The Trinity, considering it's biblical, why then......

[VoidoftheSun]

I do understand the idea of divine feminine (I don't know if you are a brother or a sister so I will for the moment refrain from calling you brother which is a habit). And I do agree with you on the divine feminine in this concept of the divine feminine.

Yes I'm a brother

When you say "feminine component" in the names of God or attributes rather, do you mean linguistically?

Both actually, in part some of the 'attributes' (or names) in their qualities, as well as the linguistic make up of various specific names themselves.

Yet I am interested in the concept you are proposing. See, the word Rahimi is in the masculine (which is just linguistics, doesn't mean its male or female every time, yet depends on the context). Its Majroorun. Excellent article and I really like the approach. Very soft and motherly. She says the word Ramin, but the word Rahimi is from the root word Rahama. With this she has I believe tried to create a female origin, yet the divine feminine is not female, it is the attributes of what we conceive as a "feminine", which is a motherly, nurturing, caring, warm, you know what I mean. All of those things we naturally attribute to a lady, be it mother or wife. Nevertheless, I agree and understand the whole point of the article.

Yes, you have basically understood, at least from the overview perspective.

Now I am interested in your comment "Virgin Mary and Lady Fatimah have intermediary roles. What do you mean by that?

As in intercessory.

Both in the Christian and in the Islamic context, the Virgin Mary has a very significant role in her relation to Jesus.
For Christians, she is literally the concealer of the incarnation of the deity, Jesus being the deity revealed in flesh.
As for the Islamic view, she was a woman highly exhalted among women -
- Because he is able to explain it in far more eloquent terms than me (at least given that I haven't pre-written a reply which integrates all the disperse aspects of this topic), I will paste an excerpt from Frithjof Schuon's eassy "The Virginal Doctrine": (found in the book "Form and Substance in the Religions")

The Qur'an contains a particularly synthetic passage concerning
less the “doctrine” of the Virgin than her “mystery”: “And
Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We
breathed into her something of Our Spirit. And she believed in
the words of her Lord and in His scriptures, and was of the obedient”
(Sûrah 66:12).
“Whose body was chaste”: the Arabic term, which is very concrete,
implies a symbolism of the heart: God introduced into the
virgin heart an element of His Nature, which is to say that in
reality He “opened” this heart to the transcendentally
omnipresent Divine Spirit; but this Spirit remains in fact
unknown to hearts because of their hardening, which is also the
cause of their dissipation and impurity.
“We breathed therein something of Our Spirit”: the image of
breath evokes both the intimacy and the subtleness of the gift, its
profundity, if one will. “Of Our Spirit”: no divine manifestation can
involve the Divine Spirit as such, or else this Spirit would henceforth
be in the manifestation in question and no longer in God.
“And she had faith in the Words of her Lord and His Scriptures”:
the Words are inward certainties, the contents of the Intellect,
which include essentially the metaphysical truths; the
Scriptures are the revelations that come from the outside. “To
have faith” or “to accept as true” (saddaqa) means here, not to
admit with difficulty and to retain superficially with the mind
only, but to recognize immediately and to believe “sincerely”, that
is to say, by heeding the consequences, both outward and inward,
that the truth implies and demands, whence the designation of
Siddîqah that Islam confers upon the Blessed Virgin: “She who
believes sincerely, totally”.
“And she was of the obedient” (qânitîn): the Arabic term
implies the meaning, not only of constant submission to God, but
also absorption in prayer and invocation, meanings that coincide
with the image of Mary spending her childhood in the prayerniche;
in this way, she personifies prayer and contemplation.
.......................
The spirituality that is properly Marian could be summarized
in these terms: to become pure prayer, or pure receptivity before
God—Gratia plena—so as to be nourished by Him alone; for
Maryam, the Divine Quintessence of this bread—or of this “sustenance”
(rizq)—was Isa, “Word of God” (Kalîmatu ’Llâh) and
“Spirit of God” (Rûhu ’Llâh), this Bread on which she lives in Eternity
and on which she was already living, inwardly, during her
childhood in the Temple.​

That covers certain aspect, but this topic of course is not easily exhaustible.

As far as Fatimah, well in Shia Islam, she is understood to be the concealer of the Nur al-Muhammad (Muhammadun Light). The Light which passed through all of the Prophets and then through the Ahlulbayt, the first created pre-eternal thing - "Light upon light" (Surah 24:35).
This doesn't by any means make her a deity or anything, but it means she is a possessor and a vehicle of that light and henceforth part of the mystery of the revelation (like the Qur'an, Sunnah and the Imammate is, Fatimah is that which opens the two). Muhammad is the grand exoteric revelation and the last Prophet, Ali is the commander of the faithful and the initiator of the Batin (esoteric).
She is famously and profoundly known as the "mother of her father" and many other kinds of terms. Fatimah is also there for the Batin of the Batin.
Sufism focuses more on Imam Ali (pbuh) but Fatimah still has a sacred role in some Sufi Tariqas.

 

[firedragon]

Yes I'm a brother



Both actually, in part some of the 'attributes' (or names) in their qualities, as well as the linguistic make up of various specific names themselves.



Yes, you have basically understood, at least from the overview perspective.



As in intercessory.

Both in the Christian and in the Islamic context, the Virgin Mary has a very significant role in her relation to Jesus.
For Christians, she is literally the concealer of the incarnation of the deity, Jesus being the deity revealed in flesh.
As for the Islamic view, she was a woman highly exhalted among women -
- Because he is able to explain it in far more eloquent terms than me (at least given that I haven't pre-written a reply which integrates all the disperse aspects of this topic), I will paste an excerpt from Frithjof Schuon's eassy "The Virginal Doctrine": (found in the book "Form and Substance in the Religions")

The Qur'an contains a particularly synthetic passage concerning
less the “doctrine” of the Virgin than her “mystery”: “And
Mary, daughter of Imran, whose body was chaste, therefor We
breathed into her something of Our Spirit. And she believed in
the words of her Lord and in His scriptures, and was of the obedient”
(Sûrah 66:12).
“Whose body was chaste”: the Arabic term, which is very concrete,
implies a symbolism of the heart: God introduced into the
virgin heart an element of His Nature, which is to say that in
reality He “opened” this heart to the transcendentally
omnipresent Divine Spirit; but this Spirit remains in fact
unknown to hearts because of their hardening, which is also the
cause of their dissipation and impurity.
“We breathed therein something of Our Spirit”: the image of
breath evokes both the intimacy and the subtleness of the gift, its
profundity, if one will. “Of Our Spirit”: no divine manifestation can
involve the Divine Spirit as such, or else this Spirit would henceforth
be in the manifestation in question and no longer in God.
“And she had faith in the Words of her Lord and His Scriptures”:
the Words are inward certainties, the contents of the Intellect,
which include essentially the metaphysical truths; the
Scriptures are the revelations that come from the outside. “To
have faith” or “to accept as true” (saddaqa) means here, not to
admit with difficulty and to retain superficially with the mind
only, but to recognize immediately and to believe “sincerely”, that
is to say, by heeding the consequences, both outward and inward,
that the truth implies and demands, whence the designation of
Siddîqah that Islam confers upon the Blessed Virgin: “She who
believes sincerely, totally”.
“And she was of the obedient” (qânitîn): the Arabic term
implies the meaning, not only of constant submission to God, but
also absorption in prayer and invocation, meanings that coincide
with the image of Mary spending her childhood in the prayerniche;
in this way, she personifies prayer and contemplation.
.......................
The spirituality that is properly Marian could be summarized
in these terms: to become pure prayer, or pure receptivity before
God—Gratia plena—so as to be nourished by Him alone; for
Maryam, the Divine Quintessence of this bread—or of this “sustenance”
(rizq)—was Isa, “Word of God” (Kalîmatu ’Llâh) and
“Spirit of God” (Rûhu ’Llâh), this Bread on which she lives in Eternity
and on which she was already living, inwardly, during her
childhood in the Temple.​

That covers certain aspect, but this topic of course is not easily exhaustible.

As far as Fatimah, well in Shia Islam, she is understood to be the concealer of the Nur al-Muhammad (Muhammadun Light). The Light which passed through all of the Prophets and then through the Ahlulbayt, the first created pre-eternal thing - "Light upon light" (Surah 24:35).
This doesn't by any means make her a deity or anything, but it means she is a possessor and a vehicle of that light and henceforth part of the mystery of the revelation (like the Qur'an, Sunnah and the Imammate is, Fatimah is that which opens the two). Muhammad is the grand exoteric revelation and the last Prophet, Ali is the commander of the faithful and the initiator of the Batin (esoteric).
She is famously and profoundly known as the "mother of her father" and many other kinds of terms. Fatimah is also there for the Batin of the Batin.
Sufism focuses more on Imam Ali (pbuh) but Fatimah still has a sacred role in some Sufi Tariqas.

Honestly, none of the verses say Mary is an intercessory. Anyway, that's your belief I suppose so its all good. Good discussion, thanks and have a great day brother.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Correction, the "Trinity" is a certain doctrine of interpretation of the concepts of this "Father/Son/Holy Spirit". It does not equal the concept of a "Father/Son/Holy Spirit".

Trinity is a set "orthodox" doctrine of the way the three are interpreted, as to uphold the concept of a man being simultaneously 100% God and 100% human at the same time.
This is supposedly reconciled (though it causes even more problems than the initial problem) by professing to the "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" to being all equally God but not identical to each other.

Other interpretations (such as that God is simply existing in three states, which is modalism) are all heresies that are rejected (in principle at least) by Catholicism and most of Protestantism (with wiggle room from some more infamous denominations) - but to believe such things is to categorically disbelieve in the Trinity, as the Trinity was formulated in direct opposition to such beliefs.

The Trinity is basically there to try and apologetically and (fallaciously) philosophically defend God as both fully-God and fully-Human. The necessity of this for Christians is especially amplified by their specific salvation narrative, which would not work (according to their doctrines) be possible otherwise.

Basically the Trinity is a process-doctrine, one that is the final concede after struggling to reconcile how Jesus and YHWH could be the same thing (something still left unanswered, ironically). This problem is infamously especially typified by the case of Marcion, but is also inhibited among other early forms of post-Jewish Christianity (basically in streams of Christianity coming from Paulian and Peterian communities instead of the Jewish, Jamesian communities).

The dividing line was very very powerful in the chaos it created.

If mainstream Christianity were to admit to believing in three deities (tritheism), as Mormons generally do, then they would basically obliterate their entire religion; which is obviously not something they are willing to even tease.
On the other hand there is the other answer, being from the stream of Marcion and from later forms of Gnosticism like Sethianism - which proposes that Jesus was the son of the "higher-God" instead of YHWH (usually set in a stark opposition to Judaism, sometimes with quite antisemitic traits, I may add).


Nonetheless, the Trinity itself is a strict definition of relation, it is not the words "Father/Son/Spirit" alone. I hope you do realize that.

The whole point of this thread was to discuss where the conceptualization of the Trinity in its modern form came from, and to investigate the various competing principles around the relationship of the Father, Son and Spirit prior to these being passed into orthodoxy at the first council of Nivea.

My comments were completely in that light, and in response to an ongoing discussion in this thread.

If you read all of my comments, I believe my views would be clear, but feel free to ask me about them if you like.

You've misunderstood me, as things currently stand.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Can you explain how you believe that Philo was a Jewish "Mystic"?

I wrote "Jewish mystics and philosophers". Philo was a philosopher/theologian but his theology was mystic.

"For Philo, seeing God represents the greatest experience a human can hope for."

More: “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” The Studia Philonica Annual 21 (2009): 25–47

 

[firedragon]

I wrote "Jewish mystics and philosophers". Philo was a philosopher/theologian but his theology was mystic.

"For Philo, seeing God represents the greatest experience a human can hope for."

More: “Seeing God in Philo of Alexandria: The Logos, the Powers, or the Existent One?” The Studia Philonica Annual 21 (2009): 25–47

Brother. When you say lesser God, it is not only Mystics and philosophers but if not all then most Jewish Rabbi's, scholars, normal people all used this "lesser god" as a Big boss-Small boss analogy to people. God was always God, and the lesser God's could be a prophet, a judge, a leader, the king, etc. This is a phenomena in many languages, many places. In some languages "God" is just a masculine reference and is used in public places to refer to "Men".

Philo was more Greek than Jewish in terms of linguistic familiarity and only later in his life he became proficient in Hebrew. Scholars do feel that his stamp on neoplatonism is significant, yet his "second god" and his divide between tou theou and theou does not actually make it a lesser god or a separate entity but an image of the same one God. he also divides mankind into the one's made of God's image and the ones made out of earth. Anyway Philo was defying the general jewish vs Hellenistic divide and is claiming the Greek translation he uses of the Bible is divine inspiration in itself thus he abolishes his need to go to the Hebrew Jewish text, Anyway, to cut things short it is very difficult to classify Philo as a Jewish Mystic and Philosopher. He was more of a Hellenistic Mystic and Philosopher who believed Greek philosophy owes its roots to Judaism or Jewish scripture, if you are to think of classification.

Anyway I apologize if I misread you which now I think I have. Cheers mate. Have a great day.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Brother. When you say lesser God, it is not only Mystics and philosophers but if not all then most Jewish Rabbi's, scholars, normal people all used this "lesser god" as a Big boss-Small boss analogy to people. God was always God, and the lesser God's could be a prophet, a judge, a leader, the king, etc. This is a phenomena in many languages, many places. In some languages "God" is just a masculine reference and is used in public places to refer to "Men".

Philo was more Greek than Jewish in terms of linguistic familiarity and only later in his life he became proficient in Hebrew. Scholars do feel that his stamp on neoplatonism is significant, yet his "second god" and his divide between tou theou and theou does not actually make it a lesser god or a separate entity but an image of the same one God. he also divides mankind into the one's made of God's image and the ones made out of earth. Anyway Philo was defying the general jewish vs Hellenistic divide and is claiming the Greek translation he uses of the Bible is divine inspiration in itself thus he abolishes his need to go to the Hebrew Jewish text, Anyway, to cut things short it is very difficult to classify Philo as a Jewish Mystic and Philosopher. He was more of a Hellenistic Mystic and Philosopher who believed Greek philosophy owes its roots to Judaism or Jewish scripture, if you are to think of classification.

Anyway I apologize if I misread you which now I think I have. Cheers mate. Have a great day.

No problem brother.

Yes, Philo was a Hellenistic Jew. I don't know how can Philo's Word not be an entity if it's meant as the intermediary and I don't think Philo divided mankind that way. Maybe you meant "Adam Kadmon" and "Adam Ha-Rishon".

 

[firedragon]

No problem brother.

Yes, Philo was a Hellenistic Jew. I don't know how can Philo's Word not be an entity if it's meant as the intermediary and I don't think Philo divided mankind that way. Maybe you meant "Adam Kadmon" and "Adam Ha-Rishon".

Far from it

 

[YoursTrue]

@firedragon I was writing about the development of 'Trinitarian monotheism' on a different thread today. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to 're-quote' it here (as it relates to your OP). Here is my original post in three parts:

If this is a reference to the later Nicene Trinitarian conception of God as three hypostases but with one essence and being, that doctrine as later articulated isn't found in the corpus of Paul's letters and it has no obvious precedent in pre-Christian Judaism. It arises from later systematization of the 'deification' of Christ (which is very much a feature of the New Testamant texts) using the philosophical language of ontology.

Already, in his letters we do, however, find Paul attesting to a mutation of traditional Jewish theology which led him - in tandem with all the other NT authors - to incorporate Jesus into the shema as a "second power" in heaven pre-existing from eternity with the God of Israel as his Wisdom and agent of creation.

Consider:


Binitarianism - Wikipedia

Larry W. Hurtado of University of Edinburgh uses the word "binitarian" to describe the position of early Christian devotion to God, which ascribes to the Son (Jesus) an exaltedness that in Judaism would be reserved for God alone, while still affirming as in Judaism that God is one and is alone to be worshiped. He writes:

...there are a fairly consistent linkage and subordination of Jesus to God 'the Father' in these circles, evident even in the Christian texts from the latter decades of the 1st century that are commonly regarded as a very 'high' Christology, such as the Gospel of John and Revelation. This is why I referred to this Jesus-devotion as a 'binitarian' form of monotheism: there are two distinguishable figures (God and Jesus), but they are posited in a relation to each other that seems intended to avoid the ditheism of two gods.[1]
​

Hurtado does not describe binitarianism as antithetical to Nicene Christianity but rather as an indication that early Christians (before Nicaea) were monotheistic (as evidenced by their singular reference to the Father as God) yet also devoted to Jesus as pre-existent, co-eternal, the creator, embodying the power of God, by whom the Father is revealed, and in whose name alone the Father is worshiped. He writes, "The central place given to Jesus ... and ... their concern to avoid ditheism by reverencing Jesus rather consistently with reference to 'the Father', combine to shape the proto-orthodox 'binitarian' pattern of devotion. Jesus truly is reverenced as divine."[1]:618

Hurtado's view might be interpreted as urging that, at this stage in the development of the Church's understanding, it could be said that God is a person (the Father) and one being; and that Jesus is distinct from the Father, was pre-existent with God, and also originating from God without becoming a being separate from him, so that he is God (the Son). This view of a binitarian pattern of devotion would posit a unity of God's being and a oneness of the object of worship, which is sympathetic to its predecessor view in Judaism; and it also displays a plurality of simultaneous identities, which is sympathetic to its successor in trinitarianism. It is a development in understanding of Christ, in other words, from which arose several subsequent ones in the further course of development that eventually came into conflict with one another.
​

Scholars term this theological conception "binatarianism", with the Holy Spirit at this stage of doctrinal development being a much less articulated concept - more of a divine force or power (not terribly dissimilar to traditional Jewish understanding of the Spirit of God), as opposed to a hypostasis.

However, this 'binatarian' conception of monotheism (unlike later Nicene Trinitarianism with its ontological categories of hypostases and ousia) was a Jewish 'heresy' that manifested itself in groups within Second Temple and early post-Second Temple Judaism outside of the context of early Christianity, as one can clearly infer from the Babylonian Talmud's not infrequent condemnations of this "two powers heresy".

Consider Hagigah 14a in the Bavli in which the Rabbis discuss the proper exegesis of Daniel 7:9:

One verse says: His clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool (Dan. 7:9), and (elsewhere) it is written: His locks are curled and black as a raven! (Cant. 5:11)—There is no contradiction: one (verse refers to) (the court) in session, and the other (verse refers to) war. For the Master said: In (court) session none is more fitting than an old man, and in war none is more fitting than a young man.

One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9); and another passage says: [I watched] until thrones were set in place, and an Ancient of Days (‘atiq yomin) took his seat! (Dan 7:9)—There is no contradiction: one (throne) for him [the Ancient of Days], and one (throne) for David: For it has been taught (in a baraita): one was for him, and the other was for David—these are the words of Rabbi Aqiva.

Said Rabbi Yose the Galilean to him: Aqiva, how long will you treat the Shekhinah as profane! Rather, one (throne) was for justice (din) and one (throne) was for mercy (tzedaqah)

Said Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah to him: Aqiva, what have you to do with the Haggadah? Cease your talk (about the Haggadah), and turn to (the laws concerning) Nega‘im and Ohalot!​

And likewise in Hagiga 15a:

Aher chopped down the shoots’: Of him the verse says, “Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin” (Ecclesiastes 5:5). What does this mean? He saw that Metatron had been given permission [תושר] to sit and write the good deeds of Israel. He said, but it is taught that on high there will be no sitting, no conflict, no “back,” and no tiredness! Perhaps, G-d forbid, there are two powers [יתשתויושר]!​

In the first story, Rabbi Akiva interprets the 'ancient of days' and the 'one like a son of man' in the Book of Daniel as two distinct heavenly powers, both a kind of manifestation of God and one of the exalted figures (the one like "the son of man") being 'David', that is the Davidic Messiah.

Akiva is then immediately corrected by Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Eleazar who upbraid him for an erroneous exegesis of the passage involving the 'thrones' in Daniel's heavenly vision, explaining that two divine powers are not implied by the passage.

In the second story, the Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah has an ecstatic, mystical vision of the divine 'merkabah' or throne which he comes back from a 'heretic': namely, he comes to the conclusion that the angel Metatron might be one of 'two powers' in heaven alongside the God of Israel. Again, the Rabbis condemn him for lapsing into this binatarian heresy but unlike Rabbi Akiva, ben Abuyah remains in heresy.

We can see this same idea reiterated in the later merkabah literature, such as in the Book of 3 Enoch where the same story of 'Aher's' vision of "two divine powers" is given lengthier treatment:

Rabbi Ishmael said to me: The angel Metatron, Prince of the Divine Presence, the glory of highest heaven, said to me:

At first I was sitting on a great throne at the door of the seventh palace, and I judged all the denizens of the heights, the familia of the Omnipresent, on the authority of the Holy One, blessed be he...

But when Aher came to behold the vision of the Merkabah and set eyes on me, he was afraid and trembled before me...

Then he opened his mouth and said: “There are indeed two powers in heaven!”​

(continued....)

You know it's interesting that people say the trinity is there in the Bible, and I have looked at their arguments, but I don't see it. What I do see in the Bible is the use of the words God in different forms, such as God, god, a God, gods, and so forth, as well as holy spirit, but I don't see a trinity.

 

[firedragon]

If it were biblical, why the need for the creeds in the first place?

Thats true. But that's not the question.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I am looking for data. There is a lot of scholarship on this and historical data on this topic of how and when all of this occurred. But there could always be something new we didn't think about.

Yes, definitely! This reminded me of something I learned relatively recently, that to me, entirely changes the mainstream view of a related subject, the understanding of Jesus' statement @ John 8:58.

But it doesn't directly tie in with the OP..... just the comment from you above. I don't want to derail this thread's theme.