The Trinity: Genesis of a doctrine

[muhammad_isa]

Not in any simplistic literalist way. It's subtle. That's the problem. Spirit moves beyond human understanding. You can't fit God into a book. Christ came AS God. As THE Son of God. You don't have to like it. Argue the fine issues but that is what Christians believe.

It is what trinitarians believe, perhaps.
I don't think @mee from that old thread would have agreed.

You emphasise that "Christ came as God", and ignore the Father? Did Jesus ignore the Father?
..but wait .. you think that Jesus IS Jehovah .. but you don't like talking about Jehovah .. you want to talk about Jesus?!?
Why would that be?

Your argument contains a fatal flaw that you insist the Qur'an to be correct on all matters, and so where it disagrees, others must be wrong: trinitarian Christianity must be wrong. It condemns trinitarians to hell.

It's not my fault that I have to decide. They can't BOTH be right. Either the trinity is a correct philosophical concept .. or it isn't.
If you want to go along with a mysterious, gnostic interpretation like Philo did, it's up to you

God speaks to the individual heart and soul and spirit. God is there for anyone of any or of no religion -- any place, any time in history.

Indeed, God guides whomsoever He wills. However, many religions aren't concerned with Jesus / Jehovah.

 

[RJM]

You are entitled to your beliefs @muhammad_isa

Perhaps you could bookmark my two posts above, so I won't have to keep repeating them, when you continue informing me what it is I believe -- as again in your post directly above? #119 #120

No future in it, imo ..

 

[muhammad_isa]

..when you continue informing me what I believe..

I don't know what you believe .. I can only try to fathom it out from what you write.

 

[RJM]

I don't know what you believe .. I can only try to fathom it out from what you write.

The branch is begotten of the (unbegotten) vine, the fruit is begotten of the branch. 'Father' is the term coined by Christ himself, to describe to human minds the relationship between himself, Christ the Son, and God the Father. But God (Spirit) is far more than simply 'Father' as Christ (Spirit/nature) is far more than simply 'Son' -- they are human words used by Christ to partly explain to human beings the infinite mystery of his incarnation

Perhaps you could bookmark that one as well?

 

[Thomas]

What .. about the many references you mean?
I'm aware that you deduce that they all believed in a godhead.

That's the problem, here, really ... You're not interested in where I'm coming from, only in putting me where you want me to be ...

This is not about understanding, it's about winning. Not the spirit of IO, in my book.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..'Father' is the term coined by Christ himself, to describe to human minds the relationship between himself, Christ the Son, and God the Father..

3 I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.

5 They are corrupt and not his children;
to their shame they are a warped and crooked generation.
6 Is this the way you repay the Lord,
you foolish and unwise people?
Is he not your Father, your Creator,
who made you and formed you?
- Deuteronomy 32 -

Hallelujah!

 

[RJM]

3 I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
Is he not your Father, your Creator,
who made you and formed you?
- Deuteronomy 32 -

Ok. Fair cop. Doesn't change anything. It wasn't used often in the OT, and not in the personal sense used so often by Christ

 

[muhammad_isa]

That's the problem, here, really ... You're not interested in where I'm coming from, only in putting me where you want me to be ...

This is not about understanding, it's about winning..

Come on .. it is quite clear that when we discuss the subject of the trinity, we can't both be right.

The real "winners" in this life are those who draw near to God.
I most certainly AM interested in "where you are coming from".
I respect your vast knowledge on the subject of Divinity. Naturally, I don't have to always agree with you.

 

[Thomas]

Come on .. it is quite clear that when we discuss the subject of the trinity, we can't both be right.

Yes, you need to understand that.

The real "winners" in this life are those who draw near to God.

Is that how you see this dialogue, in terms of 'winning' and 'losing'?

I respect your vast knowledge on the subject of Divinity. Naturally, I don't have to always agree with you.

I'm not seeking agreement, just understanding.

+++

Perhaps a way toward understanding the 'genesis of a doctrine' is by reference to the Islamic concept of Naskh (tafsir)

This is a precis of the entry on wiki:
'In Islamic exegesis (tafsir), naskh is a theory developed to resolve contradictory rulings of Islamic revelation by superseding or canceling the earlier revelation. In the widely recognised and "classic" form, an Islamic regulation/ruling (hukm) is abrogated in favour of another, but the text the hukm is based on is not eliminated.'

As I understand the above, the exegete(s) resolve (apparently) contradictory statements contained in Revelation, and in so doing understanding is superseded by a new and deeper insight. The prior understanding is 'abrogated', a deeper understanding is promulgated – the sacra doctrina Itself remains untouched, intact and entire.

In the context of this thread, this is how the Doctrine of the Trinity evolved. Classically, it resolves the apparent contradiction between: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

Does that make sense?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is that how you see this dialogue, in terms of 'winning' and 'losing'?

No .. but I understand why we could both think that of the other.

Perhaps a way toward understanding the 'genesis of a doctrine' is by reference to the Islamic concept of Naskh (tafsir)
...
As I understand the above, the exegete(s) resolve (apparently) contradictory statements contained in Revelation, and in so doing understanding is superseded by a new and deeper insight. The prior understanding is 'abrogated', a deeper understanding is promulgated – the sacra doctrina Itself remains untouched, intact and entire.

Yes, tafsir(interpretation) of the Qur'an is written by many different scholars of varying opinions and backgrounds..

In the context of this thread, this is how the Doctrine of the Trinity evolved. Classically, it resolves the apparent contradiction between: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

Does that make sense?

It does make sense. You have an understanding of how the Doctrine of the Trinity evolved into what it became.
As you know, your viewpoint is based on the perception of a common factor between all the various factions..
..belief in a godhead.
That is not my perception, although I would agree that many of the factions did.

 

[Thomas]

No .. but I understand why we could both think that of the other.

Really?

It does make sense...

Hurrah!

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hurrah!

I would also like to add, that many schools of thought in Islam INSIST that we have to follow some scholar from antiquity, and we should not use our own powers of reason. What do you think about that?

 

[Thomas]

I would also like to add, that many schools of thought in Islam INSIST that we have to follow some scholar from antiquity, and we should not use our own powers of reason. What do you think about that?

Really? I'm surprised.

I don't know of any other religion (or indeed any school of thought) that is quite so dogmatic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Really? I'm surprised.

It's historical, imo.

During the Middle Ages, the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt delineated the acceptable Sunni schools as only Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali
...
The Ottoman Empire later reaffirmed the official status of four schools..

So various nations tagged on to one of the four schools of thought, and consider others as innovative
..probably how you view the JW's.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sometimes it feels like I'm going round the bend..
I expect Einstein felt like that when he saw what happened in Hiroshima

"Shi-i-ine on, you crazy diamond" ...
We all have to fight over SOMEthing.

Like Einstein, I don't believe in a "personal god" either!
God doesn't belong to anybody.
Mankind brings destruction upon themselves.

I think that's what a lot of atheists see..
People who pray to Allah .. or people who pray to Jesus .. or people who pray to YHWH etc.
Has one group of people got "a god" who is in their favour?
..everybody seems to claim so..

I think that God knows what is in our hearts .. how do I KNOW what God is for sure?
I don't. For me, it's more a case of deducing what He is NOT.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christian Theology insists that all and any Trinitarian models can only ever be that, models, or analogies. The actuality of the Divine Existence is, and will always be, a Mystery that cannot be contained by the human intellect.

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/13778/

There is something we agree on.
How can a created human understand in its entirety, an infinite God?
We can't.

What we all individually imagine God to be is between us and God.
We need "open hearts" in order to receive enlightenment.

Pamela Eisenbaum says: "belief in Jesus does not make Paul a Christian".
I suppose it depends what we mean by "Christian". He certainly believed that Jesus is the Christ.
..and I would deduce that by the apparent success of his mission to the population in
general, he was not a bad person as "classical Islamists" tend to suggest.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Thomas: And on what evidence is the wiki articles based?
Me: I don't think we should go down that avenue .. but if you insist..
Thomas: What, the path of actual evidence?

The wiki articles are based on books that are written mainly by people over the last few centuries.
I don't have those books. I assume that they are based on reasoning, amongst other things.

I don't see how following cherry-picked scholars of antiquity is "actual evidence" of what the Arians believed.

+ + + + +

In any case, I assume you are not interested in "my" evidence .. that's no problem.

 

[Thomas]

The wiki articles are based on books that are written mainly by people over the last few centuries. I don't have those books. I assume that they are based on reasoning, amongst other things.

... As was my reasoning working from the self-same sources directly.

 

[RJM]

The wiki articles are based on books that are written mainly by people over the last few centuries.
I don't have those books. I assume that they are based on reasoning, amongst other things.

If the wiki passage is taken from a book, all that's required is to reference the book along with the passage? You don't have to own the book.

For instance it is not adequate to say: 'Shakespeare said that.' It is necessary to reference the play it comes from and to give a line/verse reference to save your reader having to go through the whole play to find it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Hmm .. I'm not sure what you two are saying here..
Do you want me to continue with "my" evidence .. or do you want me to drop it?