Diotima

Always!

Now. Example.

A person that during his childhood has experienced nothing but violent incidents in his family and has been beaten and abused by his parents, can be able as an adult to define with his logic what parental love means BUT he wouldn't know by experience what parental love means.

The logical procedure to define ideas doesn't coincide the knowledge of the ideas themselves.

Look at our example, the Trinitarian concept. Since the early stages of mankind people, have perceived their existence in Nature and Universe in a trinitarian way; One human being "divided" into spirit , soul and body.

So, this is what they projected to their deity. Christian dogma would fail if it didn't "incorporate" this basic concept and even if christians wanted to ignore the existence of the trinity,hypothetically speaking, they couldn't, because they were grown in environments that accepted things in a particular way;that way.

Christian faith was built in the Orient, let us not forget that.

I agree with your answer to Amos and allow me please to remark that your personal adventures in the world of biblical history gave us the privilege to enjoy the insight in your posts but they expelled you from the world of classical philosophy...

Otherwise I can't explain why you keep misspelling my nick name ...

edited for typos and...greenglish

Doctor X

Diotima:

He could gather the proper evidence by witnessing Little Timy who lives next door . . . and gets ALL OF THE BEST TOYS!!! [Stop that.--Ed.]

Logic involves gathering the ideas or the evidence for them before drawing a conclusion. Thus:

I have yet to see evidence to that. Indeed, some might argue with you immediately that spirit=soul and you forget the mind. These are more modern concepts, methinks. If anything, one would argue for a dualism: mind/soul and body.

This, of course, does not demonstrate that the "triad" conception is a inherent part of the development of religions. We can add in many other aspects--death, love, fertility evil, quality footwear--which can have a divine aspect or sovereign.

Now:

Rather compact paragraph . . . where is my crowbar. . . .

Environment: from a religious stand point people generally learn to "expect" or take "as given" certain things they are taught--including myths. So, if you believe that the trinity is a part of religion, grow up with it, you may, indeed conclude it is necessary.

However, societies exist without such concepts which make me wonder how "universal" it is. One can try to "create" it by committing egesis rather than exegesis--"Look! THAT must be the 'Son' part!" Thus, one can claim that Freud merely reconstitutes a trinity . . . which one gets to be the Id? I am not sure that is a justifiable analysis.

Yet, methinks, you extend this concept to Christian sects which did not have it.

Dogma Would Fail: while hardly the person to defend dogma, I am not sure you have established this if the concept of a trinity falls.

Depends on what you define as "Orient." Given the region with its traditions more poly than triads it would seem this does not hold as an explanation.

Rather, I think as the various groups that became Christianity began to consider the founding figure divine they had a problem to solve. Where does one put him in the pantheon? For Helenists and your basic Roman, this is not so much of a problem except it seems they tried to sell a "universal" deity--a "Big Daddy" who runs the universe--something rather foreign to them. Fine, but then where do they put this "son?"

Different sects had different solutions.

This is dilemma mark noted in his response--how do you make a "universal" concept "personal?" You end up with a polytheism without the name.

I think some want their cake and Edith too. They want the approachability and personality of an avatar that can walk the earth, attend weddings, even suffer, but they also want a "universal power" or something "behind it all." Neat! The problem is they do not want them to be separate . . . but they do. . . .

I am not sure if you can totally blame the author of Luke-Acts for the "Holy Spirit," but it adds a further complication! Bad enough trying to have "well they are separate . . . and the same" with two figures.

On the contrary, I am a true Cynic. . . .

Rather common scribal error. Unless I am implying something in the meaning of -oma. . . .

--J.D.

Amos

Pardon me Doctor X but if you were a true Cynic (capital C), you would find my mythology in the bible.

Glad to meet you and sorry about the little time I have these days or we could have a lot of fun with this.

Diotima

I think that I never disagreed with that, I just tried to show you that you might grasp an idea with the help of your logic although the evidence ( experience) could lead you to different conclusions.

We cannot only suggest that they have accepted the Trinity as an idea but they have gone much further than describing the triad of body, soul and mind.

They have realized that the soul is devided into two more non-material psychic components. Ap'o and a hun( in ancient China) , thymos and a psyche( in ancient Greece) , a ba and a ka (in ancient Egypt) , urvan and a fravashi (in ancient Persia) asu and a manas ( in ancient India) ...shall I continue.

This division pressupose the distinction of the soul from the spirt.

The most well-known example from litterature is the visit of Ulysses in Hades in "Odyssey"... Homer clearly states, that Ulysses descended in Hades to meet with the souls of his ancestors. Homer writes his works aroung the 10th ce BC but we know that he uses traditions much older than his.

Though ,I think that I might have succeded in persuading you on the contrary with my latest comments, the other aspects of life you recited. emanate from the trinitarian idea.

My using the word environment was a bit unfortunate indeed but I wanted to demonstrate that the trinitarian idea the way Christian faith adopted it, pre-existed and therfore influenced those who created the new religion.Let's say that none would take them seriously if they didn't talk about the trinity.

What do you mean by saying that " societies exist without such concepts"? Body, sould and spirit is a basic concept of human nature that has little to do with elections and taxes indeed but...

Seriously. I have another problem with that, not very original I must admit. My problem is why Jesus Christ didn't talk about the Triad God in his teachings... of course I have a logical answer to suggest but I am afraid that it would very much disturb the followers....

Even those that don't have it, they have dealed with that question in some point of their History and this is the important

None would take Christians seriously doctor if they preached the unique God without reference to the trinity. Better now?

As shown above, the poly emanated from the triad.

No the "son"is primarly a symbol.


Ha! Good question! The Orient solve this problem by introducing uncountable saints...

I think that you underestimate the religious feeling of the ancient people. It was sophisticated enough it was not primitive it was primordial.

You can't blame him because this is what he knew from the past


Something that explains perfectly your obsession with -oma

Diotima

Second thoughts after further reading ...

Doctor X

I think that I must reconsider what I wrote and I must agree with you that the the division body-soul-spirit as expressed in the Trinitarian conception is a "modern" concept or at least not as old as I suggested.

Although I provided some "evidence" that peope in antiquity have realized that even soul has two sub-divisions, when I put it together I do not like the image I get, it's rather weak...

So, I choose to accept your argument, at least until I come up with a better one.

On the other hand, I cannot see why we should not agree that the triad is inherent to every religion.Maybe is not that old but it preceded the christian faith.

Christian faith didn't pop-up just like that. It's the product of a long "fermentation" that took place in the Orient. In fact Christian Faith could be born nowhere else but in the Orient...but this is another question...

Doctor X

Fine . . . just after I finished crushing you in my iron grip of logic with a word-for-word dissection [Actually, he had not even started.--Ed.]

Quiet!

Anyways, I think, in a way, we are in agreement. Whether or not someone "got it" as in the idea of a Trinity from ealier traditions or on the fly, it seems, to me, to serve the purpose of handling the problem of having a non-locative Big Daddy--the ineffable, the all-powerful, he is a verb, he is a mountain, we like him, except when he smites us--that becomes rather diffuse and impersonal and a "real" personable figure--not unlike a "pagan" deity, reportably based on a "man."

So . . . is the "man" a god? Is he a separate god from THE god? If you make it ONE god then who the heck is the guy?

It seems to me that "they" just threw their hands up and decided to accept two mutually exclusive entities.

--J.D.

Diotima

I received two PMs, asking about my changing of my mind about the origin of the Trinitarian idea. I had in mind to reply, I haven't forgotten about it but until now, I haven’t found a quiet moment. Thanks for asking anyway.

I didn’t change my mind. I still believe that the Trinitarian concept of deity is really old but not as old as I thought so.

I was aware of the fact that Athanasius based the doctrine of Trinity on the platonic ideas in general and on those of middle-Platonism, in particular and I was also aware of the fact that the definition of the Trinity defends the church’s absolute commitment to monotheism while at the same time develops the use of the Greek Philosophical Vocabulary to express the church’s awareness of the deity of Logos and of the Holy Spirit, read from the testimony of the scripture, communicated in the lived theological experience of the Christian community and disclosed in the liturgical language.

Further reading though…revealed to me the truth! That fatherhood of the Trinitarian conception doesn’t lay to the Stoics as I thought. Of course, Stoicism had a strong doctrine regarding of divine providence pronoia. Stoics argued that pneuma that was understood as a very fine form of matter, is the presence in Cosmos ( kosmos) of the divine Logos governing and guiding all things. So, all these terms , pneuma, Logos, kosmos,pronoia links in a very significant way concepts important in the Bible.

But it was with the work of the Alexander of Aphrodisias, a commentator of Aristotle who flourished c.A.D.200 that all these concepts were brought together. It was his book, De mixtione ( about mixtures) that must have used by the Early Fathers to define the doctrine of Trinity.

I think that my mistake was that I tried to approach the matter with the help of linguistics. Liddell-Scott was clear about the word thymos I mentioned to Doctor X in my previous post. The world might have been in used since Homer but not with the same definition I thought.

That was a good lesson for all the future Chomsky wanabees…

The following readings are excellent, suggested to me by colleagues of the Dept. of Theology in Athens University

Wolfson,H.A. ( 1976) , The Philosophy of the Church Fathers : Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, 3rd edi Harvard University Press.
Sambursky,S ( 1959) , The Physics of the Stoics. Cambridge University Press.