[open]Truth of the Trinity

[Toney]

There’s an old Gnostic saw that says the trouble with Yahweh was that he forgot he was a metaphor.

We Christians know Yahweh as God of the Old Testament; Jesus as God of the New Testament (I avoid using the terms old or new covenant).

Who is Yahweh? God the Father?

Perhaps. However, he is also pure metaphor.

Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived around the time of Jesus, distinguished between God’s essence (unknowable and ineffable) and his activity in the world or His attributes – how we understand (know) Him. The Jews had their understanding which Jesus sought to amend and did. Our Christian understanding has evolved from the sayings of Jesus and the teachings of his followers. That God, the Trinity, is also pure metaphor.

The attributes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Christian Trinity, cannot equal God for the simple reason that God is not knowable. The doctrine was never intended to be taken literally.

Jesus, Son of God, the Cosmic Christ, is our only mediator and advocate with God, he is the exalted Jewish Messiah or anointed one who is and was and is to come – he is eternal. He is our Lord, God is his Lord. Therefore, the entire Trinitarian metaphor (truth) resides in Jesus the Christ. In this construct, God is both transcendent (essence) and immanent (real) and “Father” may be read as Jesus’ metaphor for God’s inaccessible (to us) essence. Jesus is immanent and real because he became flesh and is God’s only son (another metaphor).

Jesus made God accessible to us and in philosophical terms, cable of being apprehended – that’s the whole point! Therefore we can say Alleluia! and sing What a Friend We Have in Jesus. We can believe in God and believe in the metaphor!

[elanor]

We Christians know Yahweh as God of the Old Testament; Jesus as God of the New Testament (I avoid using the terms old or new covenant).
Not all "we Christians" would make such a statement. I wouldn't. I believe that God is unchanging, and the only thing that changes is how we understand Him.

Who is Yahweh? God the Father?

Perhaps. However, he is also pure metaphor.

Philo of Alexandria, a Jew who lived around the time of Jesus, distinguished between God’s essence (unknowable and ineffable) and his activity in the world or His attributes – how we understand (know) Him. The Jews had their understanding which Jesus sought to amend and did. Our Christian understanding has evolved from the sayings of Jesus and the teachings of his followers. That God, the Trinity, is also pure metaphor.

The attributes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Christian Trinity, cannot equal God for the simple reason that God is not knowable. The doctrine was never intended to be taken literally.
The Trinity as a metaphor? I can follow you to this extent: It's impossible to fully and accurately express the Divine and the Infinite using finite, human language. My simple mind has enough trouble comprehending what you say, let alone trying to fathom the Almighty. However, because Jesus spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I accept that concept of Trinity. I just figure He'd get us as close to understanding the "essence" of God as we are capable of coming.


Jesus made God accessible to us and in philosophical terms, ca(pa)ble of being apprehended – that’s the whole point! Therefore we can say Alleluia! and sing What a Friend We Have in Jesus. AMEN! :clap:

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Jesus made God accessible to us and in philosophical terms, cable of being apprehended – that’s the whole point! Therefore we can say Alleluia! and sing What a Friend We Have in Jesus. We can believe in God and believe in the metaphor!
I can agree with this part :) But also remember that the Father, and the Spirit, were manifested physically as well.

[Toney]

However, because Jesus spoke of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, I accept that concept of Trinity. I just figure He'd get us as close to understanding the "essence" of God as we are capable of coming.

Jesus spoke (once) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 also called the Great Commission:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

This is the only time a reference to a triune God is made by Jesus. It also is dubious. While the oldest extant copy of Matthew was written after Nicea, Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea) often quoted it in his pre-Nicene writings:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you."

Jesus used "in my name" 17 times in the Bible.

Here is my problem, Elanor: The teachings of Jesus often appear quite different from the teachings of the Church. I am a Trinitarian. However, I do have some valid questions about the changes made to Christianity in the Fourth Century as do many other liberal Christians.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

With all the manuscripts we have, what we read is still inerrant.

[Toney]

With all the manuscripts we have, what we read is still inerrant.

Please don't take this wrong, but in this Forum I will make it a policy to ignore such fundamentalist argument. You'll have to do better.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Please don't take this wrong, but in this Forum I will make it a policy to ignore such fundamentalist argument. You'll have to do better.
Sorry, I'm a fundie :)

[elanor]

Jesus spoke (once) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 also called the Great Commission:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

This is the only time a reference to a triune God is made by Jesus. It also is dubious. While the oldest extant copy of Matthew was written after Nicea, Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea) often quoted it in his pre-Nicene writings:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you."

Jesus used "in my name" 17 times in the Bible.
I hear you, Toney, but I don't quite agree this is the only reference to the triune God. Jesus often referred to His Father, and spoke of the Paracletos whom He would send after He went away. And in Acts 1, He tells the disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit whom the Father has promised. I do agree that the most concise reference is the verse in Matthew 28.

[Toney]

In your theology, do you absolutely insist upon the coequality and consubstantial nature of the Trinity as Godhead?

BTW, your liberal Christianity credentials as articulated in another LC thread are stellar.

[Orthodox Andrew]

Sorry, I'm a fundie :)

*Mod hat on*

Non-liberal Christians are not allowed to debate in this forum. Please review the rules.:) http://christianforums.com/t736849

*Mod hat off*

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

*Mod hat on*

Non-liberal Christians are not allowed to debate in this forum. Please review the rules.:) http://christianforums.com/t736849

*Mod hat off*
I am a liberal as well

[Orthodox Andrew]

I am a liberal as well
Your last post said that you were a fundie?:scratch:

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Your last post said that you were a fundie?:scratch:
Yes. I was talking with ome liberals and they said I would be considered a liberal and well as a fundie

[Orthodox Andrew]

Yes. I was talking with ome liberals and they said I would be considered a liberal and well as a fundie
Well, if you really are a liberal Christian, carry on.;)

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I have been told I am. This liberal, conservative, fundie terminology is new to me, sorry :P

[fragmentsofdreams]

Sorry, I'm a fundie :) Don't worry. We'll forgive you for it and love you anyway. :)

[seebs]

He's friendly, he means well, and he wishes to tell his story and hear ours; I guess that makes him a liberal for our purposes, yes?

[elanor]

Poor Andreas! You have my sympathies. :) It can't be easy to mod when we liberals have the attitude of 'Ya'll come, just don't attack us.' On the scale of difficulty it must rank alongside herding cats. ;) I hope you find the positives of this assignment outweigh the negatives.

[Orthodox Andrew]

Poor Andreas! You have my sympathies. :) It can't be easy to mod when we liberals have the attitude of 'Ya'll come, just don't attack us.' On the scale of difficulty it must rank alongside herding cats. ;) I hope you find the positives of this assignment outweigh the negatives.Thanks.:) I think I'm in for quite the ride.^_^

[seebs]

Thanks.:) I think I'm in for quite the ride.^_^

Well, the good news is, you'll probably see a fairly low incidence of demands that someone be kept away because something he says is heretical or dangerous. :) As long as people are polite, we can learn from 'em, even if what we learn is sometimes "wow, people are just plain crazy". :)

[Toney]

Cool. It is nice to have a hugfest every so often. I agree with Seebs, as long as confusion is polite, confusion is welcome. We will never reach a consensual definition of a liberal Christian, nor should we try to do so. Origen posted some useful guidelines here (http://www.christianforums.com.au/showthread.php?p=8841823#post8841823), however.

Origen's 3rd century namesake taught us to read the Bible symbolically. Polite but confused interlopers into the LC forum might do well to avoid arguing from literal interpretations and inerrancy of the Bible, decidedly un-liberal mindsets and therefore against our rules.

The topic of this thread is the Trinity and there is an overlooked question to Elanor at Post #9.

[elanor]

In your theology, do you absolutely insist upon the coequality and consubstantial nature of the Trinity as Godhead?

BTW, your liberal Christianity credentials as articulated in another LC thread are stellar.Apologies for overlooking this, Toney! Oh, see now, I've had such a long, tiring weekend and here you're going to make me look up big words. ;)

consubstantial: regarded as the same in substance or essence

So you're asking me if I "absolutely insist" that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal and of the same essence, God?

I'm not a dogmatic person, Toney, as the words "absolutely insist" imply. I am (I hope) open to listen and consider questions from others. However, this is the understanding that I have come to of God as He is revealed in scripture, and in the way I live my life in relationship with Him. I do believe this is true of God, and I do believe this is how He has revealed Himself.

[Toney]

I do believe this is true of God, and I do believe this is how He has revealed Himself.

Thank you for your response!

The answers to most philosophical questions of great significance are both, and rather than either, or. You have presented a wonderful both,and statement.

I am not making my point very well, I fear. The Cappododian Fathers made it best.

Gregory of Nyssa said that "every concept of God is a mere simulacrum, a false likeness, an idol: it could not reveal God himself." The faith of Abramham was "unmixed, pure, and free of any concept."

The Trinity attempts to reconcile the God of Jewish scripture with Greek philosophy. No wonder the Jews have a problem with the Trinity!

My understanding of God is that He is unknowable. The Trinity is the Christian attribute. I believe in it as simulacrum, as 'approximation' to use Polycarp's term. I prefer not to make it an idol since we are commanded to worship only God.

Unless we can differentiate between God's essense and His activity, as taught by Philo of Alexandria and the Cappadocians, we will be unable to understand Christianity in its essential Jewish context. I am resolved to bang my head against the wall for Jesus on this one.

[fragmentsofdreams]

Poor Andreas! You have my sympathies. :) It can't be easy to mod when we liberals have the attitude of 'Ya'll come, just don't attack us.' On the scale of difficulty it must rank alongside herding cats. ;) I hope you find the positives of this assignment outweigh the negatives.
I've never tried this, but wouldn't herding cats be fairly easy with some sort of lure, such as cat nip or a piece of string. It seems to work on the level of one.

[Polycarp1]

Try this, then -- God is known to us as three Persons in one Godhead. What He may be is by no means limited to this, but it's accurate so far as it goes. We may not void the truth expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity -- but we should be equally careful not to presume that we have Him "in a box" defined by that statement. He is greater than anything we conceive -- and indeed, than anything we can conceive.

[Toney]

Can you accept this: God is known to us as three expressions (hypostases) of one essence (ousia) that is unfathomable... [as you go on to explain].

In Greek, as you know, hypostasis denotes an object viewed from without. We just cannot confer personhood upon it. That's (God as person) a poor and unfortunate Latin mistranslation of Greek in the first place and way too Sunday schoolish for this forum. It also smacks of tritheism.

The Trinity is esoteric truth. We should appreciate that and stop trying to make it exoteric truth thereby turning the metaphor into a false god.

I know this seems tortuous and arid but it is also vital as we shall see!

[seebs]

A friend of mine observed that there's some stuff in the OT which appears to hint at the Holy Spirit and the Father as two "persons", even though it wasn't always understood that way.

So, this guy comes along, and a lot of people say "no, we already know about God, and this guy ain't Him".

I wonder... What will we do if He ever indicates another Person? Believe it? Disbelieve it? Argue?

[Toney]

A friend of mine observed that there's some stuff in the OT which appears to hint at the Holy Spirit and the Father as two "persons", even though it wasn't always understood that way.

So, this guy comes along, and a lot of people say "no, we already know about God, and this guy ain't Him".

I wonder... What will we do if He ever indicates another Person? Believe it? Disbelieve it? Argue?

Seebs, I would like to see scriptual citation on that one. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew Bible to my knowledge to support that interpretation. I understand the point you are making, however.

We'd do what Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor proposed to do when Jesus unexpectedly showed up. We'd kill him again. Expect it (Rv 11).

[seebs]

I don't recall the citations, but there's a few things that, if you look at 'em through Christian eyes, come pretty close to our conception of "the holy spirit".

[Toney]

I may have misunderstood. The Holy Spirit as well as the Shekinah are well supported by Jewish scriptures. Sorry.

[Treasure the Questions]

I agree that exactly who and what God is is beyond our human understanding, but I think Father, Son and Holy Spirit probably explain it best. :)

Karin

[Toney]

The Latin word persona originally referred to the mask an actor wears on stage. The Nicean phrase "one in being with the Father" does not refer to two separate beings, or persons, but to ways of being. We recognize three, actually: body, soul, and spirit.

I believe that discussion/speculation on the Nature of God is edifying for us and pleasing to the Father.

[fragmentsofdreams]

There is a reason why they call it a mystery. No one would think it up on their own and our attempts to describe it always seem incomplete.

I like the way Augustine integrates love into his theology of the Trinity, but I will have to give it more thought and study to see whether it fits with the way the persons of the Trinity are represented in the Bible.

[Protinus]

bump

[eRev]

*tilt

[Flynmonkie]

I prefer to view God as a title.

Think of a pretzel, each hole formed represents the Father, Son, and Spirit. The whole pretzel would be God.:thumbsup:

It always seems to work for me :)

[Multi-Elis]

Shekinah-- that was it. refered to the presence of God around the temple, wasn't it? It commes from the root Sh.KH.N which is the root for to dwell. And I think it's a feminine gendered word.

I'm quite agnostic about the trinity. It seems to me a deduced conept. That means we could have deduced it wrong.
But as for the idea of true metaphore, I currently believe it (currently, because my ideas always change). I'm influenced (perhaps too much?) by NDE ideas. They speak of meeting the Light. Sometimes he is identified as Yeshua. Sometimes he takes the form of a human being, but not always. SOmetimes he just stays light. And this light is divine. Perhaps a divinity. Who knows. I have know clue how it all ties in. But notice that even the term Light is a metaphore. We can't understand the concept without some metaphore. Well, I think this Light graciously incarnated it's self to Yeshua, in order for us to be able to better understand and relate to him. So when we believe in Yeshua, we are believing in the truth, even if his incarnation was metaphore of his true nature, so that we could understand.

I don't know if this makes sens, but this is the closest verse in the bible that supports that concept in a way...
John Chapter 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god/divine/a divinity. (Ambigiuos greek)

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ


Toney, I love your Avatar.

[Toney]

Shekinah-- that was it. refered to the presence of God around the temple, wasn't it? It commes from the root Sh.KH.N which is the root for to dwell. And I think it's a feminine gendered word.

In Jewish custom it refers to the feminine presence of God. The Shekinah was the cloud that accompanied the Ark through the desert.

Any true Trinitarian formulation must contain the Shekinah, IMO. It theological blather it may be said that the Shekinah has 'affinity' with the Holy Spirit, but is not the Holy Spirit.

Thanks to Abiel for [opening] this thread, and for your post Multi.

[Polycarp1]

Let me throw something out here for discussion, which amazingly enough is even orthodox in conception (is that permissible in WWMC?;)):

There is a difference between the Trinity and the Dogma of the Trinity. The first is the humble recognition of a holy mystery, stated roughly as follows:

YHWH, the Father = God
Jesus Christ = God
The Holy Spirit = God
The Father != Jesus != the Holy Spirit
There is only one God.


The second is an effort to conceptualize the resolution of the apparent paradox implicit in this mystery, using the forms and categories of Aristotelian philosophy.

I think it's quite possible to say "I believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, One God" and at the same time say "I reject all the balderdash about 3 hypostases in 1 ousia, co-eternal but with ontological priority and posteriority." (Not that I necessarily do -- but it's to me an acceptable position for a Christian to take.)

Draw a difference between the living reality of a Triune God and the philosophical abstraction that attempts to comprehend Him.

===

Oh yes. What seebs has to say is "heretical and dangerous." That's why it's absolutely vital that wehear it!! :wave: ^_^ :P

[Polycarp1]

I've never tried this, but wouldn't herding cats be fairly easy with some sort of lure, such as cat nip or a piece of string. It seems to work on the level of one.

You can lead cats anywhere, by going before them with something they find alluring or intriguing. "Herding cats" refers to trying to drive them before you, like a shepherd herding his sheep, and is impossible -- all cats are rugged individualists with minds of their own.

There's an important lesson embedded in that metaphor somewhere -- and someday I'll learn it! :P

[Toney]

I think it's quite possible to say "I believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ His Son our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, One God" and at the same time say "I reject all the balderdash about 3 hypostases in 1 ousia, co-eternal but with ontological priority and posteriority." (Not that I necessarily do -- but it's to me an acceptable position for a Christian to take.)


Would that CF also thought the position acceptable.

Nice to read your (con)substantial work again. :wave: