on the Triune concept of Godhead -

I'd rather say the common triune concepts have little bearing on the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

the concept is simply trying to explain how our Father's Laws are set up.

No, not really. The doctrine explains how there can be God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and that the Three are One, and the One is Three. All before any notion of 'Laws' ... the Law flows from the Trinity, not the other way round.

by way of explanation :
the highest level of creation contains the ONE - one concept explains God on this level

From the Christian viewpoint, God is not 'in' creation, and the doctrine of the Trinity is prior to any cosmological consideration. What you're talking about are the various triunes that try to explain cosmological phenomena.

next level down ... next octave of lower vibration ... and each level below that adds more differentiation, and much more must be understood ... and so on, and so on...

Oh dear me ... this all sounds rather neo-gnostic and complicated to me. Thankfully, Christianity cuts through all the red tape the gnostics raise against the simple soul.

There is no such dependency on knowledge in the Christian Tradition, beyond the Divine Name which, if you understand resonance, you'll understand its surpassing all the aggregated knowledge of the cosmos to an infinite degree (cf John 1:12).

To the Christian (as indeed to many Traditions of realisation East and West), God is immanently present to His creature; the Gift of Grace is less than a hair's breadth distant, and what is required is Love, not knowledge.

'God is closer to you than your jugular vein', a saying of Islam.

... so the concept is trying to explain...

I rather think that's your somewhat convoluted misunderstanding of the doctrine, and certainly not traditional and orthodox Christianity's.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Etu Malku]

 

[seattlegal]

Hi Seattlegal —

Agreed, but then, "Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?" Job 11:7.

I would say man starts by aligning God with his sensible experience, then the more she comes to understand the world, the more she understands it is not God ... and finally, as God is not an object, as God is not a thing as other things are, then God can never be known ... and yet ...

... is not the proof of God for the sage not in what the sage knows, but that she knows? And what it means to be able to say "I know"?

Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence
Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations
Tao Ching 1:5-6

Can 'observing without desire' be likened in this case to knowing the implication of what it means to know, rather than seeking to know all that can be known (or not known) if that makes sense.

Just a thought,

God bless,

Thomas

It makes perfect sense.

 

[seattlegal]

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[Etu Malku]

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

**Thrusts one hand forward** <-- That

 

[BrotherMichaelSky]

That tells me you don't really understand it.

to your satisfaction....

I'd rather say the common triune concepts have little bearing on the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

which is EXACTLY what i was saying - in reverse... because one came before the other. You start from the wrong end and it can mean ANYTHING you want it to - which I must admit is convenient - but as useless as simple speculation generally is...

I rather think that's your somewhat convoluted misunderstanding of the doctrine, and certainly not traditional and orthodox Christianity's.

God bless,

Thomas

Traditional - funny word there...
"traditional" demands that the concept come down in an understood and unchanging way from it's origins.
You have absolutely ZERO way of showing that your concept holds any water - because you must step AWAY from the texts to describe something that isn't in the text.....
and the Doctrine of the Trinity was created by an ecclesiastical body which had end goals in mind that did not jibe with "tradition"...

"orthodoxy" was the whole idea - because the Orthodox view does not OWN the Triune concept of Godhead... it existed previously....

my intention was not to "correct" you - but to share an alternate understanding, which has considerable research and personal experience behind it.... You seemed to be going in fruitless circles - figured you could use some more words to play with....