Try the Trinity.

talib-al-kalim said:
My point is that the Father and the son/Son are not equal; the oneness with God has no equivalent counterpart in a oneness of God with a human, be it even God's chosen Messiah. In ideal oneness, the soul of the human is in full harmony with God and the works of the human are in full harmony with God's creation. The seed of this is faith and care (agape: caring love). You cannot exchange God and human in this. God guides, and God provides. The counterpart of human faith is guidance, and the counterpart of care is welfare.
Click to expand...
The question about the Father and Son being equal or not is one of those debates that raged around in the early church. The belief that the Son was not equal to the Father was called "Subordinationism" and declared a "heresy" by the winning party (the emerging orthodoxy of the church).
 
EricPH said:

Jesus prayed that we should be one, in exactly the same way that he is one with the Father. Could the greatest commandments possibly describe how Christ is one with the Father.​


The Father loves the Son as he loves himself.

The Son loves the Father as he loves himself.

Could the spirit be the power of God’s love; working through the perfection of the greatest commandments?

1 Samuel 18-1, NIV version. Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.

Can there be any greater definition of ’Oneness’?
Click to expand...
EricPH,
Two tracks of my recent thinking (one with philosophizing with my youngest son earlier today. The other while reading chapters 4 and 5 of J R Daniel Kirks’s book, Romans for Normal People). And now your thoughts seem to form a third converging track.
My point with my son was that our present world culture brainwashes us into thinking there some humans are winners and others are losers. Owning stuff (as in the definition of capitalism being “OWNING” the means of production”) equates with winning and being a winner. The ability to accumulate money is the way of keeping score of one’s power to own stuff. In the world as it is currently played out, the owners practically “own” the laborers, who may not be the losers that the unemployed are, but certainly are not winners. Generous profit sharing might be a way to get off this dehumanizing merry go round, but that is seldom used because it would amount to sharing and would even up
 
talib-al-kalim said:
Sounds good, but does it withstand a closer look?

Let's step back to the image used:
The father (lowercase) loves his children. True for a normal father. The son loves his father: usually true if the father loves the son.
But the love of the father to the son is a different kind of love than the love for himself, even if both are intact. Equally, there's a qualitative difference between the love of the father to the son and the love of the son to the father.

Even more, our love to the Father (God) is qualitatively different from the love of ourselves or the love to our father. And the love of God to himself bends the image to an invalid degree.
Click to expand...
EricPH,
Two tracks of my recent thinking (one with philosophizing with my youngest son earlier today. The other while reading chapters 5 and 6 of J R Daniel Kirks’s book, Romans for Normal People). And now your thoughts seem to form a third converging track.
My point with my son was that our present world culture brainwashes us into thinking there some humans are winners and others are losers. Owning stuff (as in the definition of capitalism being “OWNING” the means of production”) equates with winning and being a winner. The ability to accumulate money is the way of keeping score of one’s power to own stuff. In the world as it is currently played out, the owners practically “own” the laborers, who may not be the losers that the unemployed are, but certainly are not winners. Generous profit sharing might be a way to get off this dehumanizing merry go round, but that is seldom used because it would amount to sharing and would even up the score too much—making the winners feel like they might end their winning streak.
Owning and winning define the worldly person. And heavy participation in the worldly game tends to rub of on its participants, making them “worldly.”
My main point to my son was that the world that the Meek shall inherit is not THIS world, but a transformed new world based on sharing and synergy of all human gifts. Democracy is a step towards that world because it attempts to share decision making and power via a voting process and a government to act on the collective decisions. The kind of brotherly and sisterly love advocated by Jesus Christ was laying the foundation for a new world order based on massive cooperation and good will. The current world is based more on competition and winners and losers than it is on cooperation and nurturing EVERYONE’S God given potential.
Kirk’s writing, especially in chapter 6, describes the standard “substitutive atonement “ (that I personally don’t buy) in which Christ dies for our sins in order to save us from not only our own sins but from the sinful world, and paves the way for a new world (either here on earth, in another dimension, or both). But by the standards of the old world order, dying on a cross is LOSING—not winning. Christ was a loser in this world. But by showing us that there is something more than this world’s silly and potential-robbing game, he frees us to work together to make a loving, spiritual (wholeness-making) new world.
Your notions about showing God’s love fits right in with the two philosophical/theological tracks of my recent thoughts. Thank you.
 
otherbrother said:
EricPH,
Two tracks of my recent thinking (one with philosophizing with my youngest son earlier today. The other while reading chapters 5 and 6 of J R Daniel Kirks’s book, Romans for Normal People). And now your thoughts seem to form a third converging track.
My point with my son was that our present world culture brainwashes us into thinking there some humans are winners and others are losers. Owning stuff (as in the definition of capitalism being “OWNING” the means of production”) equates with winning and being a winner. The ability to accumulate money is the way of keeping score of one’s power to own stuff. In the world as it is currently played out, the owners practically “own” the laborers, who may not be the losers that the unemployed are, but certainly are not winners. Generous profit sharing might be a way to get off this dehumanizing merry go round, but that is seldom used because it would amount to sharing and would even up the score too much—making the winners feel like they might end their winning streak.
Owning and winning define the worldly person. And heavy participation in the worldly game tends to rub of on its participants, making them “worldly.”
My main point to my son was that the world that the Meek shall inherit is not THIS world, but a transformed new world based on sharing and synergy of all human gifts. Democracy is a step towards that world because it attempts to share decision making and power via a voting process and a government to act on the collective decisions. The kind of brotherly and sisterly love advocated by Jesus Christ was laying the foundation for a new world order based on massive cooperation and good will. The current world is based more on competition and winners and losers than it is on cooperation and nurturing EVERYONE’S God given potential.
Kirk’s writing, especially in chapter 6, describes the standard “substitutive atonement “ (that I personally don’t buy) in which Christ dies for our sins in order to save us from not only our own sins but from the sinful world, and paves the way for a new world (either here on earth, in another dimension, or both). But by the standards of the old world order, dying on a cross is LOSING—not winning. Christ was a loser in this world. But by showing us that there is something more than this world’s silly and potential-robbing game, he frees us to work together to make a loving, spiritual (wholeness-making) new world.
Your notions about showing God’s love fits right in with the two philosophical/theological tracks of my recent thoughts. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I didn’t address the dynamics on the losing side of the world as currently constituted. Losers feel so powerless and deficient that they desperately long for a win. Any kind of a win, even if by putting others down, scapegoating to blame THEM, and finally feeling superior to someone. Of course this is not a dynamic of unifying love. It is based on fear, shame, and an incorrect belief that winning is everything. If one were to personify that dynamic, it would be Satin and his power of evil. Especially good if they think they are worshipping “God” all the while. And/or that some apparently good end justifies the evil means, A big win for “Satin!”
 
John 17: I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of[b] your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

Who was Jesus praying for, when he said they may be one as we are one? Was it just the apostles, just Catholics, or Christians, or everyone?

I can walk into a Catholic church anywhere in the world, and feel a sense of unity with them. But my real neighbours are people of all faiths and none. Should I feel as one with all my neighbours, despite our differences? This is where I believe the greatest commandments are so important, we are to love God and all our neighbours. Unity with live and kindness is a profound challenge for humanity.
 
I have the same question.
Why is there a trinity?
I know thare was a triangle symbol for spiritual and a square for materialistic. The man was the holy symbol called heaven and the woman the materialistic aspect of life. Together they are as Adam and Eve man and wife.

I tried for a long time to figure this out. 4 +3 = 7 the number of marriage.
Marriage is a contract or bound between a man and a woman.

This seemed to be the perfect balance.

I think it is not good for anybody to be alone. When Jesus Christ mentioned that God is in our mits when we pray with two or three people or even more.

This proves that God wants us not to be alone.

The Hindus have a trinity with Brahma, vishnu and Shiva.

Aristoteles had the materialistic knowledge of the four elements, water, air, earth and fire but not the spiritual knowledge.

We split this unity in the west in state and church what is not a good idea.

In de or es a child in the west is often forced to choose between the mother or the father. That is not good. A child needs both.
What is a woman without a man and a man without a woman?

What I say is, that I think that the church sees the trinity and the number three as a holy number or a spiritual number because where are we without the spirit.
What is a body without a soul in it?
Just a dead body.
 
OupaPiet said:
I never bothered to find out exactly how the Trinity "God" was, shall I say...constructed...
To the Christian it is not a problem to say God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
To them it is one God.

Then I was confronted by Muslim, and realized, to my shock, that Christians have a hard time to explain the Trinity.

Well, I previously sumerized the Bible and read the Quran a few times, and I decided to see if there is an easy understandable way to explain the Trinity, and to also find out if the Trinity is false, or really a divine god.

Well, I did my learning and have to test my knowledge with religions that do not believe in the Trinity, to validate my understanding.
This is my main reason why I wanted to join this forum.
To test the idea of a Triune God.

Whats the use if I believe in something, and there might be facts I dont know about that will destroy these "Facts".

If anyone wants to ask questions or needs some clarification, I will be happy to have a serious but friendly debate.
Click to expand...
The Holy Trinity is a core doctrine in Christian theology that describes the nature of God as three distinct persons in one divine essence. This concept emphasizes that while God is one, He is also manifested in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Here’s an explanation of each aspect of the Trinity, along with its significance:

God the Father:
- Nature and Role: God the Father is often understood as the creator of the universe, the ultimate source of all life, and an omnipotent being who is deeply loving and just. He is seen as the sustaining force behind creation and the figure who initiated the divine plan for humanity.
- Relationship with Creation: In this role, God the Father is viewed as a paternal figure, providing guidance, protection, and care for His creation.

God the Son (Jesus Christ):
- Incarnation: God the Son refers to Jesus Christ, who is believed to be both fully divine and fully human. According to Christian belief, He was incarnated to reveal God to humanity and to provide a means of redemption through His life, death, and resurrection.
- Atonement and Salvation: The central message of Christianity is that through Jesus’s sacrificial death on the cross, He atoned for the sins of humanity, offering salvation and reconciliation with God. His resurrection is celebrated as the victory over sin and death.
- Role in the Trinity: The Son is co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, embodying God's love and grace.

God the Holy Spirit:
- Presence and Action: The Holy Spirit is understood as the active presence of God in the world today. He is often associated with aspects of guidance, comfort, and empowerment for believers.
- Role in Believers' Lives: The Holy Spirit is believed to dwell within believers, helping them grow in their faith, understanding, and spiritual maturity. He also convicts individuals of sin and aids in the process of sanctification.
- Gifts and Fruits: The Holy Spirit bestows spiritual gifts upon believers and produces fruits in their lives, such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and goodness.

Theological Significance:
- Unity and Diversity: The doctrine of the Trinity expresses the belief that God is one in essence but exists in three persons. This paradox emphasizes both the unity and diversity within the Godhead, illustrating complexity in relationships while maintaining monotheism.
- Historical Development: The formal doctrine of the Trinity was developed over several centuries, particularly during the early ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). These councils aimed to clarify the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in response to various theological disputes.
- Expressions of Faith: The Trinity is not only a theological concept but also a practical expression of how believers relate to God in worship, prayer, and Christian life. Many prayers and liturgies invoke the Trinity as a reflection of God's nature.

The Holy Trinity is a foundational belief in Christianity that encapsulates the nature of God as three distinct but unified persons. This doctrine shapes Christian understanding of God’s interaction with humanity and defines the relational aspects of faith. It serves as a rich and profound mystery that invites believers into a deeper understanding and experience of God’s love, grace, and presence in their lives.
 
Autumn said:
I have the same question.
Why is there a trinity?
Click to expand...
The doctrine derives from Scripture, reasoning the nature of revelation.

Autumn said:
The Hindus have a trinity with Brahma, vishnu and Shiva.
Click to expand...
I think the Trimurti, as it's called, was derived after Christianity reached the East – it's not presented, as I understand it, as a core triune doctrine.
 
Thomas said:
The doctrine derives from Scripture, reasoning the nature of revelation.


I think the Trimurti, as it's called, was derived after Christianity reached the East – it's not presented, as I understand it, as a core triune doctrine.
Click to expand...
How I studie was through history. Aristoteles believed in four elements not five that was later introduced and that brought me more east in the time-line. The words for the oldest Boedhist holy Scriptures, holy means when things are true, I forgot but are about the four elements, and these Scriptures in Pali are in East India and some who go there are entering a gate with heavy protection from the monks who work there.
 
EricPH said:
John 17: I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of[b] your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

Who was Jesus praying for, when he said they may be one as we are one? Was it just the apostles, just Catholics, or Christians, or everyone?

I can walk into a Catholic church anywhere in the world, and feel a sense of unity with them. But my real neighbours are people of all faiths and none. Should I feel as one with all my neighbours, despite our differences? This is where I believe the greatest commandments are so important, we are to love God and all our neighbours. Unity with live and kindness is a profound challenge for humanity.
Click to expand...
Eric, This thing we call love seems like some sort of Quantum Mechanics that Creation allows us all to do. It is an amazing skill that reveals our deeper nature as spirits who are children of God. Unfortunately, love got associated too much with merely doing and being “good.” Trying to be moral can cause collapse of love’s wave potential, similar to how the observation of quanta tends to make them act more like particles than waves.
 
otherbrother said:
Eric, This thing we call love seems like some sort of Quantum Mechanics that Creation allows us all to do. It is an amazing skill that reveals our deeper nature as spirits who are children of God. Unfortunately, love got associated too much with merely doing and being “good.” Trying to be moral can cause collapse of love’s wave potential, similar to how the observation of quanta tends to make them act more like particles than waves.
Click to expand...
Not only does trying too hard to be good get in the way of love’s full force/flow, equating it with the objects/beings who are loved also interferes with its power and potential. Similar to how our thoughts are not our mind. The love of others, even though sensed as unifying, is still plagued with/by duality. I think this is because we focus too much on the surface (where “classical objects” are) instead of dipping deep within our being
 
This rather seems to 'collapse' love (pun intended) into a mechanical process ... I suggest there's more to it than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top