Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Meaning Of The Trinity
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 9 of 1864 (376850)
01-13-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
01-13-2007 6:10 PM


sidelined writes:
I also would ask what the explanation is for the pregnancy experienced by Mary {wife of Joseph} if it is the case that the trinity are all the same since this would make Jesus the father of himself.
sidelined; You are aware of yourself. You can't say this awareness happened on any one day. As long as you have been of a certain age, you have had a mental image of yourself. It may be flawed, incomplete, etc.
Jesus is God's mental image of Himself. It is an image so perfect and complete that it is of the exact same essence or 'being' as the original. Jesus did not come AFTER God; God always knew what He (God) was, whereas we have to learn and grow and look in the mirror to get an idea of ourselves.
Yet, Jesus only has existance becuase of God, so He is the SON, the offspring, the Word/Idea of God...He reflects God, and not vice versa. The Will of the Father is the Will of the Son.
In time, the Word/Idea/Image of God was put into a human body, to continue in reflecting the Will of the Father in ways that humans could understand.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 01-13-2007 6:10 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2007 12:20 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 11 of 1864 (376950)
01-14-2007 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
01-14-2007 12:20 PM


sidelined writes:
We also have not established how the Holy spirit works into any of this nor how and why it was the holy spirit part of the trinity that performed the impregnating of Mary.
OK, side, one thing at a time. I will get to this in a minute.
Just where in the bible does it make this assertion? Where is there scripture stating that Jesus was "God's mental image of himself" ?
There is no mention of Trinity in the Bible. There are certain things that don't make sense, or allude to there being a mystery...but all of our current guesses are no more than guesses...they are possible ways of explaining the anomolies in Jesus' speech, like the one you mentioned ; 'Before Abraham was, I Am'. The Trinity is to my knowledge the one guess that fits all of the known 'evidence' without falling apart at another end. It requires, as with the other theological guesses, a leap of faith. It is worthwhile to note that other guesses/doctrines have also sprung from the same Biblical 'evidence' but in every case, some application of human thought is needed to fill in the gaps. You just won't find a clear picture in the Bible, or any type of 'solution' spelled out.
Then if he had no existence prior to being born then what do we make of John 8:58?
I am not sure if you read my post right. I didn't say Jesus had no existance prior to being born. Trust me, when the church developed the doctrine of the Trinity, they didnt skip over John 8. I said that Jesus HAS NO existance outside of God, not that He didnt exist before He was born as a man.
Just think about it; does your mental image of yourself exist if you don't exist? Are you its 'creator' or did it create you? Now, I don't want you to go thinking that God created Jesus, in theological circles that's incorrect; because it means God used 'stuff', that He planned to 'make' Jesus. It is more like Jesus HAS to be there just because God is there. God's image of Himself is eternal, having no beginning or end as He has no beginning or end. If The Word/Image disappeared, it would mean God disappeared, but the Word could not have existed without God. Get it?
Now, it is only at a certain point in time that the Word was put into a physical body...Jesus was born, BUT before Abraham existed, He Is. He does not say 'I Was' because that is a finite term. It is past tense. God has no past or future, all is NOW, which is a big clue in the Bible for how the Trinity came about as our 'solution'.
After all of that, the person of the Holy Spirit is simpler to understand, but more complex in a way also. The Spirit is a force, a power, a conduit. He is the means by which God accomplishes something...God's Will in Action. God willed Jesus to become Man. His Spirit is the Force which made it happen. There can be a misunderstanding that the Spirit of God was put into Mary; that is easy to picture...half man, half God. But, no, Jesus was put into Mary, and the Spirit is what put Him there. 'By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus became man'. The wording of the creed is very careful and precise. So, we have the Power of God which comes out of Him, (proceeds from Him). It can't exist without God, and it is not a seperate Being. God uses His power all over the place, He sends out His Spirit, so to speak, but the Spirit does not divide into a million tiny Gods, it is all His Spirit, it is all God, omnipresent, and indivisible. Yet the Spirit is distinct from God. It is God being in all places as a Power, yet not splitting Himself up.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2007 12:20 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2007 4:59 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 13 of 1864 (377009)
01-14-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by sidelined
01-14-2007 4:59 PM


sidelined writes:
Since the egg in Mary's body required sperm in order for her to become pregnant I cannot see how your above explanation applies to the problem of creating a flesh and blood human through the assertion of the interaction of God and his Holy Spirit no matter how convoluted the claim since we are still left incapable of bridging the physical and non physical regardless of mere assertions to the contrary.
Sorry for the copout, but theology doesn't deal much with genetics. It is the same as asking how putting Jesus' spirit back in his dead body could stop Him from dying of old age...I don't know. I can explain the idea of a Trinity, but not the physical 'miracle'. Why could God not just create life without sperm?
If you want to ask about where the Trinity doctrine came from and how it works, obviously you have to throw out all of the supposing this and supposing that about the apostles.
The doctors and theologians who formulated the trinity doctrine did not ask such questions. They assumed, and believed, that they were dealing with facts. If you doubt the facts, you have no reason to worry about the trinity, and understanding it is not going to prove that the Bible is a fact.
So I suggest understanding it from the point of view of people who; 1. assume the apostles told the truth, 2. assume Jesus existed, 3. that he spoke in ways we can't understand, and 4. that he meant something by his words that we should figure out.
Where in the bible is it asserted that jesus had an existence before birth? Indeed what is the definition of existence prior to birth anyway? Before you were born what was your existence?
You already know this...John 8 'Before Abraham came to be, I am'. Obviously Jesus was born after Abraham, right?
And of course, John 1 'In the beginning was the Word, etc, 'and the Word became flesh'.
If you want to ask our questions again without the part about the apostles inventing a religion, I will try again to answer.
Neither I think. Since my mental image is a mishmash of memories feelings and body sensations which are a construction of brain in its physical biology it behooves me to point out that it can neither exist prior to my existence nor is it something under my control exactly.
Here, I asked you not to think too much about being a 'creator'. All I am saying is that before you came into existance, you had no mental image of yourself. In that sense it depends on you. If God had no beginning, His image is likewise eternal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2007 4:59 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 01-15-2007 9:38 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 15 of 1864 (377250)
01-15-2007 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ramoss
01-15-2007 9:38 AM


ramoss writes:
I personally think that the Trinity is a way to keep the idea of Jesus being God,and the 'god is one'. I think it is hard to explain because
it just doesn't make sense.
It makes sense to me...the Bible puts forth the idea of Jesus being God. If the Bible was just a teeny little bit clearer about if he was or wasn't or if there were now two gods, or where they came from or how its possible...anything! we wouldnt need to try to make Jesus God and yet have One God. The Trinity is a sensible answer to a problem that might not even exist outside of the Bible.
the wisdom of god. Not God
If it is not God, what is it? I think you will find my version incorporates this just as well...I don't care if you call it logos, idea, word, wisdom... int the Trinity IT IS God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 01-15-2007 9:38 AM ramoss has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 21 of 1864 (381036)
01-29-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Greatest I am
01-28-2007 11:20 PM


Re: Anstasia
GreatestIam writes:
You indicated that God did not send out a number of Holy Spirits but in a real sense He does.
Think of God casting out a large net called the Holy Spirit.
Does He cast one net, or a number of nets?
God is one.
Good. Now what about Jesus? A great prophet, non-eternal, and sometimes wrong in your opinion, is obviously not God. Thus, you do not believe in the Trinity, and are in the wrong thread.
Regards,
A Christ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Greatest I am, posted 01-28-2007 11:20 PM Greatest I am has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 22 of 1864 (381039)
01-29-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Greatest I am
01-29-2007 4:31 PM


Re: The Physical Resurrection
GreatestIam writes:
Well and good if Jesus kept His body but really what good is His body in heaven. I prefer to think that His body is on earth and He will be raised at end time with the rest of us.
Why do you say we will all be raised at End Time, and yet that our bodies will do no good in Heaven? Are we all having a 'mental' resurrection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Greatest I am, posted 01-29-2007 4:31 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Greatest I am, posted 01-29-2007 10:26 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 25 of 1864 (381131)
01-29-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Greatest I am
01-29-2007 10:26 PM


Re: The Physical Resurrection
GreatestIam writes:
I prefer to think that His body is on earth and He will be raised at end time with the rest of us
I need not justify the lack of necessity of placing bodies in an inappropriate place. Do we actually visualize Jesus floating somewhere for 2000 years.
I do believe in a mental resurrection.
You need not justify anything, but it would be much appreciated if you could explain exactly WHAT PART OF JESUS WILL ARISE with the rest of us if He has already mentally resurrected?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Greatest I am, posted 01-29-2007 10:26 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Greatest I am, posted 01-30-2007 10:27 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 6068 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 75 of 1864 (390256)
03-19-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by tudwell
03-17-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Not henotheism
tudwell writes:
This definition, specifically the very first sentence, is nothing like the 'believe in multiple gods, but worship only one' henotheism I'm familiar with. In fact, this definition almost seems to be a possible explanation of the Trinity. Any thoughts, anyone?
Belief in many gods and worship of one, whether it is a greater god or a regionally specific god, can also be a form of polytheistic monolatry. The difference is in whether the gods are viewed as connected or independent.
Because this definition is so unclear, it is hard to say whether it does coincide with the Trinity, but here goes my opinion anway.
sofiatopia writes:
These Supreme Beings, transcending and/or coinciding with the natural order, are interconnected, spring from a common source
In this sentence, there is reference to more than one Supreme Being. Many gods are acknowledged. That they are all the same in substance does not mean that their individual existance is denied. In monotheism, only one Supreme is acknowledged, and even if It is 'seperated' the other 'gods' are not other gods. It is the silliest distinction surely, but the distinction is only in the view of the beholder. Does he/she worship one God or many as One?
spring from a common source (before or simultaneous with creation), are not co-eternal from the beginning,
This is confusing. I have no idea how 'before creation' can not mean co-eternal. Perhaps one God is eternal and the manifestations are post-creation. If so, this is also at deference with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, wherein all 'gods' are co-eternal.
do form a concerted Divine order, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Although each has its own specific, irreducible domain, cooperation, interchanges and adjustments between these remains possible, although not necessary.
And this is all a description of many gods, even if connected in substance. This compares henotheism to polytheism where the gods can be greater or lesser or not cooperative, but as I understand the definition, I do not beleive it is correct to say that all of the Christian 'gods' have a specific domain, irreducible or otherwise, nor is there cooperation in the sense of different Beings working together. The cooperation of the Christian Godhead is inevitable, as they are One, not many. Interchange is necessary. There are not three working seperately as One, but one working as three. There is no god-team?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by tudwell, posted 03-17-2007 1:03 PM tudwell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by kuresu, posted 03-19-2007 8:00 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024