the nature of the Trinity

QuestorQuestor Shipmate
There are three monotheistic religions to choose from.
Judaism, Christianity, Moslems
The other belief systems are to my mind philosophies (Hinduism, Seeks, Confucius, etc..)
Christianity adds an additional complication, namely the Trinity.
The Trinity is fundamental to Christianity
God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit
God, we see as being outside Time
The Trinity is therefore outside Time
So Christ is outside Time, or is He?
Christ died on the cross to atone for our sins
Adam and Eve are our 'protoparents', as in the Garden of Eden, have chosen to use their own free will, to eat of the forbidden fruit.
As Adam and Eve are most definitely within Time, is the Role of Christ as redeemer subject to the choice of Adam and Eve and had they not eaten of the forbidden fruit made Christ redundant?
I think I understand what a metaphor is...
«1

Comments

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    I believe there is an Orthodox view that even if the atonement had not been necessary, God the Son would still have become incarnate, as an act of love.

    Regardless, God the Son isn't defined by His participation in the incarnation or the atonement. The absence of either wouldn't make Him disappear in a puff of logic.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    At the baptism of Christ at the hands of John the Baptist, the heavens open and the voice of God the Father is heard saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am best pleased.'
    This I am afraid leaves my mind reeling.
    Does Christ require baptism?
    Is God the Father acknowledging Christ as his beloved Son, when my understanding is that Christ is a member of the Trinity since Time began.
    Are we not all the sons and daughters of God?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    The really important issue, as I see it, is not which of the three monotheistic religions suits me best. It is which is the one that I believe to be true. If none of them are true, then why believe in any of them?

    Christianity is the one I happen to believe is true. If Jesus rose from the dead, then Judaism is an earlier and incomplete revelation. Islam is a distortion, prelest.

    It isn't so much that the Trinity is an 'additional complication'. It is that the Trinity is the best, if inadequate, way of explaining in human terms fundamental truths about what God is like, his personality, nature etc. That the incarnation demonstrates that God is simultaneously both outside and inside time is something wondrous, something at which to stand amazed, something to give thanks for. That that may be things about it that are puzzling, difficult to get one's head round, is something of which to stand in awe, not an argument for disbelief, or even to be explained away. That would be judging God by how well he fits my presuppositions, what I can understand. It is expecting him to fit in with us rather than the other way round.


  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Well said, Enoch.
    "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways."
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The doctrine of the Trinity is a means by which Christians generate new heresies.
    As the Irish twins with the Scottish accents in that video illustrate, one is "allowed" to recite the lawyerly formulations of the Athanasian Creed, but if you stray at all from that narrow path or attempt to say anything more - any positive statements, clarifications, analogies, applications - you're screwed. And as that video shows, this doctrine creates so many ways in which you can be screwed that it's hard not to suspect this was the intention - a doctrine more useful for generating and then condemning heresies than for avoiding error.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am best pleased.'
    Would this phrase have been best unsaid as it creates confusion as to the real relationship between God the Father and God the Son?
    As for God the Holy Spirit....
    My RE teacher said that the Holy Trinity is a mystery...
  • Questor wrote: »
    'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am best pleased.'
    Would this phrase have been best unsaid as it creates confusion as to the real relationship between God the Father and God the Son?
    As for God the Holy Spirit....
    My RE teacher said that the Holy Trinity is a mystery...

    S/he was right.
  • Questor wrote: »
    The other belief systems are to my mind philosophies (Hinduism, Seeks, Confucius, etc..)

    A tangent, I know but... what? :confused:

    Sikhism (note spelling) is most definitely monotheistic, so (according to its theologians at least at least) is Hinduism. Neo-paganism in some forms is monotheistic or duo-theistic. Baha'i faith is monotheistic, Zoroastrianism is dualist. Philosophy seems precisely the wrong word to describe many religions, concerned as they are more with doing than believing. On what are you basing this assessment?
  • The Trinity? A riddle wrapped up in a mystery inside an enigma.

    Don't seek explanation where it's pointless; enjoy what we might of the Father's call, the Son's love and the Spirit's power.
  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    Questor wrote: »
    My RE teacher said that the Holy Trinity is a mystery...

    A mystery, of course, is just a contradiction that the Church hierarchy insists you believe anyway.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    Wikipedia: Philosophy: Initially the term referred to any body of knowledge. In this sense, philosophy is closely related to religion, mathematics, natural science, education, and politics.

    Shakespeare: there are more things in heaven and earth than have entered in our philosophy.

    My spelling is inadequate I realise. I regret to not knowing how to spell Sikhism.

    When I call a belief system a philosophy it is not meant to be derogative.
  • You appeared to be contrasting the 3 well-known Abrahamic religions with "philosophies". What distinction are you trying to draw?
  • churchgeekchurchgeek Shipmate
    Questor wrote: »
    The other belief systems are to my mind philosophies (Hinduism, Seeks, Confucius, etc..)

    A tangent, I know but... what? :confused:

    Sikhism (note spelling) is most definitely monotheistic, so (according to its theologians at least at least) is Hinduism. Neo-paganism in some forms is monotheistic or duo-theistic. Baha'i faith is monotheistic, Zoroastrianism is dualist. Philosophy seems precisely the wrong word to describe many religions, concerned as they are more with doing than believing. On what are you basing this assessment?

    I agree with much of this - but "philosophy" and "religion" are being thought of in Western categories. We need to find the Eastern categories, and I think (much like the pre-Christian West) don't tend to draw such a hard line between the two. Philosophy only became restricted to thinking/believing when it entered the academies of the Middle Ages, I think. Definitely in ancient Greece it was something you committed your life to, and followed a teacher/mentor in doing.

    My dissertation advisor was (probably still is, although he may be retired) a Buddhist priest in the Pure Land tradition. That tradition has no deities (some Buddhist traditions do), and he said it's more like a philosophy than a religion, but neither category works. He really didn't like that the field he was teaching in at my school was defined as "theological aesthetics."

    It's a question worth asking: Are there any categories that really work across the board in interreligious dialogues/studies/etc.?
  • churchgeekchurchgeek Shipmate
    edited May 10
    tclune wrote: »
    Questor wrote: »
    My RE teacher said that the Holy Trinity is a mystery...

    A mystery, of course, is just a contradiction that the Church hierarchy insists you believe anyway.

    Oh dear! I know a lot of people think of it that way. It's so unfortunate. Ever since, in the Enlightenment, we elevated one particular kind of Reason - instrumental reason - as the only means of knowledge, we really impoverished human experience. A mystery, religiously speaking, is a kind of knowledge, but one too great for words. The Greek word at the root of our English word, "mystery," means to close the mouth - yes, in part because of the secrecy of the "mystery religions," but I think Christians were more interested in the fact that mysteries are those realities too big for our mere words. However, as my late professor Alex Garcia-Rivera put it, it's a "sensible mystery" - not a mystery to be solved, but to be experienced. [Source: Living Beauty: The Art of Liturgy, co-written by Alejandro Garcia-Rivera and Thomas Scirghi]

    The doctrine of the Trinity, however formulated, will always be inadequate, because we cannot describe God as God is in Godself. How could we? We can only do our best to speak of what we have experienced of God. Then the academically-inclined try to frame it in logic-based language, and we start to believe that our verbal formulations are safeguarding Truth. However, Christian faith teaches that Truth is a person, not a proposition. Our language about God is important - it's just not God. The Holy Trinity =/= the doctrine of the Trinity.

    I think part of the difficulty we have with the Trinity is that our minds work by comparing things, and there is literally nothing to compare the Trinity to. A word had to be coined. Now people use the word "trinity" when they really mean "triad." But in our experience, there's a 1:1 correspondence between persons and beings (for those beings that are persons, at least). God, as best we can tell/describe based on Christian experience, is 3 persons:1 being, and that boggles our minds. As it should! Anything we can fully understand and explain is not God. [IIRC, I get that bit about the 1:1 and 3:1 from John Macquarrie, but it's been a while. Might've been Tillich. Might've been both.]

    The doctrine of the Trinity does tell us God is inherently relational, though, which is implied by the statement in the Johanine epistle that "God is love." Drawing on the Israelite/Hebrew tradition, Christians couldn't accept that God should need creatures - that there be nothing in existence except God has to at least be logically possible. How can a God who doesn't need creation be love? We can assume a God who is love will create - love tends to do that, after all, whether in terms of creaturely procreation or in terms of art (Elaine Scarry [in On Beauty and Being Just] has noted the tendency that beauty inspires replication - e.g., taking a picture, drawing a scene, writing a poem, in response to seeing something beautiful).

    And if God creates, it's not too much of a surprise if God chooses to become part of that creation - although it's mind-boggling how that works.

    And, with all of that said, when we're talking about the God of the Bible, the living God, all our doctrines and formulae have to be held loosely. We could be wrong about any or all of it - maybe not completely wrong, but wrong in the sense that Aquinas meant when he called all his work a pile of straw (IIRC) after having a mystical experience of God late in life. And he crafted quite a system that's still used as if Gospel by some Christians today (most notably, Dominicans, as he was Dominican).

    (Part of me suspects theology ought to be a genre of poetry rather than an academic discipline.)
  • churchgeek wrote: »
    Questor wrote: »
    The other belief systems are to my mind philosophies (Hinduism, Seeks, Confucius, etc..)

    A tangent, I know but... what? :confused:

    Sikhism (note spelling) is most definitely monotheistic, so (according to its theologians at least at least) is Hinduism. Neo-paganism in some forms is monotheistic or duo-theistic. Baha'i faith is monotheistic, Zoroastrianism is dualist. Philosophy seems precisely the wrong word to describe many religions, concerned as they are more with doing than believing. On what are you basing this assessment?

    I agree with much of this - but "philosophy" and "religion" are being thought of in Western categories. We need to find the Eastern categories, and I think (much like the pre-Christian West) don't tend to draw such a hard line between the two. Philosophy only became restricted to thinking/believing when it entered the academies of the Middle Ages, I think. Definitely in ancient Greece it was something you committed your life to, and followed a teacher/mentor in doing.

    Fair comment. What I was flailing at was that many if not most non-Abrahamic religions have significant ritual components. If I think of philosophy in the broader sense I would tend to think of mental and/or spiritual discipline, like the stoics, and of ethics, rather than ritual action. It seems to me that rituals are the primary observable difference that makes a philosophy a religion.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 10
    churchgeek wrote: »
    (Part of me suspects theology ought to be a genre of poetry rather than an academic discipline.)
    Thank you for an excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking post, @churchgeek! So much good stuff there!

    As for the quoted bit, I’ll admit that when I first started reading through this thread, Archibald MacLeish’s Ars Poetica, particularly the final line, ran through my head:
    A poem should be equal to:
    Not true.

    For all the history of grief
    An empty doorway and a maple leaf.

    For love
    The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea—

    A poem should not mean
    But be.
    I think I would very much enjoy your classes.

  • churchgeekchurchgeek Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    churchgeek wrote: »
    (Part of me suspects theology ought to be a genre of poetry rather than an academic discipline.)
    Thank you for an excellent, thoughtful and thought-provoking post, @churchgeek! So much good stuff there!

    As for the quoted bit, I’ll admit that when I first started reading through this thread, Archibald MacLeish’s Ars Poetica, particularly the final line, ran through my head:
    A poem should be equal to:
    Not true.

    For all the history of grief
    An empty doorway and a maple leaf.

    For love
    The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea—

    A poem should not mean
    But be.
    I think I would very much enjoy your classes.

    Aw, shucks. :blush:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    The father, son and holy ghost.

    They're the 3 men I admire the most
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Yeah, but they took the last train for the coast.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    When?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    When?

    You know that.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    When?

    You know that.

    Go ahead break the fun.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 11
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I believe there is an Orthodox view that even if the atonement had not been necessary, God the Son would still have become incarnate, as an act of love.
    That is atonement. The degeneracy of PSA isn't.
    Regardless, God the Son isn't defined by His participation in the incarnation or the atonement. The absence of either wouldn't make Him disappear in a puff of logic.
    Incarnation is atonement. No atonement, no God the Son, no God. God is only known, warrantable through atonement.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I believe there is an Orthodox view that even if the atonement had not been necessary, God the Son would still have become incarnate, as an act of love.

    The "as an act of love" part is not Orthodox teaching. We believe that part of our salvation is the uniting of the human nature with the divine nature. Which can only happen if the human nature is united in a person or persons with the divine nature. Which requires (indeed, which defines) the incarnation. Then at the ascension the human nature is drawn up into Heaven and the life of the whole godhead.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited May 11
    mousethief wrote: »
    When?
    Duh. The day the music died.

    (Just trying to get the fun back for you. :wink: )

  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    I believe there is an Orthodox view that even if the atonement had not been necessary, God the Son would still have become incarnate, as an act of love.

    The "as an act of love" part is not Orthodox teaching. We believe that part of our salvation is the uniting of the human nature with the divine nature. Which can only happen if the human nature is united in a person or persons with the divine nature. Which requires (indeed, which defines) the incarnation. Then at the ascension the human nature is drawn up into Heaven and the life of the whole godhead.

    The Trinity started to click for me when you, Josephine, and Fr. Gregory began to explain this Orthodox outlook. It is so (relatively lol) comprehensible. And I picked up on using "the Godhead" for God-in-One instead of "God". "God" seems to indicate God the Father to most people.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Relatively being the key word!
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited May 12
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is atonement. The degeneracy of PSA isn't.

    PSA is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Corrected close quote tag (missing ‘/’). BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Somehow or other, the text I added does not get into the post above.

    PSA is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    No problem here. It's not focusing on the Trinity as a concept, though it does in fact mention the Trinity-in-Unity (aka "God") and one member of that Trinity who also happens to be human and whose humanity is being emphasized--the man Christ Jesus. I mean, Paul could have drawn a diagram, but there was no need for that--his hearers would already have that stuff down. And expecting surgical precision every time the Trinity is mentioned is a losing battle.
  • It seems to me that Humanity is one being, many persons. Small surprise that God is one being, many persons as well.

    (If the venerable doctrines of apokatastasis and theosis be true, God will be one being, every person... in the end.)

    What is the nature of this sort of God?

    Love grows through self-giving. The more we give ourselves away to a faithful lover, the more we become. Most things decrease as we give them away. Love increases.

    When love is faithfully reciprocated, we get a positive feedback loop that has the potential to compound exponentially off to infinity. Sadly, for mere mortals, this growth is limited by time and space.

    It follows that the smallest possible God-unit will be two self-giving persons who exist in timeless space, whose relationship is characterised and animated by the spirit of love. Hence the Trinity. The eternal life of God is a boundless positive feedback loop, an ever-amplifying resonating system. As Augustine said, God is the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love that flows between them.

    If this is true, deepest reality isn't about atoms and stuff. It's about the loving interaction of conscious agents.

    If the Trinity is the smallest possible God-unit, and love is the life of God, and if our bondage to time ends at death, there will be no limits to the number of lovers who are grafted into the tree.



  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is atonement. The degeneracy of PSA isn't.

    PSA is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Corrected close quote tag (missing ‘/’). BroJames, Purgatory Host

    Tell that to the trinitarians who espouse it. Here as well as in the US, and Australasia I infer; wherever Lutheranism has reached, look at Africa, Central and South America. It is the loudest transatlantic voice in Christendom. After damnationism in general of course, which is the dominant Western heresy.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    The Lutherans are not a big deal in the Antipodes, Martin
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 12
    Sojourner wrote: »
    The Lutherans are not a big deal in the Antipodes, Martin

    The Reformation didn't reach there? The Reformation, Luther, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, etcism are synonyms; all shades of brown extruded from Augustine, Anselm.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Nope, unless you count the Church ofEngland.

    The Lutherans,Presbys & Baptists were Johnny-come-latelys and only a notch above the trashy rockchoppers.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 12
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    Well, as @Lamb Chopped has said, it's not really feasible to treat the doctrine of the Trinity with surgical precision!

    In any case, I don't suppose the doctrine had been fully worked through at the time Paul was writing. Given that the church still hasn't really got its head around the subject, 2000+ years later, it's hardly surprising...
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    That is atonement. The degeneracy of PSA isn't.

    PSA is incompatible with the doctrine of the Trinity.

    Corrected close quote tag (missing ‘/’). BroJames, Purgatory Host

    Tell that to the trinitarians who espouse it. Here as well as in the US, and Australasia I infer; wherever Lutheranism has reached, look at Africa, Central and South America. It is the loudest transatlantic voice in Christendom. After damnationism in general of course, which is the dominant Western heresy.

    PSA is an essential plank in the teaching at Moore College, and marks off traditional low church theology from that now commonly espoused in Sydney.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    😭
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Nope, unless you count the Church ofEngland.

    The Lutherans,Presbys & Baptists were Johnny-come-latelys and only a notch above the trashy rockchoppers.

    I think the Reformation might have caught up the CoE, no?
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    No problem here. It's not focusing on the Trinity as a concept, though it does in fact mention the Trinity-in-Unity (aka "God") and one member of that Trinity who also happens to be human and whose humanity is being emphasized--the man Christ Jesus. I mean, Paul could have drawn a diagram, but there was no need for that--his hearers would already have that stuff down. And expecting surgical precision every time the Trinity is mentioned is a losing battle.

    Thanks for that. I realise that the word Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible.

    As for the verse I quoted I have usually regarded it as justification that prayers to saints are wrong and confessions to priests are unnecessary
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    No problem here. It's not focusing on the Trinity as a concept, though it does in fact mention the Trinity-in-Unity (aka "God") and one member of that Trinity who also happens to be human and whose humanity is being emphasized--the man Christ Jesus. I mean, Paul could have drawn a diagram, but there was no need for that--his hearers would already have that stuff down. And expecting surgical precision every time the Trinity is mentioned is a losing battle.

    Thanks for that. I realise that the word Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible.

    As for the verse I quoted I have usually regarded it as justification that prayers to saints are wrong and confessions to priests are unnecessary

    Wrong in what way? Confession is good for the soul, especially to anointed leaders.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Sojourner wrote: »
    Nope, unless you count the Church ofEngland.

    The Lutherans,Presbys & Baptists were Johnny-come-latelys and only a notch above the trashy rockchoppers.

    What's wrong with penguins? Ohhhhhh! CATHOLICS!!!!!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Terrible sinner that I am, I cannot help but feel that when one feels a bit - embarrassed - to talk to God (notwithstanding my regularly rehearsed complaint about lack of reply) talking to one of his good mates (or his Mum) seems less intimidating somehow. Not that I do, much, but the thought crosses the old mind.
  • churchgeekchurchgeek Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    No problem here. It's not focusing on the Trinity as a concept, though it does in fact mention the Trinity-in-Unity (aka "God") and one member of that Trinity who also happens to be human and whose humanity is being emphasized--the man Christ Jesus. I mean, Paul could have drawn a diagram, but there was no need for that--his hearers would already have that stuff down. And expecting surgical precision every time the Trinity is mentioned is a losing battle.

    Thanks for that. I realise that the word Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible.

    As for the verse I quoted I have usually regarded it as justification that prayers to saints are wrong and confessions to priests are unnecessary

    Wrong in what way? Confession is good for the soul, especially to anointed leaders.

    Besides, by that logic, you'd have to never ask anyone to pray for you. If it's wrong, based on Jesus being our only advocate, to ask the saints in heaven to pray for you, why would it be OK to ask the saints on earth?
  • Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    Self-aware octopus on the planet Zorg have one mediator between themselves and God, the God-Octopus who came down from above.

    These octopus don't speak. They wave their arms about and blow bubbles. Their sacred text says, "In the beginning was the Arm-waving Bubble-blower..."

    The point of connection between a creature and God must be creature-shaped.

    God is omniscient. All things that can exist do exist in the mind of God. Thus there exist a boundless number of worlds and a boundless number of creatures, including clever octopus. "God the Son" is the creature-God interface, the point where finite and infinite touch. The one Christ has very many faces.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    Self-aware octopus on the planet Zorg have one mediator between themselves and God, the God-Octopus who came down from above.

    These octopus don't speak. They wave their arms about and blow bubbles. Their sacred text says, "In the beginning was the Arm-waving Bubble-blower..."

    The point of connection between a creature and God must be creature-shaped.

    God is omniscient. All things that can exist do exist in the mind of God. Thus there exist a boundless number of worlds and a boundless number of creatures, including clever octopus. "God the Son" is the creature-God interface, the point where finite and infinite touch. The one Christ has very many faces.

    That doesn't affect the Trinity. God the Son has always incarnated, in infinite parallel.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    churchgeek wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    No problem here. It's not focusing on the Trinity as a concept, though it does in fact mention the Trinity-in-Unity (aka "God") and one member of that Trinity who also happens to be human and whose humanity is being emphasized--the man Christ Jesus. I mean, Paul could have drawn a diagram, but there was no need for that--his hearers would already have that stuff down. And expecting surgical precision every time the Trinity is mentioned is a losing battle.

    Thanks for that. I realise that the word Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible.

    As for the verse I quoted I have usually regarded it as justification that prayers to saints are wrong and confessions to priests are unnecessary

    Wrong in what way? Confession is good for the soul, especially to anointed leaders.

    Besides, by that logic, you'd have to never ask anyone to pray for you. If it's wrong, based on Jesus being our only advocate, to ask the saints in heaven to pray for you, why would it be OK to ask the saints on earth?

    If anyone wants to pray for me it would be appropriate for them to pray to Jesus

  • churchgeekchurchgeek Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    churchgeek wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    1.Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

    I am happy with this but where does it leave the Trinity ?

    No problem here. It's not focusing on the Trinity as a concept, though it does in fact mention the Trinity-in-Unity (aka "God") and one member of that Trinity who also happens to be human and whose humanity is being emphasized--the man Christ Jesus. I mean, Paul could have drawn a diagram, but there was no need for that--his hearers would already have that stuff down. And expecting surgical precision every time the Trinity is mentioned is a losing battle.

    Thanks for that. I realise that the word Trinity was never mentioned in the Bible.

    As for the verse I quoted I have usually regarded it as justification that prayers to saints are wrong and confessions to priests are unnecessary

    Wrong in what way? Confession is good for the soul, especially to anointed leaders.

    Besides, by that logic, you'd have to never ask anyone to pray for you. If it's wrong, based on Jesus being our only advocate, to ask the saints in heaven to pray for you, why would it be OK to ask the saints on earth?

    If anyone wants to pray for me it would be appropriate for them to pray to Jesus

    That is precisely what they're all doing. Sometimes I'll ask my mom to pray for me. Sometimes I'll ask Jesus' mom to pray for me. Sometimes I'll ask my dad, who died in 2019, to pray for me. And we all pray to God - in my tradition, you generally pray to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but a prayer can be addressed to any Person of the Trinity. And of the folks I've just mentioned, I am the only Episcopalian.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    That doesn't affect the Trinity. God the Son has always incarnated, in infinite parallel.

    Yes. All possible worlds exist eternally in the mind of God. God the Son is the eternal mediator for all these worlds, the point where finite and infinite meet. For this reason, he's also the place where the worlds meet.

    The branches meet the earth through the vine. The branches meet each other through the vine.

Sign In or Register to comment.