How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

As I understand it Matthew is the first in the sequence in the NT because that is the tradition. The scholarship I've read on the synoptic question has Mark being the first with Matthew and Luke drawing on Mark. I've not read near as much you, Jar, but when you say most scholars are you counting back centuries? I've been under the impression from the few sources I've read that contemporary scholarship places Mark first.lfen

Angel,Welcome. I'm curious as to what you think God is. It appears you think God has a body with a face and a backside. Do you think this body is made of some substance and has a form and a function? Does this body dwell inside the Universe we know or somewhere outside it?Thank you,
lfen

Well, first, these are words written by humans not God. They are stories handed down that include the stories of conversations with God.And second, I see no reason to take them literally. The "face" of God doesn't have to mean eyes, nose, mouth but could mean direct experience of reality for example.Substance = matter = energy? But what is consciousness? energy? energy in the form of matter? What is a being? an energetic process of local transformations of the energy/matter of the universe. It's like a whirlpool in a river, for a while the water swirls and then the pattern dissipates.lfen

I wasn't attempting to change your faith I was giving you an example of how I interpreted "face". What I want is an example from you. Do you mean a face with eyes, nose, mouth? I just don't have an idea of what you mean. If I take you literally you say I'm being obnoxious, but then please give me enough details so that I can understand what you mean by face, back, or being.lfen

Well, we are from two very different worlds, I've never met anyone who said that God had eyes, nose, mouth before. I mean I know about anthropomorphic gods like the Greeks had but I'd always heard that Yahweh was a spirit not a body, so I hadn't until now thought you had meant it as literally as you apparently do.lfen

Angel,What is the distinction between God and Godhead? Is there any?Thankyou,lfen

Angel,I've never heard face to face used the way you are here. I would say you are not talking face to face but rather are engaging in written communication, a big difference. No other sensory channels such as pupil dilation and eye movement, color in face, breath rythyms and tonality. I don't see how you can claim this is face to face! Even over the phone is not face to face, and though some people might include some video conferencing as face to face, I think face to face means in person at a close enough personal distance to read the other persons non verbal responses.lfen

Angel,So if I am correctly reading you then would you accept that this statement follows from what you've said: God is NOT a trinity, but the Godhead IS a trinity of God, Son, Spirit?Thanks,
lfen

So Godhead is just a name for a grouping, rather than a thing in itself?lfen

Angel,No implying, I'm trying to understand how you used the word. I'm not a Christian and have no vested interest in the doctrine of the trinity.If there was a historic Jesus and I think the slim evidence slightly favors that over the mythicist position but not by much, my guess is that he was a teacher that had awakened to nonduality. This is a different concept of "oneness" than was developed in Christian thought though.Thanks,
lfen

What is so special about uniqueness? Trees are unique, snowflakes are unique, beyond a certain level of atomic or molecular complexity uniqueness emerges.What are you? Korzbyski pointed out that because of time a thing is not identical to itself. He was returning to the insight of Heraclitus: .You at this moment are different than you the moment before and the moment after. So what is an entity? Where would it start? Where would it end?lfen

I understood you were saying we assigned groups. My point is that we also assign "oneness". You are a changing collection of components, how do you get at an individual, or entity?We see entities, at least in part, because of the functionality of our perception. The biological organism called you, or me for that matter, depends absolutely on oxygen to live. The atmostphere and other organsims obviously don't depend on my breathing to survive. Yet lungs are part of the atmospheric processes of oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc.
The biosphere of this planet is composed of the ongoing interactions of all organisms, and is also dependent on the sun, which in turn depends of the functioning of the laws of physics. Where in this are there any meaningful individuals or groups? All are interdependent functioning processes of transformation.Seeing this, if there was a historical Jesus in what way could he be anymore an entity than anyone else? You can have a concept of Jesus as an entity but that arises as a concept that is assigned as a label.lfen

And if Modern English is pronounced differently than even Elizabethan English, etc. for French and Old French, and so on, is there any reason not to believe that we don't know how the Hebrew of the various books of the Bible were pronounced by the authors themselves? It could have been quite a bit different.While traveling years ago I spent an afternoon talking to a couple from Liverpool, England. I don't think I understood half of what they said to me and I was struggling the entire time. They were speaking English and so was I.lfen

Any day now I expect a thread to argue vociferously the number of angels that can dance on a pin!lfen

This is a provocative thought! What ever do you mean by "substance" and what then is mother's milk?lfen