God's Trinity

[Shermana]

OK, fine. The Firstborn of Creation became human for us. The least we can do in return is become Firstborn of Creation for him.

Much better.

Simple. Unite with him.

Ah, easier said than done. What do you believe the process is? Could it be through obedience to the Mosaic Law and all the teachings of the Moshiach and refraining from all "Sin" (Which is "Lawlessness")?

 

[Student of X]

Ah, easier said than done. What do you believe the process is? Could it be through obedience to the Mosaic Law and all the teachings of the Moshiach and refraining from all "Sin" (Which is "Lawlessness")?

It's different for everyone, but it should probably involve a method of achieving altered states of mystical consciousness in a sacred context. There are several methods ranging from meditation to entheogens to fasting to exhaustive dance/chanting.

 

[sojourner]

Please explain where exactly the metaphor is. Claiming there's a metaphor is nice, but perhaps you'd like to say what it's a metaphor for. Are you saying the entire story of Jesus is a metaphor? Are you saying that Jesus's incarnation itself is a metaphor?

I don't see why ANY language about G-d is metaphorical. If I said G-d judges and rules the whole world, is that a metaphor? I can see why some language may be metaphorical perhaps.

No, you're basing your presumption on the idea that John 1:1 says "Word was G-d" as opposed to "Word was a god", which I believe I've clearly explained is the better rendering as numerous non-Trinitarian scholars have agreed to. Why would G-d be the word exactly? Do you know what "Logos" means? Do you think Philo had the Logos idea wrong?

Okay, so you understand that "Word" means "Divine Wisdom", but I've asked you before to define "embodied" and you said "has a body"...okay, so please explain why the personification of Wisdom defined as the Firstborn of Creaiton in Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach wouldn't be the "emobidment of Wisdom" as separate beings.

,

But you haven't explained the metaphor at all, you've merely kept claiming that it's a metaphor.

Can anyone else explain how that makes sense in regards to the initial comparison?

How do we know it's a Metaphor and that Moses didn't actually see G-d's personified being? How do you know the Mormons are wrong and that G-d doesn't in fact have a body?

Who said anything about G-d being afraid of the flesh?

Explain what exactly you mean by "through flesh".

Okay, so you're saying that we can only understand things while alive in bodies? Good job captain obvious. I don't see how that fits anything you're saying though. Does anyone else?

Why can't we just assume that G-d already had a body and sent the personified Spirit of Wisdom, the Firstborn of Creation as identified in Proverbs 8, in body form?

So you say it's a Metaphor yet you're trying to say that G-d actually did embody in the Flesh? Do you not find this inconsistent?
When you say "Embodied in us" are you saying we are all G-d? I don't think that's what Jesus saying when he said the Spirit will dwell in us if we're worthy. A little too Pantheistic I'd say. Is G-d also embodied in murderers and rapists and thugs?
So when you call Jesus a metaphor, are you saying that he never actually existed? Why can't that existence be expressed through His actual heavenly son, the Firstborn of Creation, the Personification of Wisdom as outlined in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach and Philos' Logos writings?

I can say the same thing about community by saying that G-d sent a separate being, the highest created being of Heaven. You can make up any kind of metaphor or analogy you want this way.

And what do you think "image" means in the Hebrew and Greek? I think it means "shape" and "Form" quite literally. Obviously the Angels are said to have looked like us. The way you're talking I think you are saying the entire story Christianity is based on never happened at all and that it's all just a giant myth? I don't think that's "Celtic Christianity". Explain.

John writes, "In the beginning was the Word." He goes on to say that all things have come into being through the Word. The world is spoken into being by God. It comes from the heart of God's Being. Irenaeus speaks of creation coming out of the very "substance" of God. Creation isn't set in motion from afar. The matter of life comes directly from the womb of God's Being.

Is G-d's oneness also in murderers and rapists? Are they just part of the "Diversity"? Explain this "oneness" and we'll compare it to the ideas found in the OT.

I agree that Jesus is the "Image" of G-d as in the representative on Earth while still being a separate spiritual entity. I agree that Jesus represents for us what we CAN be and what we are SUPPOSED to be. This is about the only paragraph I may agree with, except for being the emobidment of G-d. I see no reason why Jesus can't be the embodiment of the Highest of the Heavenly beings.
Where do you get this that the stuff of matter emanates from the Heart of G-d?

I guess by this logic every single human being is as much as "God" as you'd say Jesus was, as well as all the Angels in Heaven. Now can you accept the idea that the "Logos" and "Wisdom" are written about as totally separate entities?
So if a person becomes "One with G-d" does that make that person also "God"? If so, you have a vastly different view of the Trinity than practically the entire spectrum of Christianity.

Then don't buy into that particular theology or that particular metaphor. It makes no difference to me what you believe. But when you try to argue away theology with materialism and metaphor with fact, it's like trying to cure a cold by beating someone's foot with a hammer.

 

[sojourner]

I think you are saying the entire story Christianity is based on never happened at all and that it's all just a giant myth?

Nope.

I don't think that's "Celtic Christianity".

Celtic Xy understands (like most other forms of Xy) that there is a mythic Jesus and a historic Jesus. I don't think you understand Celtic Xy at all, because this kind of thinking is espoused by arguably one of the best representatives of Celtic Xy: J Philip Newell.
I think you just said that to try to get under my skin.

I see no reason why Jesus can't be the embodiment of the Highest of the Heavenly beings.

He can be, if that's the metaphor you choose. But that metaphor is at odds with the whole concept of the Oneness of God.

 

[Shermana]

From what I've read, Newell is not a representative of old-time Celtic Christianity and represents a more New Age belief with monotheistic Celtic themes. Can you provide a link that says he's a Christian by definition?

But that metaphor is at odds with the whole concept of the Oneness of God

In your opinion perhaps. I don't see how. Perhaps you should explain further what "oneness of G-d" means to you.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Uh huh. Yeah. At least that's what he says. And I'd be willing to bet that he's got some lovely swamp land he'd be willing to sell you, too. But... the hook has been firmly set and you've been reeled in. What are we to do?

I don't think you can do much cause you are already stuck in that swamp land of unexplainable Trinity.

If you need a religion -- or worse yet, a book -- to find out about God, you're worse off than I thought.

Yup. It's all about the metaphor that works for you.

You don't need a book to find out about God but you need one to follow God the way He wants you to. Otherwise, you'll come up with all sorts of unreal metaphor that doesn't connect you straight to your creator.

How did the early Xtians follow Jesus for the first 300 or so years without a Bible? The most ridiculous thing I've ever heard is needing a book to know about God.

How did the early Xtians know what Jesus wanted them to do for the first 300 years or so without a Bible? The bible is only part of our source.


We have the community that is the Body of Christ. We have the same mind in us that was also in Christ Jesus.

I guess, they had some of the oral and bits and peices of written traditions until then (not a complete book). Do you (without the Bible)? Is this a new sect of Christianity called 'Christians without the Bible' ? I doubt if majority of the Christians would agree with you on this.

No because, theologically, there is no separation of what is material and what is Divine. That's the whole point -- to teach us that God, through Christ, has reconciled us to God. So Jesus-as-fully-human is one with Jesus-as-Divine. That's why it's a metaphor that works. Because it points us to the theological truth that Jesus serves as the nexus between humanity and Divinity.

You can claim anything you want but reality might be quite different. Anyone can claim Obama and Romney is 1. Does that make it true ? In order for Jesus-as-fully-human to be one with Jesus-as-Divine, they have to exist at the same time - but they don't. Otherwise, when Jesus-as-fully-human died, Jesus-as-Divine died as well. In that case, the world was without a Jesus at least for 3 days. So the world didn't need Jesus for those 3 days. Why would we need him now then ? And if you still claim that only Jesus-as-fully-human died, then there are actually 4 Persons - father, jesus the divine, jesus the human, and holy spirit. You can't have it both ways. So either way Trinity doesn't work.

 

[sojourner]

From what I've read, Newell is not a representative of old-time Celtic Christianity and represents a more New Age belief with monotheistic Celtic themes. Can you provide a link that says he's a Christian by definition?

"From what you've read" has never particularly impressed me, so it doesn't matter. Newell is representative of Celtic Xy; whether you believe that or not is immaterial.

What is it with you and links? Aren't you aware that the best information probably isn't found on the internet?

I don't see how.

Of course not.

 

[sojourner]

I don't think you can do much cause you are already stuck in that swamp land of unexplainable Trinity.

Better there than in the desert where one longs for God like a dry and weary land.

You don't need a book to find out about God but you need one to follow God the way He wants you to. Otherwise, you'll come up with all sorts of unreal metaphor that doesn't connect you straight to your creator.

No. You don't.

I guess, they had some of the oral and bits and peices of written traditions until then (not a complete book).

the operative word here is "Tradition." It's the tradition that matters. The book is part of that tradition.

You can claim anything you want but reality might be quite different.

The metaphor speaks to the reality.

In order for Jesus-as-fully-human to be one with Jesus-as-Divine, they have to exist at the same time - but they don't.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Otherwise, when Jesus-as-fully-human died, Jesus-as-Divine died as well. In that case, the world was without a Jesus at least for 3 days. So the world didn't need Jesus for those 3 days. Why would we need him now then ? And if you still claim that only Jesus-as-fully-human died, then there are actually 4 Persons - father, jesus the divine, jesus the human, and holy spirit. You can't have it both ways. So either way Trinity doesn't work.

Of course it doesn't when you torture it like that.

 

[loverOfTruth]

... Otherwise, when Jesus-as-fully-human died, Jesus-as-Divine died as well. In that case, the world was without a Jesus at least for 3 days. So the world didn't need Jesus for those 3 days. Why would we need him now then ? And if you still claim that only Jesus-as-fully-human died, then there are actually 4 Persons - father, jesus the divine, jesus the human, and holy spirit. You can't have it both ways. So either way Trinity doesn't work.

Of course it doesn't when you torture it like that.

Logic is bound to be a 'torture' to unfounded illogical arguments.:cover:

 

[sojourner]

Logic is bound to be a 'torture' to unfounded illogical arguments.:cover:

It's not supposed to be a logical argument. It's a theological argument.

 

[FearGod]

It's not supposed to be a logical argument. It's a theological argument.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] (NIV, Mark 13:32-33)[/FONT]

That secret is only for the father,they are 3 but 1

i dont know why people cant understand that Jesus pbuh was god,
nor the son = but only the father

Simple english,cant you see,they are the same

The language of god is different than ours
the logic of god is different than ours
we are limited and he is unlimited

so we should understand that god is 3 but 1,no more discussions

 

[loverOfTruth]

It's not supposed to be a logical argument. It's a theological argument.

(theology) the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth

Sorry, still can't be illogical.

 

[sojourner]

(theology) the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth

Sorry, still can't be illogical.

That's one definition, but not the one to which I was referring.

 

[Shermana]

It's not supposed to be a logical argument. It's a theological argument.

Hmm, Theological arguments are not supposed to be logical arguments? When did this happen? What's the point of Theology? Do you think a single Theologian would agree that their Theological arguments aren't meant to be Logical arguments? Name one who says so.

If Trinitarians don't think their Theology is meant to be based on "Logical Arguments", I think that says it all.

 

[Shermana]

"From what you've read" has never particularly impressed me, so it doesn't matter. Newell is representative of Celtic Xy; whether you believe that or not is immaterial.

What is it with you and links? Aren't you aware that the best information probably isn't found on the internet?

Of course not.

Okay so that's a refusal to show anything that shows Newell is Christian as opposed to just "Celtic", thank you.

I can see he's an Ordained Minister of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbytarian. Yet, I can't really find much on his Christian-specific beliefs.

Let me put it this way, I DID search him, I got nothing that says he's an actual Christian. I found that he was RAISED Christian. But I found nothing that says he's teaching pure Christianity. There are people who call him a "Celtic Christian", yes, that's established. But those claims are never really backed. He did his doctorate work in Celtic Christianity, but I have yet to see anything about where his beliefs themselves are "Christian", and I'd go so far as to say the sites that say he's a "Celtic Christian" are a bit misinformed, and generally lack discussing his actual "Christian" beliefs for a reason. He's been a guest speaker at Christian churches perhaps, he may be called "Reverend", but I have yet to see anything that actually defines him as "Christian", even in the "Celtic Christian" fold. I have seen nothing but New Age stuff about and from him.

If anyone can find any quotes by Newell about Jesus in a Christian context, a frubal will be rewarded.

This is not the first time you've absolutely refused to provide links when challenged, and your claim "What is it with you and links" demonstrates what I'd call nothing less than sheer dishonesty. Last time you tried appealing to your "Shield of the scholar" (Which is in reality a shield of "Knowledge") when you were asked to back up a claim of yours.

If your reply to direct requests for evidence for your claims is "Go look it up yourself", while you earlier accused me of "Dismissing" your own claims, I wouldn't expect people to take your claims seriously when you refuse to back them up.

 

[loverOfTruth]

That's one definition, but not the one to which I was referring.

:run:

 

[sojourner]

Hmm, Theological arguments are not supposed to be logical arguments? When did this happen? What's the point of Theology? Do you think a single Theologian would agree that their Theological arguments aren't meant to be Logical arguments? Name one who says so.

If Trinitarians don't think their Theology is meant to be based on "Logical Arguments", I think that says it all.

yes, but the logical argument takes into account that theology is based in extruding metaphoric language. To take such metaphors and force them into a box of literalism is, itself, illogical. That was my point. This isn't strictly an argument of logic, because theology is based in metaphor, and metaphor isn't usually literalistic.

 

[sojourner]

Okay so that's a refusal to show anything that shows Newell is Christian as opposed to just "Celtic", thank you.

No, it's a refusal to use internet resources. If you remember, I've pointed out before that the best resources aren't usually found on the internet.

I can see he's an Ordained Minister of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbytarian. Yet, I can't really find much on his Christian-specific beliefs.

Let me put it this way, I DID search him, I got nothing that says he's an actual Christian.

One would logically conclude that, if he holds standing in the Church of Scotland, he's Christian.

There are people who call him a "Celtic Christian", yes, that's established. But those claims are never really backed. He did his doctorate work in Celtic Christianity, but I have yet to see anything about where his beliefs themselves are "Christian", and I'd go so far as to say the sites that say he's a "Celtic Christian" are a bit misinformed, and generally lack discussing his actual "Christian" beliefs for a reason. He's been a guest speaker at Christian churches perhaps, he may be called "Reverend", but I have yet to see anything that actually defines him as "Christian", even in the "Celtic Christian" fold. I have seen nothing but New Age stuff about and from him.

Just a thought: Perhaps you should do a little actual research, other than simply cruising the net. Just sayin'.
Although, with your biases, I doubt you'd take anyone's word for it, because you've come to a conclusion already, and you don't want it challenged.

This is not the first time you've absolutely refused to provide links when challenged, and your claim "What is it with you and links" demonstrates what I'd call nothing less than sheer dishonesty.

Again, I refuse to supply links because I'm not infatuated with the internet as a good resource for research.

"J. Philip Newell and his wife Ali were co-wardens of the lay religious community of Iona Abbey in the western isles of Scotland. There Philip developed this [prayer] book as an aid to daily prayer. Here is a weekly cycle of morning and evening prayers in the Celtic tradition, with gospel and psalm readings taken from the liturgical year. Each 'day' reflects a concern of the Iona Community: Justice and peace, healing, the goodness of creation and care for the earth, commitment to Christ, communion of heaven and earth, welcome and hospitality." (From the jacket of Celtic Prayers from Iona by J. Philip Newell.

This book is printed by the Paulist Press, a publisher of Christian material. The Iona Community is recognized by the world wide Anglican Communion, a Christian body (in which Desmond Tutu served as archbishop).

Newell has also written at least two other prayer books. One of them, Celtic Benediction: Morning and Night Prayer, is published by Eerdmans, another publisher of Christian material. The book says this about Newell: "J. Philip Newell is Scholar in Spirituality at St. Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh." (a Christian congregation).

One of his other books, Celtic Treasure: Daily scriptures and prayer (also published by Eerdmans), says this about him: "J. Philip Newell, former warden of Iona Abbey in Scotland, is on of today's leading authors on Celtic spirituality. Based in Edinburgh, he is presently writer-theologian for the Cathedral of the Isles, Cembrae, Scotland."

Phillips Theological Seminary (an accredited graduate school of Christian theology) regularly teaches a course in Celtic Christianity, as part of its cultural studies discipline. That course uses Newell's book, Listening for the Heartbeat of God: A Celtic Spirituality. That book (a Paulist Press publication) lists Newell as Warden of Spirituality for the Anglican Diocese of Portsmouth.

Given that Morning and Evening Prayer are decidedly Christian activities, given that he's published by Christian publishing houses, given that he's taught in Christian seminaries, given that he's teaching Christian theology in Christian places, given that he's held official positions in Christian establishments, given that he's an ordained Christian minister, I'd say that the evidence is overwhelmingly against you and your internet "research" about Newell. None of the places he's worked are "new age" places. They are all mainstream Christian establishments. Newell is a Christian. a Celtic Christian.

One cannot be ordained as a Christian minister and hold such teaching positions without having Christian beliefs.

If anyone can find any quotes by Newell about Jesus in a Christian context, a frubal will be rewarded.

"To speak about the cross as revelation of love rather than payment for sin is not to suggest that this is merely a show. This is real blood. This is real self-giving. Jesus knew full well the cost of loving his nation and his religious tradition the way he did, enough to weep over the falseness of the city he loved and to cleanse the injustices of the temple at its core. This is real suffering at the hands of a corrupt religious leadership and an inhumane empire that would not tolerate the challenging implications of the law of love. But it is not a payment to God; it is a disclosure of God. It is not a purchasing of love; it is the manifestation of love." (J. Philip Newell, Christ of the Celts: The Healing of Creation (Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, 2008), pp. 89, 90

Oh, Garcon! Frubal, please.

 

[jasonwill2]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] (NIV, Mark 13:32-33)[/FONT]

That secret is only for the father,they are 3 but 1

i dont know why people cant understand that Jesus pbuh was god,
nor the son = but only the father

Simple english,cant you see,they are the same

The language of god is different than ours
the logic of god is different than ours
we are limited and he is unlimited

so we should understand that god is 3 but 1,no more discussions

Wait... I don't understand. If only God The Father knows when Christ will return, how can Christ be The Father too? Wouldn't that make the Trinity fall apart as Jesus couldn't be fully God because if he was he would know everything that The Father knows?

 

[F0uad]

The trinity was fallen apart a long time ago