Trinity

[bahman]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

[gaffo]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

Arrius had the proper view of thing per Chistology, but the Council of Niceia(sp) in 320 codified the Trinity theology - and condemn Arrius as a Heretic.

- and Origen too by default - if not in name.

[Nick_A]

My gut feeling is that if modern society opened to understanding what the Triad known in Christianity as the Trinity, the division between science and religion would disappear.

Modern society relies on reason governed by duality: affirmation and denial. Dis is here and dat is dare and the rest is nonsense. The law of non contradiction is the ultimate path to understanding. Yet there are those who wonder why the trinity or union of three forces is so easily accepted in ancient philosophy. Why three? Why not two and leave it alone? Here are how several, including Christianity, of the ancient traditions visualize three forces. Is the dis is here and dat is dare philosophy used by science missing something important?

What is the origin of this deep appeciation for three forces

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/trinit ... -religions

'Spiral of Life' represents:

- Unity of body, mind and spirit.

- Interplay of birth, growth, and death

It is a symbolic representation of primordial forces that materialize in magical, mysterious fashion while obeying precise universal laws. The Tree of Life starts with a triad.

From this primordial triangle proceed all of the other figures, shapes, forms, all other numbers, the magic of manifestation.

[surreptitious57]

The Trinity makes no logical sense at all and it is also a violation of the First Commandment which forbids the
worship of anyone other than God so when Christians worship Jesus they are actually committing blasphemy

[Dontaskme]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When Awareness (Father) KNOWS sensation (Mother) Consciousness...the Son is born (Mind) = ALL ONE

''Knowing'' is instantaneously known in the moment knowing' arises ONE with the knowing.

The words Awareness/Consciousness/Mind are all aspects of the same ONE idea.

.

[Nick_A]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When Awareness (Father) KNOWS sensation (Mother) Consciousness...the Son is born (Mind) = ALL ONE

''Knowing'' is instantaneously known in the moment knowing' arises ONE with the knowing.

The words Awareness/Consciousness/Mind are all aspects of the same ONE idea.

Needless to say we have our differences. They seem primarily concerned with the Holy Spirit: a word not mentioned by brahman or Dam

[bahman]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When Awareness (Father) KNOWS sensation (Mother) Consciousness...the Son is born (Mind) = ALL ONE

''Knowing'' is instantaneously known in the moment knowing' arises ONE with the knowing.

The words Awareness/Consciousness/Mind are all aspects of the same ONE idea.

.

Awareness is a condition, therefore, it cannot know the sensation. Consciousness is a condition too. We have been always conscious since the beginning of times. We are minds.

[bahman]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

Arrius had the proper view of thing per Chistology, but the Council of Niceia(sp) in 320 codified the Trinity theology - and condemn Arrius as a Heretic.

- and Origen too by default - if not in name.

What is Arrius view?

[bahman]

My gut feeling is that if modern society opened to understanding what the Triad known in Christianity as the Trinity, the division between science and religion would disappear.

Modern society relies on reason governed by duality: affirmation and denial. Dis is here and dat is dare and the rest is nonsense. The law of non contradiction is the ultimate path to understanding. Yet there are those who wonder why the trinity or union of three forces is so easily accepted in ancient philosophy. Why three? Why not two and leave it alone? Here are how several, including Christianity, of the ancient traditions visualize three forces. Is the dis is here and dat is dare philosophy used by science missing something important?

What is the origin of this deep appeciation for three forces

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/trinit ... -religions

'Spiral of Life' represents:

- Unity of body, mind and spirit.

- Interplay of birth, growth, and death

It is a symbolic representation of primordial forces that materialize in magical, mysterious fashion while obeying precise universal laws. The Tree of Life starts with a triad.

From this primordial triangle proceed all of the other figures, shapes, forms, all other numbers, the magic of manifestation.

I have a simpler understanding of reality. We are separate interacting minds. We are chained by material since we don't know what it is.

[Nick_A]

My gut feeling is that if modern society opened to understanding what the Triad known in Christianity as the Trinity, the division between science and religion would disappear.

Modern society relies on reason governed by duality: affirmation and denial. Dis is here and dat is dare and the rest is nonsense. The law of non contradiction is the ultimate path to understanding. Yet there are those who wonder why the trinity or union of three forces is so easily accepted in ancient philosophy. Why three? Why not two and leave it alone? Here are how several, including Christianity, of the ancient traditions visualize three forces. Is the dis is here and dat is dare philosophy used by science missing something important?

What is the origin of this deep appeciation for three forces

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/trinit ... -religions

'Spiral of Life' represents:

- Unity of body, mind and spirit.

- Interplay of birth, growth, and death

It is a symbolic representation of primordial forces that materialize in magical, mysterious fashion while obeying precise universal laws. The Tree of Life starts with a triad.

From this primordial triangle proceed all of the other figures, shapes, forms, all other numbers, the magic of manifestation.

I have a simpler understanding of reality. We are separate interacting minds. We are chained by material since we don't know what it is.

Those concerned with developing to become part of universal meaning and purpose need a workable hypothesis to begin with and understanding how wholeness involves into diversity in a lawful manner in a way that makes the beginning of creation understandable intellectually. If duality works for you, pursue it. It doesn't for me

[bahman]

My gut feeling is that if modern society opened to understanding what the Triad known in Christianity as the Trinity, the division between science and religion would disappear.

Modern society relies on reason governed by duality: affirmation and denial. Dis is here and dat is dare and the rest is nonsense. The law of non contradiction is the ultimate path to understanding. Yet there are those who wonder why the trinity or union of three forces is so easily accepted in ancient philosophy. Why three? Why not two and leave it alone? Here are how several, including Christianity, of the ancient traditions visualize three forces. Is the dis is here and dat is dare philosophy used by science missing something important?

What is the origin of this deep appeciation for three forces

https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/trinit ... -religions

I have a simpler understanding of reality. We are separate interacting minds. We are chained by material since we don't know what it is.

Those concerned with developing to become part of universal meaning and purpose need a workable hypothesis to begin with and understanding how wholeness involves into diversity in a lawful manner in a way that makes the beginning of creation understandable intellectually. If duality works for you, pursue it. It doesn't for me

There was no act of creation. The beginning is a matter of necessity. I have an argument for that: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=28264

[gaffo]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

Arrius had the proper view of thing per Chistology, but the Council of Niceia(sp) in 320 codified the Trinity theology - and condemn Arrius as a Heretic.

- and Origen too by default - if not in name.

What is Arrius view?

That the Son of God was a separate devine being. literally YHWH's Son. and that the Holy Spirit was the third (lowest of the tier) - the "vioce of god toward humans (conscience?)

Arrius got condemned for not affirming the Trinity theology (back in 200 AD - 380 AD - "christian thought" was evenly split bet Trinitarians and Arrius types) via at the Nicene council of bishops in 320 (he was redeamed and affirmed in his views later 360-ish - in a latter rulling, but died on his way to Jursalem (died in Constaninpole as an old 80 something yr old man - not able to make it to jerusalem to be redeemed in his views).......the rest is history, Arrius is forgotten and the Trinitarians won the day via Christian dogma.

the main point of contention per Arius-types and the trinitarians was about - "did Christ exist before his time on earth" Arius claimed that there is nothing in the bible that states that Jesus existing prior to his birth, (and add the quote in Matt about prophesy - "know one knows when the Kingdom of god will come except the Father" - a quote from Jesus (according to the author of matt) - so jesus did not know when, but assumed his dad did (so two separate beings - thus trinity theology is wrong).

Arrius denied the belief that the Son of God existed as a being before his birth, Trinitarians claimed he did - via the pre-amble of Gospel of John! (and the latter is right - a simple reading of GoJ affirms the theology Trinity/Son of God existed from the first time.

sadly the other Synoptics claim the opposite ;-/.

since i'm an athiest i see not reason for force a circle into a square, and so affirm the theology of John is the outlier per the other 3 gospels (whcih are in agreement Jesus did not exist prior to his birth) of course bet those three Synoptic, Mark is the outlier, affirming via not immaculate birth - was born via a man (Joseph) - prob "Pantera" but whatever................unlike the other two books Luke/Matt - where Jesus's dad is God.

Via Mark, God saw the most rightius man - a man born the usual way with normal parents - and adopted by God.

Luke/Matt claim not so! i.e. all three of synoptics claim Jesus is not God - but litteraly the Son of (so not Trinitarian - as John is) - but Mark denies Luke/Matts claim that Jesus' dad is God.

BTW i do like Gospel of Mark, where Jesus is shown to be a man with emotions like me (as can relate to his travails (unlike gospel of John - where Jesus is more robot than man, with all the answers and with no fear).

I do like the "poetry" of Gospel of John" .............."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" - nice poetry and i do like its sound. it support Trinitarian dogma BTW


----------

I'm an Atheist, so do not think Jesus is God, nor the Son of - born as or adopted as.

but i do value history, and do assume that there was a man name jesus (joshua) that lived 2000 yrs ago, who did not view himself as God's son,but was a follower of John the Baptist, and like him was killed by the Romans for insurection against Emprical rule, decades later myths were made about the man that expanded - first, via mark - a man adopted my god to be his son, 20 yrs alter a man who's dad is god, 20 yrs latter to a man who was god.

[bahman]

Arrius had the proper view of thing per Chistology, but the Council of Niceia(sp) in 320 codified the Trinity theology - and condemn Arrius as a Heretic.

- and Origen too by default - if not in name.

What is Arrius view?

That the Son of God was a separate devine being. literally YHWH's Son. and that the Holy Spirit was the third (lowest of the tier) - the "vioce of god toward humans (conscience?)

Arrius got condemned for not affirming the Trinity theology (back in 200 AD - 380 AD - "christian thought" was evenly split bet Trinitarians and Arrius types) via at the Nicene council of bishops in 320 (he was redeamed and affirmed in his views later 360-ish - in a latter rulling, but died on his way to Jursalem (died in Constaninpole as an old 80 something yr old man - not able to make it to jerusalem to be redeemed in his views).......the rest is history, Arrius is forgotten and the Trinitarians won the day via Christian dogma.

the main point of contention per Arius-types and the trinitarians was about - "did Christ exist before his time on earth" Arius claimed that there is nothing in the bible that states that Jesus existing prior to his birth, (and add the quote in Matt about prophesy - "know one knows when the Kingdom of god will come except the Father" - a quote from Jesus (according to the author of matt) - so jesus did not know when, but assumed his dad did (so two separate beings - thus trinity theology is wrong).

Arrius denied the belief that the Son of God existed as a being before his birth, Trinitarians claimed he did - via the pre-amble of Gospel of John! (and the latter is right - a simple reading of GoJ affirms the theology Trinity/Son of God existed from the first time.

sadly the other Synoptics claim the opposite ;-/.

since i'm an athiest i see not reason for force a circle into a square, and so affirm the theology of John is the outlier per the other 3 gospels (whcih are in agreement Jesus did not exist prior to his birth) of course bet those three Synoptic, Mark is the outlier, affirming via not immaculate birth - was born via a man (Joseph) - prob "Pantera" but whatever................unlike the other two books Luke/Matt - where Jesus's dad is God.

Via Mark, God saw the most rightius man - a man born the usual way with normal parents - and adopted by God.

Luke/Matt claim not so! i.e. all three of synoptics claim Jesus is not God - but litteraly the Son of (so not Trinitarian - as John is) - but Mark denies Luke/Matts claim that Jesus' dad is God.

BTW i do like Gospel of Mark, where Jesus is shown to be a man with emotions like me (as can relate to his travails (unlike gospel of John - where Jesus is more robot than man, with all the answers and with no fear).

I do like the "poetry" of Gospel of John" .............."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" - nice poetry and i do like its sound. it support Trinitarian dogma BTW


----------

I'm an Atheist, so do not think Jesus is God, nor the Son of - born as or adopted as.

but i do value history, and do assume that there was a man name jesus (joshua) that lived 2000 yrs ago, who did not view himself as God's son,but was a follower of John the Baptist, and like him was killed by the Romans for insurection against Emprical rule, decades later myths were made about the man that expanded - first, via mark - a man adopted my god to be his son, 20 yrs alter a man who's dad is god, 20 yrs latter to a man who was god.

Thanks for the information.

[gaffo]

quite welcome.

there is good and bad in both the OT and NT (i hate Paul (Sual) BTW - i personally view him a an opportunist/phoney using sophistry-good language (no doubt he was a smart and learned man).

worthless books include Sauls works in the NT and at least Levitus (Haggi offer little too) in the OT.

others are worthy of reading.

overall i do prefer the OT (Minor Prophet's works - i do not value much of the Torah - i view it as mostly "political propaganda" to justify why/how the jews took land from the Amalakite/ammontes/etc.............but parts of the Torah i do like - mostly Genesis story myself)

of the OT, i do value Amos the most, then close seconds for me are Jonah (champions Univseral Humanisn over tribalism - and written to counter Ezra's filth (Ezra's work is crap BTW - IMO - forced divorces bet jews and non - after just showing up after being gone for 70 yrs prior), and Job.

I do like Zachariah too (written at the same time as Haggi) - and around the same time as Ezra's screed.

of the NT, honestly, i do not dissike any of the works outside of Saul's (because i doubt that authors character - even if hes says some thing i may agree with - my suspision of his character makes me doubt what he says).

I'm neutral on most of the NT - there is nothing in the NT is evil is the stuff in Leviticus/Ezra.

but of the NT, i can only relate and value the Gospel of Mark - just becuase the main character - jesus - seems like a good man put into a situation beyond his control (and so seems like a person i would like and relate to as one like me).

------------

there other "books" outside the Canon, which IMO are worthy and should have been included in the "bible"

Jubaless i like the most (its theology of the "fall" corrupting all of the animal kingdom WRT to man - where when man was one of the animals he could talk to the animals and vise versa, but after the "Fall" carnivores were created - lions stopped eating straw and instead of sleeping with lambs - ate then (and man no longer could "talk" to animals/or vise versa).

BTW Jesus' references to the "kingdom of God" (the end days/final day/day of YHWH/etc)..the lion and lamb with sleep together (so no more carnivores) - i think Jesus' affirmed and know of the book of Jubaless - written 200 yrs before his time (no in the canon today - not in the Jew's nor Christian - but valued in his time as authorative).

Enoch - both the "book of" and "the secrets" of were others which are worthy, but "lost" via history and excluded in the canon.

as well as The Shepard of Hermis, a work worthy of inclusion in the Bible, but not included.

the didiche is another one BTW - worthy but excluded.

thanks for reply Sir!

[Nick_A]

Christendom or man made interpretations of Christianity initiating as a conscious source exist on several levels each supporting different levels of human understanding. Christianity at the exoteric level is different than the esoteric level and finally the transcendent level. Being interested in the compatibility of science and religion, it does seem that this acquired division only proves Man's collective stupidity so have made efforts to find those of understanding far more brilliant than me who understnd why the esential truths of science nd religion are complimenatry.

A great many of the church fathers accepted the idea of the ineffble ONE as described by Plotinus. It is composed of a trinity of potentials beyond what our senses can experience. We can know of all as one, the division of one into its ultimate parts, and finally what connects them.

Then the ONE involves firsts into Nous or the inteligence necessary to contemplate the one. ONE as the ineffable source exists simultaneously as ONE beyond time and space and three bounded by time and space within the ONE but at a lower level of reality voluntarily dividing into three. This creates the foundation within the ONE which begins the involution into its levels of creation