About the Trinity and being Christian

[Gatsby]

The Trinity is a sophisticated philosophical concept; considering that Christianity has undergone alot of editing and distortion throughout its history, it's not surprising that we've inherited a garbled and nonsensical version of this concept.

Broadly speaking:

The Father of the Trinity is the primal point of Creation, the "First Cause" to use a popular but misleading term. This primal point has an extremely refined and abstract nature, and is beyond regular human comprehension. The Father gives rise to fundamental principles of Creation, which in turn give rise to successively more concrete principles and phenomena (including the physical world and the human mind).

In the midst of this chain of Creation there is The Son, which has been described as a cosmic reflection of The Father. The Son is like a bridge between the more abstract fundamental side of Creation, and the more concrete distinctive side of creation that humans are familiar with. Thus the Son is the way through which The Father can be known by human comprehension, and this is why Christ asserts in John 14:6 that "no one comes to the Father except through me".

Because both The Father and The Son occupy very lofty places in the paradigm of Creation from a human perspective, it is necessary for there to be a means by which the human mind can embark on the process of communion with the Divine. The Holy Spirit provides this means: it is the aspect of the Divine which is most closely and directly associated with the physical world, and it might even be regarded as permeating the physical world. This function of the Holy Spirit is exemplified in Luke 3:22 where the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus, thus enabling Christ's ministry to begin.

 

[Glassfan]

I've always felt God was a higher being, beyond my feeble understanding. The Holy Trinity is a Mystery of the Church, and is not intended to be fully understood by man. Analogies are an aid to understanding, not the real thing.

 

[Agent327]

The Holy Trinity is a Mystery of the Church, and is not intended to be fully understood by man.

Whether it is a 'Mystery of the Church' or not, it was formulated by man. You are arguing it is, however, not be understood by man; then what is the point?

The Father of the Trinity is the primal point of Creation, the "First Cause" to use a popular but misleading term. This primal point has an extremely refined and abstract nature, and is beyond regular human comprehension.

Abstraction is a human concept, and therefore inherently comprehensible by man. The Trinity, by contast, is not that abstract at all, as I've tried to show. The 'garbled' presentation of it, however, is largely due to the unclarity of its formulation - which in turn is due to theological differences of opinion.

 

[Glassfan]

Whether it is a 'Mystery of the Church' or not, it was formulated by man. You are arguing it is, however, not be understood by man; then what is the point?

That's a secular interpretation of the sacred. Do you in turn accept Christians doubting evolution?

God is a higher reality, independent of our "formulations". Like H.G. Wells' alleycat in London, ignorant of corporations, we are ignorant of God's true nature. Speculation is entertaining, but as you say, what's the point?

 

[aelf]

But why's it so freaking important?

Because it's important to the concept of redemption. If man cannot redeem himself, then it follows that Jesus can't have been just a man. But if he is God as well as the Father in Heaven, does that mean that there is more than one god? The trinitarian answer (while professing that Jesus is God and is therefore able to redeem us) is no, hence the logic of the Trinity.

 

[El_Machinae]

Further to aelf, if Jesus was God, then how can we call it a sacrifice? Was the temptation of Jesus by the Devil the least bit meaningful?

Now that we have the Trinity, can we describe which of the Trinity deliberately lets children starve to death? It's not the Holy Spirit, because the Father seems to release the Holy Spirit to act.

 

[GoodGame]

Then there's some other stuff in some other threads about the same thing.

I don't know who is Christian and I don't really have any opinion on what it means to be "a true Christian". As a non-Christian I assume that things like using the bible as a guide, trying to be a good person, and believing that Jesus came back to life are important.

What exactly does it mean to be Trinitarian, and why is that so important? (Or, in Arakhor's and VRWCAgent's cases, why is it so unimportant?) Does it really override all the other beliefs from the "Christian" set?

Most doctrinal differences are based on historical meetings ("Councils") between religious leaders throughout history, going back to (ask Dachs) Imperial Roman times.

You're referring to the Nicene crede which came about from the First Council of Nicea.

The main concern of that is the "who, what, when, where, why" of Christ's divinity. Like some believed Christ was like a meta-form of God (like kind of like Greek myth in which the gods assumed human form to mess around with humans) or created immaterial, while others believed he was a human actually made by fertilization of Mary. That's basically how the trinity comes about since if you accept it then God and Christ are two separate entities (Father and Son). I think the underlying cause of the intellectual conflict is really the cultural and philosophical traditions of the people. Generally what I understand of the trinity is that it endorses Christ is basically equal but different from God. And anti-Trinitarian believes basically say that Christ had not true divinity of him, regardless if we was like a real human or a magical lump of clay. But then making Christ as potent as God in the theology risks making Christianity a pantheon, so the trinity basically tries to say that there's just one god no matter what with a transubstantiation of form (like Christ is God but not God).

Basically the idea is to negate the possibility of people praying to God for bananas and the pray to Christ for apples like a Roman pagan might pray to Zeus for one thing and pray to Aphrodite for another thing. They want to avoid a pantheon feeling to the trinity because of the 10 commandments. Then there's the issue of the Holy Spirit / LOGOS which is part of the discussion (which I don't grasp---I guess it involves that odd Gospel---John).

Apparently it was felt that one's stance on the trinity nuances a reading of the New Testament? Like others are saying, apparently it doesn't jibe with some people that Jesus can save the world if he's just human flesh. Regardless, to be Catholic, you have to accept the Trinity. I believe the JH's have a non-Trinitarian view of Christ as well. Most Protestant Christian faiths accept the Trinity, I believe. Personally, I think a Christian willing to kill someone for being a Christian because their view of how salvation is dished but still believes the same----well that's pretty suspect that the prosecuter is really a Christian. But they can all pray for forgiveness anyway---LOL.


I like historical scope on the issue:
At the time leading up to the First Nicene council, Arians (a popular movement in Alexandria, Egypt which was later declared a heresy and also adopted by Germanic tribes) took the the view that Christ was basically created somehow (so they denied Christ was God's equal). This head-butted with opposition views. I suppose it was possible that it was just a political spat as much as it was biblical interpretation.

I guess if you want a better grip on the topic then you should read about Athanasius's debate vs. Arius at the council. Arius's viewpoints were actually popular and I believe traditionalist at the time, but Athanasius convinces the council to see his way after I guess a long filibuster. He still was persecuted for quite a while and almost killed, I believe. IMHO, this is central to the Nicene Creed/trinity concept.

If I were to adopt a wide secular viewpoint on the topic I'd say it's an example of syncretism. Basically you got a lot of distinct cultural backgrounds coming to absorb the same pop cultural tradition, but because of their backgrounds and disunity in the pop movement---they fail to come together seamlessly. So you get political and ideological in-fighting between these brothers of the faith (probably not unlike the Russian Revolution) until a peaceful debate or violence solves the problem. Really I think both happened, but the peaceful debate is highlighted as the Nicene Creed and therefore a major foundation of Christianity, kind of like the Bill of Rights is a major cornerstone of the US Constitution.

 

[Agent327]

That's a secular interpretation of the sacred. Do you in turn accept Christians doubting evolution?

God is a higher reality, independent of our "formulations". Like H.G. Wells' alleycat in London, ignorant of corporations, we are ignorant of God's true nature. Speculation is entertaining, but as you say, what's the point?

Then everything theological is speculation, since man doesn't know anything (including anything about Trinity). Yet somehow this doesn't prevent humans from continous speculation.

Because it's important to the concept of redemption. If man cannot redeem himself, then it follows that Jesus can't have been just a man.

Actually that doesn't follow at all. What does follow is that man is in need of God.

Further to aelf, if Jesus was God, then how can we call it a sacrifice? Was the temptation of Jesus by the Devil the least bit meaningful?

Jesus was both fully human and at the same time God. But I see your point: if Jesus was God, then there isn't much sacrifice in having the human Jesus sacrificed (even if, being human, he felt all the pain associated with crucifixion.) Again, this has been a point of heated discussion ever since the formulation of the two-natures-in-Christ dogma. If, however, Jesus was human only - and yet the Son of God -, then there would have been the real sacrifice of God offering his Son to humanity. Having Jesus declared fully divine nullifies any possible sacrifice, since God cannot die. (Interestingly, the dogma of Jesus as Son of God was formulated after the concept of Jesus as the Messiah. The Gospels actually have Jesus primarily describe himself as the Son of Man, and the Announcement goes no further than the statement that a son will be born to Mary, and that he should be named Jesus.)

 

[Gatsby]

Abstraction is a human concept, and therefore inherently comprehensible by man. The Trinity, by contast, is not that abstract all, as I've tried to show. The 'garbled' presentation of it, however, is largely due to the unclarity of its formulation - which in turn is due to theological differences of opinion.

Abstraction as a concept might be comprehensible, but I am not talking about the concept of abstraction itself. I am suggesting something that cannot be defined but only indicated from a human perspective, so I've used the term "abstract" for the sake of expediency; perhaps you might prefer another term such as "transcendental" or "foreign"?

The Trinity is not just an elaborate theological construct, it is also a useful practical tool for spiritual development if it is understood and used properly.

 

[Gatsby]

Because it's important to the concept of redemption. If man cannot redeem himself, then it follows that Jesus can't have been just a man. But if he is God as well as the Father in Heaven, does that mean that there is more than one god? The trinitarian answer (while professing that Jesus is God and is therefore able to redeem us) is no, hence the logic of the Trinity.

Another way to look at it could be:

Jesus was a person who, due to his spiritual training and purification, was able to invoke a lofty yet intermediate Divine principal of Creation within his own person by way of the Holy Spirit (a voluntary Divine possession of sorts). The principle he invoked is known as The Son, and this principle is the cosmic key through which human beings can find communion with the Divine essence underlying/behind Creation, aka The Father. Hence Jesus was the "Son of Man", because the Divine principle of The Son had manifested in the human form of Jesus and thereby become directly accessible to humanity.

Using this interpretation the Gospel stories of Jesus would still be spiritually useful whether they were interpreted literally, metaphorically, or a bit of both.

 

[timtofly]

Then everything theological is speculation, since man doesn't know anything (including anything about Trinity). Yet somehow this doesn't prevent humans from continous speculation.

Actually that doesn't follow at all. What does follow is that man is in need of God.

Jesus was both fully human and at the same time God. But I see your point: if Jesus was God, then there isn't much sacrifice in having the human Jesus sacrificed (even if, being human, he felt all the pain associated with crucifixion.) Again, this has been a point of heated discussion ever since the formulation of the two-natures-in-Christ dogma. If, however, Jesus was human only - and yet the Son of God -, then there would have been the real sacrifice of God offering his Son to humanity. Having Jesus declared fully divine nullifies any possible sacrifice, since God cannot die. (Interestingly, the dogma of Jesus as Son of God was formulated after the concept of Jesus as the Messiah. The Gospels actually have Jesus primarily describe himself as the Son of Man, and the Announcement goes no further than the statement that a son will be born to Mary, and that he should be named Jesus.)

What would one do with the account that Jesus gave up the Ghost? IMO, the death would normally have been done by breaking the bones. The roman soldiers pierced his side to make sure that Jesus was dead. None of his bones were broken. Can a human willfully die, if life was still possible? Is suicide by stop breathing normal? It seems to me that it was instantaneous.

 

[Agent327]

I must confess I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.

The Trinity is not just an elaborate theological construct, it is also a useful practical tool for spiritual development if it is understood and used properly.

The problem lies precisely with the Trinity being 'understood and used properly'; as I mentioned, I don't think there's any doctrine that has inspired so much theological debate and difference of opinion as the Trinity.

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe except for the inheritance of Mohammed's authority.

 

[Gatsby]

I must confess I'm not quite sure what you are saying here.



The problem lies precisely with the Trinity being 'understood and used properly'; as I mentioned, I don't think there's any doctrine that has inspired so much theological debate and difference of opinion as the Trinity.

Yes it is a big "if". However the great thing about treating it as a practical tool for spiritual development (e.g. as the basis for a meditation/contemplative prayer system) is that it gives us a chance to get beyond speculative debate about the Trinity and actually experiment with different interpretations to see which one/s can effectively facilitate the spiritual betterment of the person. The key problem I think is not so much that there are different interpretations of the Trinity, but that most parties put their respective interpretations of the Trinity up on a conceptual pedestal and don't really think about how to practically apply it in their lives. Even meditation upon the points of doctrinal contention such as the ones raised in this thread might lead to unanticipated spiritual insights and meta-insights.

 

[aelf]

Further to aelf, if Jesus was God, then how can we call it a sacrifice?

Why not? I'm not sure where the problem is here.

Was the temptation of Jesus by the Devil the least bit meaningful?

I said "Jesus can't have been just a man", because, AFAIK, it is widely held that Jesus was both God and a man. That's basically the gist of the whole idea of incarnation.

Actually that doesn't follow at all. What does follow is that man is in need of God.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, I know. That's why the conception of the Trinity is seen as required and terribly confusing.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed.

Why not? I'm not sure where the problem is here.

The problem, as I've tried to explain, lies in the fact that an eternal God (i.e. a being incapable of such a human act as dying) cannot sacrifice part of itself (i.e. Jesus as Son of God). According to the Trinity they are of one substance. Jesus may have been crucified, but was resurrected on the third day thereafter. He had to be, as his Divine nature was incapable of being destroyed by death. So what is being 'sacrificed'?

Why not? I'm not sure where the problem is here.I said "Jesus can't have been just a man", because, AFAIK, it is widely held that Jesus was both God and a man. That's basically the gist of the whole idea of incarnation.

It's perfectly possible (and was, in actual religous history) to believe that Jesus did not have two natures, i.e. that he was human only or Divine only.

Why not? I'm not sure where the problem is here.I have no idea what you're talking about.

Your 'logic' is flawd. What you are concluding doesn't follow at all from your premise.

 

[aelf]

The problem, as I've tried to explain, lies in the fact that an eternal God (i.e. a being incapable of such a human act as dying) cannot sacrifice part of itself (i.e. Jesus as Son of God). According to the Trinity they are of one substance. Jesus may have been crucified, but was resurrected on the third day thereafter. He had to be, as his Divine nature was incapable of being destroyed by death. So what is being 'sacrificed'?

His bodily self, which you can perhaps say is the form into which he was incarnated?

It's perfectly possible (and was, in actual religous history) to believe that Jesus did not have two natures, i.e. that he was human only or Divine only.

Yes, but I'm not talking about who is right anyway.

Your 'logic' is flawd. What you are concluding doesn't follow at all from your premise.

How so? Please post a syllogistic critique of my argument or something (i.e. put up).

 

[timtofly]

If the act of disobedience started the ball rolling, why would there not be an act of obedience also to accomplish something? One can call it a sacrifice or an act, since they both just represent what was done.

There is nothing less strange about a God that started everything and a God who can inject himself into his creation.

 

[Gatsby]

The problem, as I've tried to explain, lies in the fact that an eternal God (i.e. a being incapable of such a human act as dying) cannot sacrifice part of itself (i.e. Jesus as Son of God). According to the Trinity they are of one substance. Jesus may have been crucified, but was resurrected on the third day thereafter. He had to be, as his Divine nature was incapable of being destroyed by death. So what is being 'sacrificed'?

The definition of "sacrifice" could be at the core of the problem here. Sacrifice is usually interpreted as giving up or destroying something of value (i.e. in order to please or placate someone). But maybe it would be better to define sacrifice as a process of transformation, of breaking a form open so as to unleash and utilise the force locked within it.

As I see it, the sacrifice of Jesus can be interpreted in at least two non-mutually exclusive ways: as an allegory about the need to 'break open' the confines of the lower self so that a person's inner Divine spark can be made manifest; and as a powerful symbolic ritual which completes the spiritual mission of bridging the Divine with the human world via Jesus' "possession" by /attuning to cosmic principle of The Son. Therefore, although Jesus The Son of Man is sacrificed on the cross, the cosmic principle of The Son itself is no more destroyed or diminished than the natural law E=MC² is every time a nuclear reaction occurs.