welcome aboard, Fred
- פותח הנושא תיאולוגיה
- פורסם בתאריך
The Trinity of Christianity
Christianity is monotheist because we believe in the Trinity. Understanding 3 separate persons being one God is very hard to grasp and impossible to understand. St. Jerome says, "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it". In trying to describe how God can be 3 persons and still 1 God, we will always fall short because, as limited beings, we cannot comprehend the full definition of God. What we do have is the Word of God. Just as God has made new covenants with Man, each time deepening our relationship with God, so has God made himself more understandable. We base our belief on, among other versus of the Bible, Matthew 28:18, "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. The use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are One Omnipotent God.
Christianity is monotheist because we believe in the Trinity. Understanding 3 separate persons being one God is very hard to grasp and impossible to understand. St. Jerome says, "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it". In trying to describe how God can be 3 persons and still 1 God, we will always fall short because, as limited beings, we cannot comprehend the full definition of God. What we do have is the Word of God. Just as God has made new covenants with Man, each time deepening our relationship with God, so has God made himself more understandable. We base our belief on, among other versus of the Bible, Matthew 28:18, "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. The use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are One Omnipotent God.
Hi everyone
I have asked Fred to join our forum and try to answer all matters relating to christianity, as he perceives it. Unfortunately Fred is not Israeli and does not understand Hebrew (but I´m sure it can be fixed in time
Hence, you will have to take the trouble and communicate with him in English, if this is what you wish. Welcome aboard Fred ! Hugs, Ifat
I have asked Fred to join our forum and try to answer all matters relating to christianity, as he perceives it. Unfortunately Fred is not Israeli and does not understand Hebrew (but I´m sure it can be fixed in time
Let me be a bit philosopical...
First of all, let´s look for a minute on the "pure" form of the devine entity. Unlike human or other manifestations, in his "pure" form God is bodyless and shapeless. We can think of "pure energy" for realization, but the more correct description would be "pure consciousness". This consciousness can appear to humans as a human, an animal, a plant or an object (as happens according to various religions). This we will call "a manifestation". However, since the "pure" entity is not material - it´s "uniqueness" is defined by the uniqueness of the consciousness. One can argue of course that God can devide himself to several "selves" (i.e., separate conciousnesses), but in fact there is no philosophical difference between this scenario and the one in which several shapeless Gods co-exist. There is no theoretical criterion to distinguish between the two situations. So, for all practical purposes - a religion that allows the co-existence of several devine consciosnesses simultaneously can be regarded as polytheistic. If we look on Christian theology, it basically claims that God can **simultaneously** be the father and the son (i.e., Jesus) and the holy spirit. Since it is not claimed that all three manifestations of God are "brain connected" (i.e., they do not function as a single "self"), obviously we talk about three distinct consciousnesses. Therefore, this religion seems to fulfill the basic condition required in order to determine it a polytheistic religion.
First of all, let´s look for a minute on the "pure" form of the devine entity. Unlike human or other manifestations, in his "pure" form God is bodyless and shapeless. We can think of "pure energy" for realization, but the more correct description would be "pure consciousness". This consciousness can appear to humans as a human, an animal, a plant or an object (as happens according to various religions). This we will call "a manifestation". However, since the "pure" entity is not material - it´s "uniqueness" is defined by the uniqueness of the consciousness. One can argue of course that God can devide himself to several "selves" (i.e., separate conciousnesses), but in fact there is no philosophical difference between this scenario and the one in which several shapeless Gods co-exist. There is no theoretical criterion to distinguish between the two situations. So, for all practical purposes - a religion that allows the co-existence of several devine consciosnesses simultaneously can be regarded as polytheistic. If we look on Christian theology, it basically claims that God can **simultaneously** be the father and the son (i.e., Jesus) and the holy spirit. Since it is not claimed that all three manifestations of God are "brain connected" (i.e., they do not function as a single "self"), obviously we talk about three distinct consciousnesses. Therefore, this religion seems to fulfill the basic condition required in order to determine it a polytheistic religion.
Let us be philosopical then...
The difference between several shapeless Gods co-existing (separate & existing in harmony) and the Holy Trinity is the three persons of the Holy Trinity are coeternal, of the same substance and yet inexplicably different (The Trinity´s coexistent unity and disunity are part of the ineffable mysteries of God).
The difference between several shapeless Gods co-existing (separate & existing in harmony) and the Holy Trinity is the three persons of the Holy Trinity are coeternal, of the same substance and yet inexplicably different (The Trinity´s coexistent unity and disunity are part of the ineffable mysteries of God).
I understand the idea behind....
the Trinity, but I still argue that this concept is in a sense self-deceiving. You yourself cannot exlain how the Trinity can exhibit both unity and disunity in the same time. In order to show that the Trinity are not three separate Gods, one must find a way to differ beteen the two situations. I argue that there is no theoretical difference, so defining the Trinity as something else than three Gods is basically playing with semantics. To the most, one can prove that the Trinity originated from the same entity and that the Trinity can merge back into a single entity. But during the time they are separate, there is nothing differing them from being identified as three Gods. It´s like a drop of water that splits to two and laters merges again. Although the source was a single drop and the final outcome is a single drop, in the middle - we have two separate drops (which could be in principle originated from the same drop or not).
the Trinity, but I still argue that this concept is in a sense self-deceiving. You yourself cannot exlain how the Trinity can exhibit both unity and disunity in the same time. In order to show that the Trinity are not three separate Gods, one must find a way to differ beteen the two situations. I argue that there is no theoretical difference, so defining the Trinity as something else than three Gods is basically playing with semantics. To the most, one can prove that the Trinity originated from the same entity and that the Trinity can merge back into a single entity. But during the time they are separate, there is nothing differing them from being identified as three Gods. It´s like a drop of water that splits to two and laters merges again. Although the source was a single drop and the final outcome is a single drop, in the middle - we have two separate drops (which could be in principle originated from the same drop or not).
Describing God by physical laws
There are times when trying to describe God or his action using physical laws will always fall short. A good example is God breathing into a lump of clay and creating a living entity. No mater how hard man tries, we will always fall short in understanding all things about God. This is why I used the Bible, or God´s Word, to justify the belief of the Trinity as the reason Christianity is monotheist. There are also places in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:26, Ecclesiastes 12:1) that talk about god in the plural.
There are times when trying to describe God or his action using physical laws will always fall short. A good example is God breathing into a lump of clay and creating a living entity. No mater how hard man tries, we will always fall short in understanding all things about God. This is why I used the Bible, or God´s Word, to justify the belief of the Trinity as the reason Christianity is monotheist. There are also places in the Old Testament (Gen. 1:26, Ecclesiastes 12:1) that talk about god in the plural.
אשבולת השדה
New member
ממש המילים של המחזיר
בתשובה שלי! כנראה מלמדים את זה היכן שהוא, קשה להאמין שעל יהודי כלשהו זה יעבוד. גם אותי הוא שאל מדוע כתוב אלוהים ולא אלוה. סימן שאלוהים זה ברבים. נתפסים למוטיבים ספרותיים, ומוצאים בכך הוכחות משונות. אמרתי לו שהברית החדשה נכתבה לאחר הברית הישנה. מי שרצה לבנות תיאוריה תיאולוגית חדשה המבוססת על הישנה, הרי שפשוט היה צריך לקרוא טוב טוב את התנך ולהתאים את התיאוריה החדשה למה שכתוב.
בתשובה שלי! כנראה מלמדים את זה היכן שהוא, קשה להאמין שעל יהודי כלשהו זה יעבוד. גם אותי הוא שאל מדוע כתוב אלוהים ולא אלוה. סימן שאלוהים זה ברבים. נתפסים למוטיבים ספרותיים, ומוצאים בכך הוכחות משונות. אמרתי לו שהברית החדשה נכתבה לאחר הברית הישנה. מי שרצה לבנות תיאוריה תיאולוגית חדשה המבוססת על הישנה, הרי שפשוט היה צריך לקרוא טוב טוב את התנך ולהתאים את התיאוריה החדשה למה שכתוב.
Eshbolet, pls reply in English
Fred can´t read Hebrew. He was invited to this forum to represent his religion (Catholic) and there may be arguments and counter arguments, but writing in Hebrew here will simply be impolite. Thanks, Ifat (and to Fred - What Eshbolet wrote was (free tanslation: These are the exact same words that my ´convertor´ uses! They must be teaching it somewhere. I doubt if it could work on any Jew. He too asked me why the name of God is written in plural and not in singular - it must mean that God are many. I told him that the New Testament was written after the Old Testament. Whoever wanted to construct a new theological theory based on the old one, must´ve simply have read the bible through and through and fit the new theory to what was written.
Fred can´t read Hebrew. He was invited to this forum to represent his religion (Catholic) and there may be arguments and counter arguments, but writing in Hebrew here will simply be impolite. Thanks, Ifat (and to Fred - What Eshbolet wrote was (free tanslation: These are the exact same words that my ´convertor´ uses! They must be teaching it somewhere. I doubt if it could work on any Jew. He too asked me why the name of God is written in plural and not in singular - it must mean that God are many. I told him that the New Testament was written after the Old Testament. Whoever wanted to construct a new theological theory based on the old one, must´ve simply have read the bible through and through and fit the new theory to what was written.
Not a changing God
but a increase of understanding of God The simple answer is yes but the "changing" is from our point of view, not God´s. God does not change; the depth of our knowledge of God and our relationship with God is what changes. As we grow spiritually, we become more in tune with God and better understand God. Not only does this relationship exist on the personal level but also on the worldly level. As we study the Old Testament, we see there have been "steps" in our increase of understanding of, and our relationship with God. Each step is punctuated by a covenant with God. The last covenant was made with man through Jesus and part of the increased knowledge was the understanding who “us” is in the Old Testament, the Holy Trinity.
but a increase of understanding of God The simple answer is yes but the "changing" is from our point of view, not God´s. God does not change; the depth of our knowledge of God and our relationship with God is what changes. As we grow spiritually, we become more in tune with God and better understand God. Not only does this relationship exist on the personal level but also on the worldly level. As we study the Old Testament, we see there have been "steps" in our increase of understanding of, and our relationship with God. Each step is punctuated by a covenant with God. The last covenant was made with man through Jesus and part of the increased knowledge was the understanding who “us” is in the Old Testament, the Holy Trinity.
This topic was already
discussed in the forum (albeit, not in English), but I wouldn´t mind getting into it again. I think that God does change because nature itself, the universe which is God´s manifestation is constantly changing and evolving there are 2 aspects to it: As god has planted in us some of his spirit (we were made in the image of god) and we are constantly changing and evolving, it may be that our creator too is changing and eolving, and needs us to rise to new places, come up with new ideas - otherwise - why make us free? If god would want to make the point that he or she is fixed (i.e. perfect and non-changing, I would think that they shoul´ve created a fixed and perfect universe to demonstrate their point. In any case, and to your brand of belief, why should god have 3 aspects, if it wasn´t meant to be in motion (negative-positive-neutral... conscious, semi-conscious, non-conscious.... etc) yes, a Perptuum mobilae, but what for? if it isn´t to evolve? I try to think of things from god´s point of view - what would *God* want? wouldn´t it be boring to be fixed and non-changing? wouldn´t it be nicer for him or her to have "playmates" that could come up with new ideas, new possibilities? In my theology, god´s utmost desire is to come to understand itself. When it "catches up" on itself, the universe will cease to exist.
discussed in the forum (albeit, not in English), but I wouldn´t mind getting into it again. I think that God does change because nature itself, the universe which is God´s manifestation is constantly changing and evolving there are 2 aspects to it: As god has planted in us some of his spirit (we were made in the image of god) and we are constantly changing and evolving, it may be that our creator too is changing and eolving, and needs us to rise to new places, come up with new ideas - otherwise - why make us free? If god would want to make the point that he or she is fixed (i.e. perfect and non-changing, I would think that they shoul´ve created a fixed and perfect universe to demonstrate their point. In any case, and to your brand of belief, why should god have 3 aspects, if it wasn´t meant to be in motion (negative-positive-neutral... conscious, semi-conscious, non-conscious.... etc) yes, a Perptuum mobilae, but what for? if it isn´t to evolve? I try to think of things from god´s point of view - what would *God* want? wouldn´t it be boring to be fixed and non-changing? wouldn´t it be nicer for him or her to have "playmates" that could come up with new ideas, new possibilities? In my theology, god´s utmost desire is to come to understand itself. When it "catches up" on itself, the universe will cease to exist.
אשבולת השדה
New member
דבר ראשון
אני לא מבינה למה אם למישהו אין מקלדת בעברית והוא נאלץ לכתוב באנגלית, כל התגובות אליו הן גם באנגלית. הרי אם הוא כותב בפורום, משמע שלקרוא עברית הוא יכול, רק לא לכתוב. אז בבקשה חזרו לעברית, לי יש כבר מספיק אנגלית ביום יום ופה אני שמחה לחזור לשפת הקודש. בנוגע למה שפרד כתב ש"קשה להבין כיצד 3 ישויות שונות הן אלוהים אחד", מזכיר לי את מה שהמחזיר בתשובה התלהב ממנו - "כיצד שולחן מורכב גם מפלטה וגם מארבע רגליים, ובכל זאת הוא רק שולחן אחד?". בכך הוא ניסה להמשיל כיצד אלוהים מורכב לכאורה מ- 3 ישויות. הזכרתי לו שכל דבר בעולם מורכב מבליוני חלקים (מולקולות) כך שאיני רואה את הקשר. גם פלטת השולחן מורכבת מהמוני מולקולות, אלקטרונים וכו´.
אני לא מבינה למה אם למישהו אין מקלדת בעברית והוא נאלץ לכתוב באנגלית, כל התגובות אליו הן גם באנגלית. הרי אם הוא כותב בפורום, משמע שלקרוא עברית הוא יכול, רק לא לכתוב. אז בבקשה חזרו לעברית, לי יש כבר מספיק אנגלית ביום יום ופה אני שמחה לחזור לשפת הקודש. בנוגע למה שפרד כתב ש"קשה להבין כיצד 3 ישויות שונות הן אלוהים אחד", מזכיר לי את מה שהמחזיר בתשובה התלהב ממנו - "כיצד שולחן מורכב גם מפלטה וגם מארבע רגליים, ובכל זאת הוא רק שולחן אחד?". בכך הוא ניסה להמשיל כיצד אלוהים מורכב לכאורה מ- 3 ישויות. הזכרתי לו שכל דבר בעולם מורכב מבליוני חלקים (מולקולות) כך שאיני רואה את הקשר. גם פלטת השולחן מורכבת מהמוני מולקולות, אלקטרונים וכו´.
אשבולת השדה
New member
walla ../images/Emo13.gif
Copyright©1996-2021,Tapuz Media Ltd. Forum software by XenForo® © 2010-2020 XenForo Ltd.