The Trinity

[JosephM]

The diversity of thought on this concept is really fascinating!

 

(snip)

 

It seems to me you recognize by your statement above that it is a 'concept'. Just as any words we can say about 'God' is also a concept. Perhaps, the problem with concepts as relates to spiritual things is that concepts are limiting and of the mind whereas God is unlimited and found not in the mind but in transcendence of it. (Spirit) Jesus said ye know not what ye worship. True worshipshers shall worship God in spirit and in truth.

 

Concepts can tell you at best what God is not. If you say God is the creator then you are saying that God is not the created. If you say God is Jesus then you are saying God is not other than Jesus. If you say God is the holy spirit or his presence with us then all you are saying is that God is not absence with us. You can still say that God is all three but you still have only a limited concept of God by the dual nature of mind.

 

One could say that God is All that IS both in form and formless. Or just God IS (The I AM) . These words might be closer to truth since they say God is 'BEING' which is difficult if not impossible to conceptualize with the mind and don't have the same limits as other words yet they still are just an attempt to define the undefineable. It seems to me that one can only 'know' God by becoming One with God. And then one can only describe that by saying or declaring undefineable words to the mind like I am Truth, I am Life . ( Didn't Jesus say, "Father I pray that they may be ONE even as we are ONE".

 

Anyway, since my real nature is spirit, it seems to me good to not entertain the carnal mind by pretending to be able to conceptualize that which is beyond the mind's understanding. Be ONE with God as did Jesus and all questions will disappear. Just something to consider.

 

Love,

Joseph

[Realspiritik]

It does not make sense to me to take one metaphor literally while ignoring the others (i.e. all the places in the Bible that refer to God in ways that can be interpreted as Trinitarian being taken literally, while those that call God by other names - i.e. feminine images - are interpreted only metaphorically). I don't think there's as much a danger of that in Progressive Christianity, although I could be wrong.

 

Jesus here.

 

What I find puzzling, from my angelic viewpoint, is that none of you has been willing to say out loud that the Trinity, when understood as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," is all about God being a guy. Male. Masculine. Paternalistic. XY chromosomes. Hunter-gatherer. King. Ruler. Mighty Lord. You can try as hard as you like to try to convince me that you're much more enlightened than that, that you know God is made up of more than just than masculine principle. Well, of course, you say, rolling your eyes at me, of course God must include the Feminine Principle as much as the Masculine Principle. But you're not willing to stick your necks out and say unequivocally that the Holy Spirit is a Gal. You don't want to stand behind the idea that the Holy Spirit is not the third masculine aspect of a male Triune God. You don't want to say, as Progressive Christians, that the Holy Spirit is your Holy Mother, God the Mother. Your mother.

 

In Hebrew and Aramaic (which I spoke), the root word for spirit is "ruah", and it's a feminine noun. In Koine Greek (which I also spoke), the root word for spirit is "pneuma," and it's a neuter noun, neither masculine nor feminine. But it's sure not a masculine noun. Give me some poetic credit. I was smart enough to take full advantage of linguistic nuances, such as gender and onomatopoeia. I was very careful with the words I used.

 

Come on, folks. Somewhere between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism lies the possibility that I, Jesus, was teaching people not to be afraid of the idea that God the Father and God the Mother are two separate but equal Divine partners. Abba . . . my divine father. Ruah . . . my divine mother. What's so hard about that?

 

Thank you to those who have correctly pointed out that Trinitarianism has almost no Biblical support, efforts to prove the contrary notwithstanding.

 

On the other hand, there are many scriptural references in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament to the Divine Feminine. The holy dove -- whose form Spirit was said to take during my baptism -- is a clear and longstanding reference to the Feminine aspect of Creator. In other words, the dove represents God the Mother.

 

This idea was anathema to Paul, so don't go looking in the Pauline corpus for God the Mother. She ain't there, not the way she's hiding in the Synoptics.

 

Have a good day, folks.

 

Love Jesus

June 27, 2008

[JosephM]

As a clarification of my posts.... If any offence has been taken any reference to God as a Him was done in haste and accidently purely out of linguistic habit. It seems to me in my view that God is neither male nor female nor both since there is no incompleteness nor duality in God.

 

Love,

Joseph

[McKenna]

I don't have time for a lengthy reply but I just wanted to say there are some really interesting thoughts here!

 

And Wayseer, I have described it the exact same way in thought and conversation - Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer.

[October's Autumn]

As a clarification of my posts.... If any offence has been taken any reference to God as a Him was done in haste and accidently purely out of linguistic habit. It seems to me in my view that God is neither male nor female nor both since there is no incompleteness nor duality in God.

 

Love,

Joseph

 

Funny you mention that. I go through periods where I am just rankled by references to God as a male and I go through periods where I don't even see it. Usually in my church "God" is the pronoun for "God." Perhaps that is why I didn't notice it? I guess I just read through it.

[minsocal]

Funny you mention that. I go through periods where I am just rankled by references to God as a male and I go through periods where I don't even see it. Usually in my church "God" is the pronoun for "God." Perhaps that is why I didn't notice it? I guess I just read through it.

 

I know what you mean. In my church, members use "Our Father" ... "Our Creator" ... "Our Mother" as they see fit at the time. It sounds a bit odd during the Lord's Prayer, but you get used to it after a while.

[davidk]

I don't, however, think the idea of the Trinity needs to be thrown out entirely by Progressive Christians, unless they want to (which clearly some do). I think it can be understood in a metaphorical sense, at least that's how I interpret it.

 

But you're right, I don't think a literal belief in a triune God really works for very many Progressive Christians, although I am sure there are some out there. (Like I said on this or another thread - we're a motley bunch )

All I, or anyone else can do, is present what we have to be answers to the questions of God, the universe, and Man. Some presented can be sufficient, but unfortunately many more are not. They only confuse and complicate the Truth's simplicity by placing man's answers ahead of God's.

The Truth is what we seek. Keep asking questions if you find answers unsatisfactory.

Trust His answer, not ours.

--

Jesus warns us; "See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name saying, "I am the Christ," and will mislead you. Don't follow them, because they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name."

--

[MOW]

[Haha can you see a theme here?

 

I wanted to bring up a couple beliefs that are central to "orthodox" Christianity and ask how you guys thought they could be incorporated into Progressive Christianity, or if you think they even should be.]

 

With that said, what do you think? Is there a way to understand the Trinity that can deepen our understanding of God? Or is it merely an outdated theological concept that has no meaning for people today?

 

 

Hi Mckenna

 

This is the way a guest pastor tried to explain it ,to a group of children at a church .

She had one of the girls stand up, (I'll call her Brianna). She said" Look at Brianna. She is a daughter, a friend , and a sister , but she is still Brianna" . I don't know if people here will like that analogy but I thought it was pretty good for a childrens sermon .

 

 

MOW

[soma]

She said" Look at Brianna. She is a daughter, a friend , and a sister , but she is still Brianna"

.

 

It is nice for adults also. Thanks

[Realspiritik]

Hi Mckenna

 

This is the way a guest pastor tried to explain it ,to a group of children at a church .

She had one of the girls stand up, (I'll call her Brianna). She said" Look at Brianna. She is a daughter, a friend , and a sister , but she is still Brianna" . I don't know if people here will like that analogy but I thought it was pretty good for a childrens sermon .

MOW

 

I like the way the pastor encouraged the children to think of Brianna as a person who has different sorts of relationships with others. This is positive and mature. Children (and many adults) are learning to think about their relationships in complex, interconnected ways. I think it's very important for us to understand our relationship with God in similarily complex, interconnected ways. So, for example, we can understand God as both parent and mentor and loving friend (to name only three out of many more which I and others can think of).

 

I think, however, it would be somewhat unrealistic to say that this is the meaning the church councils had in mind when they wrote the Trinitarian creeds in the 4th century. The Chalcedon Creed, written very late in the 4th century, has heavily influenced church doctrine since the time of its writing. The purpose of the Chalcedon Creed was to "nail down" once and for all the nature of the Son. The Chalcedon Creed -- which incidentally does not even mention the Holy Spirit -- is an edict dictating the exact way in which people are to understand the Son who is "of one substance" with the Father. Any other understanding was -- and still is, in some Christian quarters -- heresy, and sufficient cause for the Inquistion to burn you at the stake (although not necessarily literally so).

 

I think it's important to be realistic and honest about the horrors inflicted on millions of people over the centuries as the Latin Church sought to preserve the Trinitarian definition of God -- a definition that isn't even in the New Testament.

 

The language we use to talk about God is important. It's important that we be able to speak about God as daughter, friend, and sister. Or as nurturer, creator, healer. Or whatever else is loving and uplifting. I think those in the Progressive Christian movement want nothing less. But there is danger in referencing the orthodox Trinity (the one spelled out in the 4th century creeds). If we do not stand up and reject the traditional Father/Son/Holy Spirit formula, we are tacitly condoning and minimizing the harm perpetrated by the Church. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, as they say. Let's recognize the history of Trinitarian thought, recognize the way this dogma has been used, grieve it, and move forward together.

 

Jen

[Realspiritik]

Oops. Accidentally posted it twice.

[TheGreatWhiteBuffalo]

So you're GOD/Father/Mother creator is now defined.

 

Do you yet understand?

 

There is a progression to your understanding.

 

Humanity is on Trial, will we set ourselves free?

 

Will we get life or death? I don't want life in prison or a death sentence do you?

[Realspiritik]

So you're GOD/Father/Mother creator is now defined.

 

Do you yet understand?

 

There is a progression to your understanding.

 

Humanity is on Trial, will we set ourselves free?

 

Will we get life or death? I don't want life in prison or a death sentence do you?

 

Gary, I don't know what is going on in your life at the moment, and maybe you've already posted your story and I missed it, as I don't read everything . . . but you sound deeply distressed, and I just want to let you know that I really, really believe in the way God loves you. I know things on Planet Earth can be profoundly painful at times, but I trust the love and the courage of our amazing Mother and Father, and I trust they are looking after you -- even though it may be hard at times to see their love. To God, you are a beautiful and wondrous person. Just please try and remember that.

 

Blessings to you on your journey.

 

Jen

[davidk]

[Haha can you see a theme here?

 

I wanted to bring up a couple beliefs that are central to "orthodox" Christianity and ask how you guys thought they could be incorporated into Progressive Christianity, or if you think they even should be.]

 

With that said, what do you think? Is there a way to understand the Trinity that can deepen our understanding of God? Or is it merely an outdated theological concept that has no meaning for people today?

 

Dear McKenna,

 

For the liberal/progressive theologian it is quite impossible to understand the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation; because if one is commited, without question, to the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, then by definition everything is a machine, and any idea of a verbalized, propositional revelation becomes absolute nonsense. Whether you begin with the naturalistic view in philosophy or theology, it makes no difference. Discussing details won't solve the problem. The big question has to be faced, the question of presuppositions. If I express myself in philosophical or theological terms of a propositional, verbalized revelation, knowledge that man has from God, the liberal would consider it unthinkable. Because by his world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, everything is a machine and there is no knowledge from outside, from God.

If this is your world view, and cannot consider any other, you are at a dead end. It denies the evidence we know about ourselves. In addition you will never be able to consider the presupposition which began modern science in the first place.

Unless you can consider the uniformity of natural causes in an open sysyem, that is open to the reordering by God, you'll have no answer.

--

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and knowledge. -Proverbs 1:7

For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth knowledge and understanding. - Poverbs 2:6

-

[minsocal]

Natural systems theory, taken as a body of work, does not universally support the claim made by davidk.

[Realspiritik]

If I express myself in philosophical or theological terms of a propositional, verbalized revelation, knowledge that man has from God, the liberal would consider it unthinkable. Because by his world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, everything is a machine and there is no knowledge from outside, from God.

If this is your world view, and cannot consider any other, you are at a dead end.

 

What has this got to do with being progressive and liberal? I am a progressive Christian precisely because I do not believe that everything is a machine, and I am tired -- very, very tired -- of conservatives such as you, Davidk, who try to squeeze our entire understanding of a very complex scientific universe into a tiny and very old machine called the Bible. It is your world view that is closed, Davidk, not ours.

 

Jen

[davidk]

There is a fear of the word 'closed' and an ignoring of the word 'if'.

--

Natural Systems Theory is an interpretation of the known, established facts of natural science.

The naturalistic view is: there has not been, nor can there be, an outside influence or revelation from God. In other words: nature (universe) is a machine, all on its own with no external influences.

 

That world view of the uniformity of natural causes is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God.

 

If you hold this naturalist view, as many liberal theologians do, eliminating the reordering and outside knowledge from God, you would be at a dead end trying to explain the trinity, incarnation, Jesus Christ, atonement, or salvation. As some posts can attest.

 

If you believe God has and can reorder and impart knowledge to man, you believe in an open system.

--

We agree the universe is complex. There has been no implication of acquiring our entire understanding of its physics comes from the Biblical text.

[minsocal]

A naturalistic system with certain emergent properties such consciousnes would allow for interaction with God. Emergent properties, at least of the strong type, negate the predictability of the "machine".

[soma]

Christians can be progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian; we are who we are. When we judge others we are only expressing the projection of our own mind. If we believe the path we are following is the true path we would rejoice, are absorbed in that path and being the best Christian we can be. If we are unsure we try to prove our path is true by comparing it with other paths, but we don't know the other path because we are not absorbed in it. We project our thoughts on that path and then argue to prove to ourselves that our path is best. I say we are all following the way of Jesus.

[minsocal]

There is a fear of the word 'closed' and an ignoring of the word 'if'.

--

Natural Systems Theory is an interpretation of the known, established facts of natural science.

 

Incorrect and out of date. State your source please.

[davidk]

A naturalistic system with certain emergent properties such consciousnes would allow for interaction with God. Emergent properties, at least of the strong type, negate the predictability of the "machine".

A naturalistic system by definition explicitly denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than a natural significance. It is characterized by or in accordance with naturalism. Specifically, the laws of cause and effect (ie; physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological conceptions of nature are invalid.

If the supernatural is "allowed" to emerge, the system can no longer be considered naturalistic. If you try to make it fit, you'll have to change definitions across the board.

--

If you read what I said earlier in #39 a little closer, it is that the world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system* denies supernatural revelation. Which many liberal/progressive theologians conform to. But if the system allows such revelation, it is the uniformity of natural causes in an open system.

 

Now, I called neither a 'natural system', but either an 'open' or a 'closed system' of the uniformity of natural causes. Neither denies the operations of the physical world, but they differ either by accepting or denying revelation and reordering by God.

 

If you don't fit the catagory of one, you would necessarily fit the other. You world view is not for me to conclude. If you believe in the open system that allows revelation from God, your view would be much more in line with traditional Christianity than the liberal. This is merely defining historical philosophic differences. The liberal world view may have undergone change that I am unaware of, but the traditional Christian world view hasn't.

 

If not accepting revelation from God is your view, there will be no basis for the understanding of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, et al. Competance in these matters depends on what God has revealed to man.

 

*error: in post #42, "That world view of the uniformity of natural causes is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God." It should read, "That world view of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system is closed to the concept of knowledge or influence from outside- from God.

-----

Christians can be progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian; we are who we are. When we judge others we are only expressing the projection of our own mind. If we believe the path we are following is the true path we would rejoice, are absorbed in that path and being the best Christian we can be. If we are unsure we try to prove our path is true by comparing it with other paths, but we don't know the other path because we are not absorbed in it. We project our thoughts on that path and then argue to prove to ourselves that our path is best. I say we are all following the way of Jesus.

What is this to say of the Trinity?

[minsocal]

A naturalistic system by definition explicitly denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than a natural significance. It is characterized by or in accordance with naturalism. Specifically, the laws of cause and effect (ie; physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological conceptions of nature are invalid.

If the supernatural is "allowed" to emerge, the system can no longer be considered naturalistic. If you try to make it fit, you'll have to change definitions across the board.

 

By definition

Not everything is nothing but a natural thing, nor need naturalism be a totalizing philosophy that accords unconditional primacy to the natural face of existence.

 

Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1995, p. 518).

[davidk]

A naturalistic system by definition explicitly denies that anything in reality has a supernatural or more than a natural significance. It is characterized by or in accordance with naturalism. Specifically, the laws of cause and effect (ie; physics and chemistry) are adequate to account for all phenomena and that teleological conceptions of nature are invalid.

If the supernatural is "allowed" to emerge, the system can no longer be considered naturalistic. If you try to make it fit, you'll have to change definitions across the board.

Belief that all objects, events, and values can be wholly explained in terms of factual and/or causal claims about the world, without reference to supernatural powers or authority. Prominent naturalists include Wm. Clifford and John Dewey. Willard Quine proposed a naturalistic epistemology, understood as empirical study of the origins and uses of sensory information.

 

Belief that the principles of human conduct can be derived from a proper understanding of human nature in the context of the universe as a rational whole. Although voluntarists suppose that god could will anything at all, Aquinas held that even the divine will is conditioned by reason. Thus, the natural law provides a non-revelatory basis for all human social conduct. Modern appeals to natural law are the foundation for social thought in the philosophies of Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf.

 

Philosophical Naturalism, ed. by Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling, and Howard K. Wettstein (Notre Dame, 1995); Naturalism, A Critical Analysis, ed. by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Routledge, 2000); Naturalism and Ethics, ed. by Dagfinn Follesdal (Garland, 2000) Robert F. Almeder, Harmless Naturalism: The Limits of Science and the Nature of Philosophy (Open Court, 1998); Michael Rea, World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism (Oxford, 2002); Penelope Maddy, Naturalism in Mathematics (Oxford, 2000); , ed. by James Beilby (Cornell, 2002); David Ray Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts (SUNY, 2000); and Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, ed. by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland (Routledge, 2000). John Finnis, Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory (Oxford, 1998); Samuel Pufendorf, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law, ed. by James Tully and Michael Silverthorne (Cambridge, 1991); Joel Feinberg, Problems at the Root of Law (Oxford, 2002); Mark Murphy, Natural Law and Practical Rationality (Cambridge, 2001); Martin Rhonheimer, Natural Law and Practical Reason: A Thomist View of Moral Autonomy, tr. by Gerald Malsbary (Fordham, 2000); and Robert P. George, In Defense of Natural Law (Oxford, 2001)

[soma]

The Trinity is a concept, a tool to help us understand God and grow closer to Him. People use tools in different ways and understand concepts at different levels. The people at the bottom of the mountain only see one concept and one meaning. Climb the mountain, enjoy the view and all becomes clear. Three in one and one in three like a music chord. Three notes making one sound.

[JosephM]

Neither of the words "Trinity" nor "Triunity" appear in the Old Testament or New Testament, which of course does not necessarily mean that the doctrine signified by these words has no basis in Scripture.[13] The doctrine of the Trinity is the result of "later theological interpretations of Christ's nature and function" (Harris 427-28) argued in debate and treatises.[14] [15]The concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the second century forward. Various passages from both the Christian and Hebrew scriptures have been cited as supporting this doctrine, while other passages are cited as opposing it.

 

It seems to me it is important to note... The Trinity is a Christian Church (organization) doctrine, stating that God exists as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but is one being. In Greek, hypostases literally means "that which stands beneath" Personally I find the literal Greek word more accurate than 3 'persons' which the dictionary defines as a "living physical human". I say this because God's essence cannot be limited to a living human (form) and neither have I found that God has any parts yet God is that which stands beneath all things. Else they would not exist.

 

If the doctrine of the trinity is useful in explaining or understanding God then all you have is conceptual knowledge 'about God'. This seems to me to be far inferior to having the mind of Christ which is to know God. Perhaps the progressive Christian progresses beyond church dogma and finds that which stands beneath all things and can dispense with concepts that do little to edify the church (not an organization) but rather causes division as in Binatarianism, Unitarianism, Oneness and Modalism. Each of course claiming to be Christian and believe the same book yet convinced it has an exclusitivity on discernment and understanding of 'knowledge about' yet missing that which is pointed to.

 

Just one view to consider,

Love in Christ,

Joseph