The head (intellect)
the heart (love)
the solar plexus (will)
... all (separate) parts of one being
The problem is taking the words Father and Son in literal human terms. They describe a divine condition beyond human terms.
Last edited:
Did he die for our sins?
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
the heart (love)
the solar plexus (will)
... all (separate) parts of one being
The problem is taking the words Father and Son in literal human terms. They describe a divine condition beyond human terms.
The head is me, the heart is me, the centre of will is me. It's a package. Nearest human analogy. Spirit weaves nature. But nature is fully permeated by Spirit. The two dimensions cannot be separated, in this world, yet the wheel of Spirit turns the wheel of nature, and is not turned by it.
In Christ nature is perfected: the sinless man. Emmanuel, God with us -- as human beings. The mystery of Christ is very deep. It goes on to ever deeper levels. Perhaps infinite levels. You want shallow binary statements. You are not really interested in anything but trying to apply shallow binary logic to the mystery of Christ.
How can a photon be a wave that is everywhere in the universe until you measure it, yet collapsed in one place as a particle as soon as I do measure it? If a photon is a wave, how can it be a particle? How can it be everyehere, but in one place? What is a photon anyway? It's a human explanation for a phenomenon beyond human conception.
Last edited:
You just don't like the answer you get
Is the head more important than the heart? They are one being
Perhaps this is the crux of the problem with understanding in general?
I don't think so..
@Thomas was diverting the topic to Islam.
This is the Christianity forum, which is what I want to discuss.
As I understand it, apocatastasis is about the final restoration of all sinful beings unto God. Not exactly what I was saying, but does more or less tie in with it. See also Acts 3:21
To me, Jesus is like God's right hand reaching down to earth to steer the ship. My hands are an integral part of me as Jesus is to the father. If I'm driving, my hands are controlling the wheel, making every turn, every lane change. They cannot however, tell you where we're going or when we'll get there. They just do as I command.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
Some things that I learned in a Trinity forum:
- Every attempt to try to explain the Trinity doctrine ends in some kind of heresy. Always.
- In the Trinity doctrine, the words “substance,” “distinct,” “person,” and “is” don’t have the same meanings that they have in any other context
- The Trinity doctrine is not a statement that can be explained or understood all together. It is a denial of some false teachings.
- The way to use the Trinity doctrine is not to try to understand it or explain it. The way to use the Trinity doctrine is to help us avoid some false ways of thinking about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that can limit our possibilities in our relationship with Him, and impede our progress.
- The number of the God of Abraham is not one, or three, or many, or none. He has no number. Number is a quality of the creation, not of the Creator.
- Every attempt to try to explain the Trinity doctrine ends in some kind of heresy. Always.
- In the Trinity doctrine, the words “substance,” “distinct,” “person,” and “is” don’t have the same meanings that they have in any other context
- The Trinity doctrine is not a statement that can be explained or understood all together. It is a denial of some false teachings.
- The way to use the Trinity doctrine is not to try to understand it or explain it. The way to use the Trinity doctrine is to help us avoid some false ways of thinking about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that can limit our possibilities in our relationship with Him, and impede our progress.
- The number of the God of Abraham is not one, or three, or many, or none. He has no number. Number is a quality of the creation, not of the Creator.
Last edited:
Hmmm .. I'm a bit of a mathematician, like Isaac Newton.longfellow said:
Now, he was a strict monotheist and didn't believe in the trinity.
He was the first non-trinitarian Christian to hold a professorship in Cambridge University UK.
Up until that time, it was considered blasphemous, and a serious offence to denounce it.
Old habits die hard, no?
Last edited:
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
Before I saw this, I was thinking the same thing. Where’s the sacrifice? A few hours of pain, not nearly as much suffering as the suffering of multitudes of people every day, all around the world; then physical death, knowing that in a few days He would come back and be king of the world? That’s all it took to pay the price of all the sins of all people all through history, and save us from the consequences? And God didn’t give His only begotten Son. If the Son was ever actually away from the Father, it was only for three days.
I’m thinking that if there’s any truth to that story, it can only be as a parable. Possibly a parable acted out physically, but still a parable, a lesson, and not that His death and resurrection actually did pay the price for all our sins and save us from their consequences. Just an announcement that God no longer required the sacrifices that He prescribed for Israel, and whatever else He might be saying to us in that parable. However that may be, I’m thinking, Jesus never tells His story that way in the gospels, and I’m not sure that Paul actually does either, even if it’s possible to read that into his writings.
However that may be, there might not be any harm in people thinking that way, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of people learning to recognize and accept Jesus as a person to serve and obey above all others, and learning to live the way He says to live.
Last edited:
To be fair, I was making a general point, I could have used Buddhism or some other religion as the example.
Shame you missed the point, as you're still labouring the same fruitless furrow.
No, the doctrine doesn't, misinterpretations of the doctrines do.
Listening to a discussion of the nature of the electron. One scientist said words to the effect of: 'all these models, none of them are true in an absolute sense, but they are adequate analogies that enable us to think about the thing and look at the questions'
Same with the Trinity.
Once we fully understand God, we will fully understand the Trinity. Until then, we're reaching into the dark, as it were, and using analogies to try and explain and understand.
St Paul said: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:2)
At the Johannine scribe:
"We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:12)
Until then, I delight in talking about the Trinity, but know, really, I'm reaching into the dark ...
Yes. They have the meanings as understood in the Greek philosophical lexicon. Now those words have passed into common usage and their meanings are vague.
Like most dogmas/doctrines, the statements were not made to pin anything down, but to preserve from error.
You don't have to understand the Trinity to believe in the Trinity. Who can explain love?
Yes.
Yes.
The Greek philosophers, independent of Christianity, struggled with the same problem. if God is 'One' (not in the sense of number) – how is there multiplicity.
Or ... if there is Self alone, how is there You and I? How is the Another?
The fathers used the language if this discourse to try and unravel – as much as they could – the Mystery made known.
Well, that's the problem I have with it.
Teaching something as an important part of belief, and the division that it caused [ so-called Arians, and then Muslims/Saracens etc. ].
is based on an opinion, really .. nothing solid, imo.
No, of course not..
..but why isn't belief in God enough?
Why insist that Jesus is God, causing schism?
It looks more like "an appeal to authority", to me.
I can see why that would appeal to many in power.
Remember, in the history of the Roman Empire there were Arian leaders, and Trinitarian leaders.
Even Constantine himself, "came out" as an Arian in his latter days.
I know, I know .. "Arians" believed that Jesus is God..
..not really .. I don't think the argument is purely about "a substance"
"We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning."
i.e. Jesus is not God .. the Father created him
..but no, say the trinitarians "Jesus is of one substance with the Father"
Almighty God doesn't like people who insist on a creed, when they don't really know.
..better to keep quiet.
OK. Not in mine, obviously, and not according to Jesus, the Apostles, etc, etc.
It is entirely enough. Such doctrines are for those who are called to a deeper understanding.No, of course not..
..but why isn't belief in God enough?
There are always men who will cause schisms. We have ours, you have yours, they have theirs ...
What, not really God, or that's not really what they believed?
D'you understand the basis of the argument? The difference between homoousios and homoiousios.I don't think the argument is purely about "a substance"
Yes. Homooousios.
True ...
But then much of Islam's difficulties with Christianity can be traced to the 10th century and later, when Islam began to be interpreted in a particular way to counter or deny particular elements of Christian belief.
According to the Prophet (pbuh) there is more than one way to interpret the Qran, and even contradictory interpretations are not necessarily wrong.
It would have been better if Islam kept itself to itself, and let the Christians get on with it ...
No doubt..
Let's hope that King Charles assists in bringing us all together, unlike some of his ancestors.
From what I've heard he has an interest in Islam, or at least he's much more amenable towards it than the popular press, and more than his present government!Let's hope that King Charles assists in bringing us all together, unlike some of his ancestors.
Here is a speech Prince Charles made to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, of which he is Patron
https://invernessmasjid.co.uk/green-islam/prince-charles-2/