diana

Good afternoon, doodad.

But with the Xn Trinity, I don't think this problem applies, since they presumably all agree.

I'm unfamiliar with the Jewish Holy Spirit concept. Please elaborate.

The explanation I lean toward (for the Trinity concept) is fairly simple. The Xns liked the idea of monotheism. Indeed, since they presumed to worship the same god as the Jews, they were pretty much stuck with the notion. But they wanted to add the Mithraic passion play idea--there's just something very egocentric and appealing about thinking your deity would assume flesh and blood to die for you, or that his son would. But once this story made the rounds, they had to explain how a monotheistic religion had two distinct personalities. I'm not sure where the Holy Ghost comes in or why he was even necessary to the theology; perhaps this was another case of trying to meld with the "triune" religions around them.

But while they had these different personalities, they were still stuck with the monotheism of their parent religion: Judaism.

They solved the problem by setting 3 = 1. They simply repeatedly put forth concepts that made no sense, which has the psychological effect of making people simply accept the explanation without trying to reason through it because reasoning about nonsense like that only makes your head swim. Basically, when consistently confronted with nonsense, your brain has a tendency to just shut down, at which point most people simply bow their heads and say, "Ba-a-a-a."*

d

* Except those of us who have enough confidence in our ability to reason, which neatly explains why pride is such a "sin." (You think for yourself? How dare you.)

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Fiach

The ancient Egyptian trinity could certainly be considered individual deities 4000 years ago. But the Trinity Goddesses of Battle: Babd Catha (the Battle Raven), Morrigu (the sensual fertility goddess), and Macha (the fury war goddess) were all manifestations/personalities of the single goddess Morrigan. Yet they were collectively the Morrigan Trinity (Tri Ingena aile dano Emmais). However they were also one being just as the Christian Trinity is considered.

To make it more interesting, Babd was the Great War Raven, the beautiful seductress, or an old hag, (Cailleach.) And each of these was a manifestation of a single goddess. They were felt to be so by the great Cu Chulain himself in the Tain Bo Culain. The concept is not discernably different from the Christian Trinity.

We had a Trinity of Dagda (father of Gods), Eriu (Earth Mother), and Lugh (son of Dagda and Sun God.) And I admit these were separate gods in their own right. In fact, they were more than a trinity. There was the Moon goddess Danu as a counterbalance to Lugh the Sun God, just as the Earth Mother Eriu was a balance and wife to Dagda.

History abounds with trinities because of the perceived magic of the number 3. Some Trinities were Triads as you say, but at least two Celtic ones were similar to the Christian one. I suspect that there are others of this type in religions that I know less about.

Fiach

A3

Hi Echo,

You are right that in this way there cannot be three persons in one God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that this is the case. That is all conjecture. He didn't say: Now that you have seen Me, come and I'll show you the Father. But it was “allowed” because it is better to believe in a Father than to dismiss the existence of a Soul and not believe in anything. What I wrote about the soul and the body is old Bible text in todays language and this approach does a lot of explaining. Generally, the passages which distinguish between Father and Son do not describe the kind of relationship that would exist between two Persons. It is more like the kind of relationship that exists between Soul and Body.

For example, Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father who dwells in Me does the works." (John 14:10) We don't speak of one person dwelling in another person, but it does make sense to think of the soul dwelling within the body, or in this case, of the infinite Divine Soul dwelling within Jesus Christ. So Christ is called the "image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4) and "the form of God." (Philemon 2:6) As Paul said, we see "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," (2 Corinthians 4:6) and "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9)

Other passages describe a similar relationship. John said, "No one has seen God at any time. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him." (John 1:18) The Divine Soul is invisible (like a human soul). "You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form." (John 5:37; 6:46) But in Jesus, that Soul is revealed, as in Its own Body. Since you communicate with a person's soul only by means of his body, Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) And by coming to Jesus Christ we can draw near to the One God of the universe Who has come to earth to show Himself to us in His own loving and gentle Human Form. Something to “hang our hat on.”

It may also help us to integrate the various teachings to keep in mind the fact that Jesus changed between the time of His birth and His resurrection. During His life on earth Jesus was tempted. (Luke 4:1-13) He was not yet glorified, (John 12:28) But had to enter into His glory (Luke 24:26) by degrees. (John 7:39) He "increased in wisdom and stature." (Luke 2:52) Before the resurrection, the union of Jehovah and Jesus was not yet complete, so Jesus said, "I am going to My Father, for My Father is greater than I." (John 14:28; 16:16) It was only after this work was finished (John 19:30) that He could say, "All power has been given to Me in heaven and earth." (Matthew 28:18) It was not till then that He was completely and fully God.
This explains why Jesus was so often called the "Son of God." Jesus had come forth from God, and God was gradually manifesting Himself in Jesus. So at first, Jesus was the Son of God, and later became One with Jehovah and fully Divine.

Regards
Adriaan

Oxymoron

How is it attached to the body? Why do I not leave it where it was when I go to the toilet? At some level, if there is truly something independent "in there", there must be some physical connectivity to our bodies. And that would be measurable.

A3

Hi Doodad

There is one here already: What constitutes a soul?

Swedenborg uses the term in several different ways but always spiritual, not physical. In one it is an integral part of our mind, performing its own particular use, as being the ‘portal’ of life. It seems to be created at conception and then builds the body of the fetus with the natural substances of the mother. My understanding is that the soul, as “God with us,” is what gives each individual immortality. We can screw-up our mind but not our soul, although the soul will ‘follow’ the mind when it chooses spiritual death.
This indeed seems interesting but I also think that ‘knowing this’ has limited usefulness for our ultimate goal. Since there is very little we can do involving the soul, it would seem much more importance knowing the mind and how to regenerate it.

Regards
Adriaan

doodad

I have gained the impression that the concept of the Holy Trinity is a hotly contested issue.

On short notice I can only supply two biblical references to the Holy Spirit in the OT, which to me is Judaism. The first is Job 33:4, and the second is Is. 48:16. In my paraphrase book Job 33:4 has someone saying the spirit of god had made him. It's not explicit, but the index pointed me to this as a reference to the Holy Spirit. One could conclude or infer that since God is personified then the spirit of God is also a person. That's pretty shakey reasoning, huh?

Is. 48:16 speaks of the Lord God and his spirit.

Based on reading only these two passages of the OT I would say that the Jew may have conceived the Holy Spirit as an divine influence more than as a person. This, by the way, is similar to my concept of the Holy Spirit.

I like your analysis of the trinity issue, and before going further with it maybe we should establish which trinity we are speaking of. The basic concept(s) of trinity held by the early Christians is(are) one thing and the orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity defined at the time of Constantine's rule of the Roman Empire
(circa 325 AD) is the one I usually speak on terms of.

It seems the formal definition of the trinity at the time of Constantine was an attempt to cover his butt because he had chosen Christianity as the official state religion based upon its monotheistic traits. Oops, there were those who saw two, maybe three deities in Christianity. Can't have that, so Constantine, being a ruler, made a political decision. I'd like to think he said enough is enough and laid down the law, so to speak, resulting in a formal declaration of the Holy Trinity.

The orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity was explained to me by Morris, if you remember the jail house minister from the COCN site. It makes sense to me if I really concentrate on it but it's not straightforward. I'm late for a meetig this evening or I would try to incorporate his thoughts into this post. I think the part that is most applicable to Christians is the concept that Jesus is(has) the essence of God but is not actually God himself in the physical manner. In other words Jesus has the divine attributes of God, but in fact is not God. It's like the governor of Kansas having the essence or traits of the governor of Minnesota in the sense that each has similar duties and powers, but no, Bill
Graves certainly is not Jesse Ventura. Again, this is a crude analogy, but hopefully it portrays the relationship of Jesus to God in the definition of the orhodox Holy Trinity.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: doodad ]</p>

doodad

To you it seems that only true thing are beneficial and that all untrue things are not.
I once believed in Santa, and I got benefit or pleasure from it. Irrational yes, but harmful, no.

I am a pragmatist. Are there only beneficial and harmful consequences?

Prove that the millions of people who practice religion do not obtain benefit from it.

My last comment was intended to say that I had benefited emotionally from risking my neck in the old jalopies at 110mph. It was not what a truly rational person would do but it was fun, or emotionally satisfying.

doodad

One of the basic problems with the early concepts of the trinity was that the bible seems to indicate in places that Jesus was God and in other places that he was not. Obviously there were those who did not share your view or implication that Jesus was not god, and that in part led to the man made definition of the Holy Trinity.

I personally do not conceptualize the Holy Spirit as a person, but it makes for easier conversation to personify it as such. Again, there was a difference of opinion on this matter, and the definition of the Holy Trinity tried to address that problem. The gender and personification of the Holy Spirit can be inferred by reading scriptural verses. Refer to ACTS 16:6. What other kind of entity can "tell them" something?
Perhaps the personifaction is rhetorical, but I think you are wrong to say there is no reference
to the spirit being a person in the bible.


One can draw the conclusion that a trinity relationship exists by reading the bible, making your claim that the concept was stolen from elsewhere somewhat irrelevant or beside the point.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: doodad ]</p>

doodad

There are different variations of modalism, and some are listed on the internet. If possible please provide me a link to a statement that supports your view of modalism.

When it comes to essence, perhaps it would make more sense to say that Jesus had the essense of God rather than saying that Jesus is the essence of God. What do you think? Look up the definitions of essence before you reply and give me your definition of essence so we can have a common base of understanding.

doodad

It appears to me that the soul may be synonomous with conscience and may be associated with emotions such as hope and fear to name just two. It is attached figuratively, or is associated with a body or a human being, and it appears to be associated with the mind and its thought processes more than with the physical traits and functions of the body.

I don't personally think the soul is independent of the body, and I think the soul, whatever it is, if anything, will expire when the body expires. As another poster has stated, a soul is primarily a spiritual concept, and I posit that the idea that the soul is independent from the physical body came from those suffering oppression and persecution. It's a type of rationalization to think that you can kill my body but not my soul. No doubt you are aware of clerics trying to save the doomed man's soul before he is executed. I think this practice exhibits the belief that the soul can live on in spite of the body expiring. Apparently this idea of the soul living on after mortal death gives some people comfort to think that there is an afterlife. It relates to the age old problem of facing up to the fact that we are mortal beings with a finite lifespan. Maybe the soul is used as some sort of emotional crutch.