Trinity ... its value is?

[garagekite]

I have heard from Trinitarian scholars that the Divine Persons in the Godhead are each somewhat less that fully persons in the usual sense. (You and I are each fully persons.) Cornelius Van Til said that the Trinity is one person, and he meant 'person' in the usual sense.

The greatest truth is naturally also the most relevant. It is no more bizzare to say that God is comprised of ten people than to say that he is comprised of three people. So, how is a man guilty for rejecting something that he has no way to make sense of in the first place?

No error can stand as truth in anyone's mind except it have one leg on solid ground. Every error is but an alloy with truth. Even a fool is rewarded if he can see to divide it. In the effort to oppose some error, one can make another error. It is possible to make more, and other, out of a mystery than what was put into it by its author. Even if the mistake is only subtle. And, even subtle mistakes can have profound consequences. For example, Orthodox, anti-Christian Judaism is a twisted version of the truth given to the Jews...what Bruce Lee would call a 'Classical mess'. Although many individuals were honest enough to suspend judgement on things they did not understand, no Jewish sect of Jesus' day was free of error.

The way of thinking most natural to man is that which is in terms of things over which man has dominion. This is what may be called the 'Adamic' way of thinking, or the 'Adamic' mind, or the 'Japhethite' philosophical mindset. It is this way of thinking that, by way of pride, was responsible for the downfall of Adam. Proud man tends toward the view that he can be his own master, that he has the right to determine for himself, by way of his dominion powers, as to what is true and false, what is good and evil. This philosophical base, presumed to be the only base from which inquiry can proceed (a presumption made by the likes of Richard Dawkins), is that which has given us, among other more subtle evils, philosophical materialism. The secular, materialistic view of science and thought is not the product of those whom some Christians normally think of as 'atheists', but is rather the very essence of Adam's fall

Man is not his own Creator, so he must realize that there is an entire realm of intellectual inquiry that cannot rightly proceed except in such terms as put a man in a position epistemically inferior to the thing about which he is inquiring. Philosophical problems get multiplied when man assumes that he has the superior epistemic vantage point no matter the subject of inquiry. Epistemology, for the creature, has a topography, and the creature exists inherently below the tops of the mountains.

There is a difference, in general physical science, between a description of a phenomenon and an explanation for a phenomenon. God is not a phenomenon. In thinking about God, your thoughts are phenomena, they are not God. God's ontology is not a process of deduction, is not logically synthetic. In thinking about the being of God, you are not observing God directly, in the Adamic sense of observation. Although, as far as the operation of your mind is concerned, there is a distinction between, say, omnipotence and omniscience, they cannot ultimately be two different things. There is a difference between your thoughts, and the things outside yourself which you try to understand by thinking. A material contradiction is never resolved, we just see past it (or not) to the reality beyond our erroneous thinking.

Many people today have the idea that the form of government of the USA, in that it has three separate branches of government (executive, legistative, and judicial), is a pure invention in this respect and having no basis in what a person---a living being---is. Although the details of our government, given in the US Constitution, are somewhat arbitrary, the essence of our government, in consisting of these three branches, is not a synthesis (logical or otherwise). It's not as if these three branches existed separately, laying about here and there, and then our founders took them up and bound them together. The founders of this form of government, a form often referred to as the "separation of powers" commented that a person working in any one of these three branches would be constrained from functioning in official capacity as a complete person. That is, that each of these three branches of government, when maintained by its members separately, so that the members of any one branch would be in contest with the members of the other two branches, would put a strong check on the otherwise unwise ways of a human-run government. The executive branch would have no legal power to make laws or pass judgements in court, the legislative branch would have no legal power to act as an armed force or pass judgements in court, and the judicial branch would have no legal power to make laws or act as an armed force.

The Bible is a Jewish/Semitic document. Interpreting its English translations is no less bound to this fact than is the initial translation work itself. You wouldn't want some Chinese man who knows nothing about Western culture and language to presume to tell the world what you mean in some letter that you are writing to your grandmother. What God was doing, the records of which some people, by superstition, have cummulatively (see http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/trinhistory.htm and
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/rev1-4.htm) turned into a bizarre notion of God, was what is called 'due process'. In so doing, God showed the offices of judgement, or what I like to call the 'realms of proof'. These offices are of God's being, since God, the Creator, is the standard of all judgement.

Relevance is what counts here first, not 'revelation' (bizzarely misinterpreted). I could show you how it is directly relevant---and primary---to any serious controversy under the sun, from Abiogenesis (life from non-life) to 'Strong' Artificial Intelligence (these two things run the gamut, one on one end of the spectrum, and the other on the other end; I hope you have already noticed that they are a reflection of each other).

James White, in the sixth section of his article, Loving The Trinity says:

>>>For some reason many feel that there is a hierarchy of "error" when it comes to the Trinity.... [that to be a] Oneness advocate...[is] closer to the truth [than are the other heresies]. [But, a] direct denial of any one of [the] Biblical truths [concerning the Trinity] is just as serious as any other. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth, and two-thirds of the truth is not a valid substitute, no matter which one-third of His truth we choose to reject.<<<

From having dealt with one of his officers years ago on this very matter, it sounds to me as if James White is confounding the single over-arching doctrine of God's being with the single most important message of the Gospel. The two are, of course, closely related, but they are not to be equated. The Gospel is about one doctrine: God is your savior (because he is your creator and master), you cannot be. If the 'Trinity' of James White's theology is the single most important doctrine, then I'm quite sure that Jesus would have made it explicit. I can clearly see why some might have been burned at the stake for objecting to this twisted and arbitrary valuation of a bizarre 'Trinity'. If we were to suppose that God had indicated (for whatever reason) that he is a decinity (ten-ply) instead of a trinity, then people such as James White would be none the wiser for it regarding this strange denial of a hierarchy of error. I have said this before to many people, and will maintain it. Though God would not say so, yet if we suppose that he did say that he is a green turtle, then some Christians would bow their minds in superstitious fear and accept it (as part of the saving truth), and even urge everyone else to accept it. This would be epistemological tyrany. Combined with political power, it would indeed get some people burned at the stake for rejecting it. Yet, even Abraham had a place for objecting to what he (mistakenly) worried that God was about, which was concerning Sodom.

Despite the existence and clarity of Hebrews 11:17-19, so many of the superstitious 'Trinitarian' Christians I know insist that Abraham was being asked for a kind of obedient "faith" that, in truth, is none other than, and thus even worse than, what Hitler would require of a guard dog. Contrary to these ignorant and Roman Catholic-ally twisted minds, Abraham ran along the wall of relevance, pressing himself up against it as tightly as he could, burning his shoulder with the friction as he ran.

There is no shortage of 'Trinitarians' who seek relevance in their 'Trinity'. Who, then, will dare presume to tell me that I should not do the same? Only, it was not my intention, nor even suspicion, to gain what I seem to me to have been given. I simply wished to understand the connection between a certain insight I was given and the 'Trinity' I grew up on. No one would helped me, and some opposed me without knowing what I have, so I have been without any elder in all of this from the beginning. This is an evil.

The non-Semitic view of the Trinity data is a view yet presents the problem: either a person is an entity that is less than the ultimate sort of entity (that the Divine Trinity is more than personhood), or that the Trinity is one person after all. To conclude that the Trinity is greater than personhood is not a necessary, nor even the best, account of the relevant data. Such a conclusion becomes the best account only if you are working with something less than the full deck of options. It would have been better to suspend judgement. Instead of being honest with their own minds, the leaders of the Catholic Church committed the sin of presumption, and people were murdered for opposing this presumption (although I suppose that at least the leaders of the opposers made presumptions of their own).

Three questions:
1. What is the universal definition of life?
2. What is the definition of the ultimate authority?
3. What is the answer to the documented mystery called the 'Trinity'?

The answer to all three questions is the same.

There is much to find out about the background understanding of the Jewish disciples, but which we have made into a bizarre view of God because we assume that what we read in the Bible on this matter is plain-vanilla, Western-mind literal (not that it's non-literal, but literality is quite an extensive realm). We have the words, but not much of the implicit background understood by the Jewish disciples. Those who defend the Roman Catholic 'Trinity' characteristically ignore this background. Those who oppose this 'Trinity', in favor of a simple Oneness view, do the same.

I am convinced that both of these two views are right on some points and wrong on others. If someone calls me a Modalist, and means by this to include that they think I am not a Trinitarian, then I deny that I am a Modalist. I am both a Modalist and a Trinitarian. What I find of some interest is that I did not form my opinion on this matter by looking at the controversy and hoping I could figure it out. I did not look at the controversy at all, and had come to research it only because of the view that I already had, which is a view that goes beyond both the Japheth-minded Trinitarian and Oneness views. Just like with these two views, the Arian view is a result of refusing to distinguish between the plain Greek mindset and the Jewish view. For example, Arianism takes the phrase "firstborn of all creation" in the most 'plain' literal sense. The Arian view ultimately depends on the assumption that, since God is not a man, God cannot be robed in flesh. The Jews were determined that Jesus was a bastard and not their judge. But, what is flesh, that God cannot be robed in it?


Millard J. Erickson, in his Christian Theology 2nd edition, pg 296, writes:

>>>...God is a person... He is not a...department... He is a knowing, loving, good Father.<<<

Indeed, the Bible unequivocally refers to the true God as the father. Most Trinitarians infer that each of the divine personas is not the Trinity, but that each simply shares in the divine nature. Is this a logically compulsory inference, or is it an instance of a subtle, hidden assumption of the Adamic mind? The Adamic mind tends to think of an entity in terms of synthesis from other parts. But, there must be some entity that is non-synthetic (even logically so) and yet can produce the contingent universe. Otherwise, we have infinite regress of syntheses, which would mean that nothing is actually made up of anything: no entity is essential.

What was God about in those things---in those times and ways recorded for us---that have been admitted to be rooted in God's being? What all did God mean to convey in those things? And, did he miss anything of great importance? Of great importance is the fact that the secular, materialistic view of science and thought is NOT the product of those whom Christians normally think of as 'atheists', but is rather the very essence of Adam's fall. And, there is no greater intoxication to fallen and faithless men than to think to have found sufficient evidence for their implicit view that they are their own masters, such as a materialist definition of life, including, but not limited to, what 'Strong' AI is about. God beat them to the punch, and we missed it ourselves by twisting what little truth we were given. Sounds familiar.

No, I don't think he missed a thing.

...There is much more, but I suppose this post is already too long for many readers.

[Fr Averky]

garagekite

Are you seeking or teaching? What is the aim of all of this -a bit of an odd posting on Easter. I myself will give no answer to you, but there are others who will, I am sure. All the best.

Hieromonk Averky

[John Curtis Dunn]

In a message dated 4/27/2003 garagekite
writes:

Cornelius Van Til said that the
Trinity is one person, and he meant 'person' in the usual sense.


Remember this then: "Cornelius Van Til was (as he described himself) a *Presuppositionalist,* therefore, he developed his idea of the Trinity from out of his own *presuppositions.*

john

[John Curtis Dunn]

garagekite also posted the following:

"If someone calls me a Modalist, and means by this to include that they think I am not a Trinitarian, then I deny that I am a Modalist. I am both a Modalist and a Trinitarian."

------

Karl Barth by any other name....

john

[Andonis]

garagekite,

pardon my inability to clearly understand your post, but could you state more simply what exactly it is you are stating? are you saying that the trinity is a man made invention, that in true worship of God is not relevant? a simple direct statement will do me if you don't mind...maybe then i can think up of a reply..i got lost in the wordiness of your post.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear garagekite and others,

While a discussion on the Holy Trinity, and trinitarian thought in general, is always welcome here, I must admit of being rather baffled by the post that initiated this thread. It seemed to hit on (quite) a number of different topics, but none which directly addressed the two questions implied by the title of the new thread: 'What is the Trinity?' and 'Of what value is a doctrine of the Trinity?'

Perhaps you could offer some initial responses to your own questions, garagekite, and we can go from there.

Christos voskresse, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

I write this in the hopes that our guest, garagekite will drop by again to see it, and I want to say that I share the perplexity of the others as to the meaning of our guest's post.

Here is my stab at a response to him:

He wrote "I have heard from Trinitarian scholars that the Divine Persons in the Godhead are each somewhat less than fully persons in the usual sense. (You and I are each fully persons.) Cornelius Van Til said that the Trinity is one person, and he meant 'person' in the usual sense."

Let me start by pointing out that any scholars of the Trinity who contend that any one of the individual persons of the Divine Trinity is less than what any one of those scholars is (fully a person) speaks without experience of any person of the Trinity and falls under the condemnation of the first Psalm.

To quote him again:
"The greatest truth is naturally also the most relevant. It is no more bizzare to say that God is comprised of ten people than to say that he is comprised of three people. So, how is a man guilty for rejecting something that he has no way to make sense of in the first place?"

I would warn against confusing the terms “persons” and “people”. All people being persons doesn’t make all persons people. Next, you ask why someone should be held guilty of rejecting something he doesn’t understand. I would suggest that one suffers the consequence of rejection, forensically guilty or not. IOW, if I gave you a sealed beat up old cardboard box and you refused it not knowing that it had thousands of hundred dollar bills in it, the consequence would be that you ended up without the fortune. If there were a law requiring you to accept whatever was handed you, then you’d also be guilty, but that is what is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that in either case, you are out the several thousand dollars you would have had had you accepted the gift.

I had a professor once who taught, “I don’t know why God is a Trinity, but aren’t you glad he is?”. From a human perspective we might think to call unity in plurality, and vice versa “bizzare” and from there go to the idea that once we’ve opened such a can of worms that no one set number for the plurality in unity is any more or less bizarre than any other, but we need to remember that simplicity is part of the equation.
There is a true number, which, while bizarre to our limited human minds is still logically consistent with the simplicity which accords the unity and therefore not really bizzarre. Any number but the true one is bound to be truly bizarre because inconsistent with simplicity, inconsistent with Truth. And we must remember that Truth doesn’t need to be found or believed to be true. It certainly doesn’t ned to be understood.

After that it appears that you examined what some of those putative scholars thought about the doctrine of the Trinity per se, you note the proclivity of the human intellect to fall off one side of the horse or another in ever trying to pin down an exact expression of the unthinkable, noting that there is no error that hasn’t a root in some prior truth. Well, not really. No error is rooted in truth, and perhaps you didn’t actgually say it was. Certainly, error has its roots in the human heart which is probably the very explanation for the proclivity humans have to make errors.

The sooner we stop trying to find a way to keep humanity from making errors other than the way that has already been provided in the divine Human Jesus Christ, the better off we’ll be and the sooner we will have experiencial knowledge of One, and therefore every Person of the Divine Trinity, to whom be the Glory!

Respectfully,

Richard

[Justin]

garagekite,

I suppose that my response (http://www.rocorcafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=360) over at the Cafe means I don't have to say anything here http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[M.C. Steenberg]

I have the distinct suspicion that the recent posting by our visitor was a one-off event. I was interested to see the link to your reply, Justin; but I rather have the feeling that the post was not meant to bring up the sort of discussion one would like.

On the other hand, conversing about the nature of God as Trinity is always an opportunity for growth. We might begin our own discussion on the matter....

INXC, Matthew

[Jeremiah Stephen Davis]

I have been having a discussion with some members of the Baha'i Faith on the issue of the Holy Trinity on usenet. (I am an Orthodox Christian and a former Baha'i.) I started in the discussion when someone else pointed out to me that someone had written that the Baha'i view of the God is that of Eastern Orthodoxy.

(If anyone is interested, the comment which started this is here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3959034708d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=78RCa.9331%24JW6.1853%40nwrddc02.gnilink.net If you follow this link, and then click on "Complete Thread" you will see my responses (under the name "J Davis") and those of others. Any advice for me or corrections to what I have written?)

However, at least with regard to the Baha'is with whom I am having the discussion, I have the feeling that "convincing" them of the Church's teaching regarding the Trinity is probably about as likely as "convincing" an atheist that God exists during a discussion on the internet.

Which leads to my question for the list members. What is the best way to explain the dogmatic teachings of the Church regarding the undivided Trinity to someone whose basic presupposition is that the Holy Trinity is polytheistic?

-Jeremiah Davis

[John Kapetan]

Jeremiah:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

I am not an expert on the teachings of the heresy known as B'hai, but is the following a true assessment:

One can take the teachings of Baha'u'llah and construct a Trinitarian doctrine, but in Baha'i doctrine the Prophet, while not human, is also not God.

And if that is true, how can they have the fortitude to equate B'hai doctrine with Eastern Orthodox. The Trinity IS God.

Sorry that really doesn't address your question.

Just wondering....In Christ,

John K

[Jeremiah Stephen Davis]

>I am not an expert on the teachings of the
>heresy known as B'hai, but is the following a
>true assessment:

>One can take the teachings of Baha'u'llah and
>construct a Trinitarian doctrine, but in Baha'i
>doctrine the Prophet, while not human, is also
>not God.

More or less, yes. Basically, Baha'is believe that God is completely unknowable except by certain individuals known as Manifestations who perfectly manifest God's "names" or attributes. They are thought of as being intermediary between God and normal humans. For this reason sometimes Baha'is will speak of them as "God" because they are, according to their doctrine, the closest thing that man can ever know of God and because their souls are temporally pre-existent (unlike normal humans). On the other hand, sometimes Baha'is will speak of Manifestations as human because they basically human in form- while on earth they breath, eat, drink, may have children, and they die. These Manifestations include, again according to their teaching, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and the Baha'i prophet Baha'u'llah. They argue that the Manifestations have revealed one true faith progressively throughout human history, and argue that apparent divergences in the religions associated with these various figures are either in the realm of religious laws which are only appropriate to a certain "dispensation," or are the result of accumulations of human error.

The difference between the true Orthodox Christian teaching concerning Jesus Christ is obvious, but you can also see how it might be confusing to someone outside of the guidance of the Church who isn't accustomed to thinking in theological terms. I entered the discussion not so much to argue the Baha'is out of their heresies, but rather to present properly the Orthodox Christian teaching concerning the Holy Trinity, lest any lurkers be deceived.

In Xp,
Jeremiah Davis

[cale]

I think it was Saint Isaac of syria who said to never discuss dogma.

[John Wilson]

Dear Jeremiah,

On another forum, someone posted a link to this interview with Archimandrite Daniel Bambang Dwi Byantoro of the Orthodox mission in Indonesia Indonesia.pdf (http://www.pr.ru/emmaus/samples/Indonesi.pdf) which I think you will find useful, as he discusses how he presents the Trinity to those coming from the Islamic understanding of God.


...Don’t just try to throw in words and phrases that are familiar to Christians, to Orthodox, because they will not be understood by a Moslem. First of all, when you talk to a Moslem, you have to emphasize that God is One.

Thomas: Because they already believe this?

Fr. Daniel: Not only because they already believe this, but because they ac-cuse us [the Christians] of having three gods. That is the problem. So, you have to clear up the misunderstanding that we worship three gods. Don’t try to use our traditional language, like Father, Son and Holy Spirit – because for them, that is three gods! In their minds, the Father is different, the Son is different, the Holy Spirit is different. For myself, I emphasize that God is One, that this One God is also the Living God, and as the Living God He has Mind. Because if God didn’t have a mind, I’m sorry to say, He would be like an idiot. God has to have a mind. Within the Mind of God there is the Word. Thus, the Word of God is contained within God Himself. So, God in His Word is not two, but one. God is full with His own Word; He is pregnant with Word. And that Word of God is then revealed to man. The thing that is contained within – like being impregnated within oneself – when it is re-vealed, it is called being born out of that person. That is why the Word of God is called the Son: He is the Child Who is born from within God, but outside time. So, that is why this One God is called the Father, because He has His own Word Who is born out of Him, and is called the Son. So, Father and Son are not two gods. The Father is One God, the Son is that Word of God. The Moslem believes that God created the world through the Word. So what the Moslem believes in as Word, is what the Christians call the Son! In that way, we can explain to them that God does not have a son separate from Himself.

I hope this is helpful in you discussions.

John

[Jeremiah Stephen Davis]

Richard,

>Do not argue with them at all. "Do not throw
>pearls to the swine."

Good advice, from an unquestionable authority.

I will pray for you even as you pray for me.

-Jeremiah Davis

[Jeremiah Stephen Davis]

John,

>On another forum, someone posted a link to this
>interview with Archimandrite Daniel Bambang Dwi
>Byantoro of the Orthodox mission in Indonesia

I have read the interview at this link, and actually had the pleasure of meeting Fr. Daniel not long ago. I think it is wonderful advice for dealing with a Muslim in person who is genuinely interested in coming to Christ. Many Baha'is, especially those encountered on internet discussion lists are a bit more slippery. They want to argue that they believe in the very heart of the Christian message, but they understand that message better than the Church Christ put on earth. I think that Richard and Cale are right that I should simply end this discussion.

[Justin]

cale


I think it was Saint Isaac of syria who said to never discuss dogma.

Saint Gregory the theologian said something similar in one of his orations. It's something I think we have a hard time dealing with. And it only gets tougher (e.g., the monastic tendency to not saying anything even if you know something and know it would be helpful in informing someone intellectually). It's certainly something I've been grappling with the past little while, and interestingly I started really thinking about it right after I posted a response to the first post of this thread.

[Owen Jones]

It's in St. Gregory's intro to his theological orgations on the Trinity, in which he laments that Christianity has become so popular that the Holy Mysteries have been reduced to being a topic of coctail party banter. Sound familiar?

[cale]

I freak out a bit when people photograph other people recieving the mysteries.

Our heads still rule our hearts.

[Daniel Pech]

I believe history is a trial, and over which God presides; that everything God says and does is designed to force fallen men, over time, to fully realize that they are the one's being tried, and to show them that they have, even from the beginning, been guilty of every error; that it is man who destroys the truth; that is is man who warps his own understanding (superstition). I believe this is the context for all Biblical data.
Will any orthodox Christian say otherwise?

In the OT, God warned us not to add to, or subtract from, the Law. But, unlike how the orthodox, anti-Christian Jew would have it, the account of Abraham's test (and that test spelled out in Hebrews 11:17-19) shows the nature of God's communication: God requires us to think in terms of relevance, not to be robots carrying out commands with no thought as to their purpose. This applies as well to passages recording God's doings which give no commands.

Some ask, skeptical of Jesus' deity, about the passage in which Jesus says that no one but the Father knows the day or the hour of Jesus' return.

First, in the Jewish culture, there was the tradition that a groom's father was the one to decide when his son's efforts to prepare a place for the honeymoon would be complete. The son was under the guidance of his father in this, and, while there comes a time in this preparation work in which the father tells his son within what span of time the work would be finished, only the father had the right to give the go-ahead to his son to return to the bride's father's house to "steal away the bride". The disciples understood the answer Jesus gave in this way, not in the sense that Jesus, as God, did not know the day or hour himself. As the son, he could not answer the question directly without breaking the pattern of prophecy and type. That is what was understood, and it is a call to remember.

Second, as I said at the start, history is a trial, and over which God presides. God will never let slip any advantage from his hand in the conflict with his enemies. Were Christ to have answered what day he was to return, and what would be the exactly-detailed signs of that day, then that day would not come, because the Church, as the Bride, would then never be ready. If you knew what day and hour your boss comes back from a business trip, then, if you are like some employees, you will not attend to the business as you should, but will be irresponsible right up until the day your boss is due to return. God is not stupid in this trial, and he is not a foolish Answerer of Questions, as if the disciples need only ask whatever they please and Jesus must answer them exactly as the Western reader thinks they have demanded. Does God always answer your questions in the manner, and to the detail, that you might wish? God is not a spoiler of his children, but is rather a father who seeks to delegate authority to them. But, he will leave off delegating to those who, in caring for being the best buddy of God *against* their brothers rather than in understanding what their father means by his words and acts, argue for their own superior place with God by making assertions that amount to saying 'Daddy said so, so I'm right and you're wrong!" God is a teacher, a good father of wayward children, not an epistemological tyrant.

History is about due process. That is, God is not like a man who vainly repeats himself. God doings are not like that of a small child who, after his stack of blocks gets kicked down, builds the stack again exactly as it was before, only to get it kicked down again and he build it again. God's doings are not vain like this. In the world before the Flood, God left man to his liberty until none but eight people would be saved from their own corruption. God thus proved, to whom it may concern, that fallen man, left to himself without God's input, is incapable either of saving himself or of seeking God. After the flood, God proved, to whom it may concern, that the flood was no deterent warning to proud man: God let man go to the last inch at Babel and then he confounded their language. There were thus multiple competing nations on the earth instead of just one economic/technologic State, and this allowed human history to be extended. God would have destroyed in vain the pre-flood world had he not changed his tactic and instead simply destroyed the post-flood world of Babel with another Flood. With the world thus divided into nations, God could begin to make some even more important points, among them these: 1)God judges each nation individually by the same standard that he judged the pre-flood world. 2)Once the nations had sorted themselves out and made themselves wealthy and enviable, God made a nation *of his own*, and made the world know a true difference between His nation and all the others---a difference the cultural effects of which have continued to the present day. As a way to put a check on human pride, there were thus specific and wise reasons why God acted to confound the language, and not as if he picked this particular action at random.


>>>Are you seeking or teaching?<<<

I'm seeking anyone who actually can understand what I'm saying. Then, and only then, he can say what he thinks of it.

In my post I said:

====================
Three questions:
1. What is the universal definition of life?
2. What is the definition of the ultimate authority?
3. What is the answer to the documented mystery called the 'Trinity'?

The answer to all three questions is the same.
====================

Now I ask a question (a disjunctive question): is each of the Divine Persons correctly pictured as a person apart from the other two, or, contrarily, are they each a person only by relation to the other two? Replace 'person' with 'living being' and ask these two questions again.

Andonis wrote:

>>>pardon my inability to clearly understand your post, but could you state more simply what exactly it is you are stating? are you saying that the trinity is a man made invention<<<

First define the Trinity completely and all terms used in that definition. The Biblical data central to the Athanasian Trinity is highly relevant (as relevant as anything can possibly be), but I believe that the Athanasian Trinity is a product of two things combined: 1)pagan triads and 2)a context-less exegesis. By 'context-less exegesis' I mean a kind of exegesis that might be described as hyper-literal, and which is used, for instance, in turning the words of Jesus regarding the bread and wine ('the Lord's Supper') into an implied assertion of transubstantiation.


John Curtis Dunn wrote:

>>>Cornelius Van Til was (as he described himself) a *Presuppositionalist,* therefore, he developed his idea of the Trinity from out of his own *presuppositions.*<<<

On one angle, perhaps, but on another angle no. Which is more ultimate in God: the three or the one? Please answer it.

Van Til said they were both equally ultimate, and this got him accused of contradiction. But, we already say that God is one in one sense and three in another, so we can as well say that God's three-ness is ultimate in one sense and God's oneness is ultimate in another sense. What Van Til argued was that both God's oneness and God's three-ness were equally real.

There are three realms of proof: power, reason (i.e., truth, or true law), and spirit (i.e., love and righteousness). Why is our government 'comprised' of three "powers"? Executive, legistative, judicial. So many people today have the impression that these three 'branches' were just lying around here and there, and then someone bound them up together into a new invention and stuck this bunch into the US Constitution. But, this impression is incorrect, to say the least. The 'three branches' together is the very nature of government. But, when most people today read that, they are of no impression that I am saying anything of any relation to anything else. But, this impression is also incorrect. Government is of the person.

God is ultimately one and ultimately three, but not both in the same sense of ultimate. There is, in fact, no way for any one or two of the three to exist as what they are without existing as all three, because what they each are involves each of the others.

"Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." What is this verse talking about, and why does it say both 'might' and 'power'? Are these two words meant here to be synonymous, or are they referring to two things that are significantly different?

Prior to creation, there was God. When God created humans (if not before, that is, when God created the angels), God was called 'father'. The term 'father' is a name used by the person's children to mean 'the one who is/has highest authority-and-power' (it does not ultimately mean 'he who begot'). This was understood by the Jews. 'Father' does not ultimately mean 'he who has children', but means, rather, 'he who we (his children) recognize as the highest authority-and-power. (Whether Adam was made with this kind if word in his language, I don't know.) So, 'father' is a suitable name to call the God who transcends the universe (in terms of time and space).

Since God is omnipresent (that is, all of space is immediately present to God, not that God occupies every point in space in such a way as to logically compel Panentheism), God can be fully in each of various places at once. Thus, when God becomes a man (logically analogous to 'ball becomes red'), God is still the father. Plus, since it is God who begot this man (flesh), rather than a man having begot this man, God is the father of this man. That is what Jesus was saying, since the Pharisees assumed Jesus was a bastard. They understood what he was saying, and that he was claiming that God, not a man, was his father. (How they thought that this implied a claim, on Jesus' part, of being equal with God is an interesting question, having to do with a king's son being his father's embassador.)

Now, the normal relationship exhibited between Jesus and the Father (the God-who transcends) was a relationship of a perfect man to God. This was for an example to us. God played the role of a man (but not as if this man was an illusion, for it is God, and not man, who is the Essential Being). The other relationship between Jesus and the Father was that between God-who-was-once-manifest-as-an-angel-to-the-angels (the post-incarnate logos), and God-who-transcends. The pre-Trinitarian Jewish Christian understood the logos of John 1:1 as God-manifest-as-an-angel-to-the-angels. In the middle of history was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God.

So, to say that the God-who-is-robed-in-flesh is a distinct person from the person of the Father is as much pan-logical (meaningless and context-less) as to say that each of these two instances of God is a mere role. One of these is, in fact, a role, but that does not mean that the other is a role. As for what is the Holy Spirit, this is the Spirit of God working within the creation (the scriptures show this). It should be obvious that it is pan-logical to say that God's being consists of multiple persons while allowing this to be taken to allow any number of persons (ten, fifty, etc.), and the exact number of three does not improve this pan-logicalism. There are, however, some things to show that God 'consists' of three distinct 'dimensions' and that each of these three is fully a person. But, it is incorrect to say that they each are fully a person apart from the two. God is not logically synthetic. Time is not a logical synthesis of three times (past, present, and future), nor space of three spaces (3-Ds). Pure math is not what is going on here, something more than just math is going on here. If you made up a formula for space or time like the Athanasian formula for the Trinity, but made it in such a way that it contained no words to indicate what it was a formula for, then it would look very bizarre to a person who did not realize what it is a formula for. If this person was then somehow made to accept this formula as both sacred and a sacred mystery beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend, and that he would be in grave danger were he to deny the latter of these sacrednesses, then no amount of common sense would remove his supersitition. We are no so much blind as blinded. The Orthodox Jews denied the relevance of their own scriptures, and instead worshipped the self-contradictory idea that if God wanted us to understand something, he would have spelled it out in the scriptures (that idea is itself not spelled out in the scriptures, and even the judges understood that everything written implies something not written. We are inherently no better than they. We, too, can be guilty of denying common sense when it makes a difference.

The idea that God is comprised of multiple people admits of no logical limits as to how many people of which God is comprised. Ten would be as fair a number as three, and one could never see how it could be otherwise. Only analogies to familiar 'three-part' entities such as time and space could pose a cautionary limit, but this in no way compels the idea that God is comprised of three *people*. Unfortunately, upon this last statement many people will assume an opposition is being suggested: that God's three 'parts' are non-persons. But, if God is personal, necessary, and simple, then no 'part' of God can be other than a person. The trouble at this now newest point is in failing to realize that such a simple being is not *comprised* of multiple persons, but rather that each 'part' of such a being cannot be properly understood *as a person* (a living being) except in view of the other 'parts'.

The trouble, at this point, with the 'Trinitarian' teaching is the effective assumption that the Classical offering of the definition of personhood is infallible. You are both a person and a living being, so you should, in principle, be able to answer, without a moment's thought, as to whether these two are the same of different. That you have trouble doing so is because of the conspiracy of two factors: 1)you are conditioned to philosophical gobbledygook regarding the two, and 2)the common sense of a given thing is, for the finite mind, consciously realized only by effort to make *the most sense* of the problem of the thing. The truth of a thing is irreducibly complex, which implies that the mental representation (i.e., thought, idea) of the truth of a thing is the most encompassing of all possible mental representations (i.e., ideas) of the thing.

One of the problems with the orthodox Trinity is that it accepts the Classical offering of the definition of a person. There is no reason to think that the Classical offering must be sufficient. The nature of government, which was brought out by the founders of the federal government of the USA, is a perfect analogue to the logical requirements of the orthodox Trinity. But, these founders commented that the nature of government was the nature of personhood itself, in that an officer of any one of the three branches of US government was effectively prevented from acting as a total person in the carrying out of his duties of that office. A strict monarchy, in which a single person is the ultimate ruler, functions as a complete person. So does the highest officer on a ship act as a complete person in his official capacity while his ship is at sea. It is thus seen that a person, by definition, is a perfect analogue to the orthodox Trinity.

While there is indeed a wisdom that can be expressed by the words "lean not on your own understanding", those very words are often twisted by Christians to mean something that is actually an oppression (ask "good"-Christian-preacher-turned-atheist Dan Barker about that), namely that one should avoid seeking to understand anything that God says and does unless he has already taken the initiative, as recorded in the Bible, or as taught by men, of telling you what he means by his words and actions. Most of the Bible is a record not of God's speech and actions, but of the accounts of human lives and nations; no Christian scholar will say that the nature of these accounts can be understood at 'face value'; he will say that they must be tested for their fit with every premise/context which one can bring to bear (which is called 'abductive inference', used so well by William Dembsky in arguing for Intelligent Design in biology).

[Daniel Pech]

The Athanasian Trinity is the result of an extremely over-simplistic view of the data.

Some have objected to me, saying &#34;History is not a trial, it is God&#39;s working out of his plan for his glory.&#34; Others have said that man is not on trial because he has already been found guilty &#40;in Eden&#41;. But, the first objection shows a shallow understanding and thus poses a false dichotomy, while the second fails to account for the implication of the first: that man is tried for his guilt in even refusing salvation; God has not yet given the ultimate verdict. This is not a simple, one-time trail in which the criminal is found guilty of a crime, sentenced, and immediately punished. The trial goes on because man insists on trying to prove that he can save himself, which is, in effect, a counterclaim against God&#39;s claim of Creator. The data used for the Athanasian Trinity has either nothing to say to this counterclaim, or everything.

Many people have heard the story about the primitive man who is introduced to a radio, whereupon he thinks that there is a little man inside of this box. There is, in fact, much more to the story:

Take a baby from America and swap it at birth with a baby who is born to very &#34;primitive&#34;-minded &#40;mentally degraded&#41; parents who live in some isolated part of the Amazon. The primitive-born baby, who is thus raised in Middle Class America, will grow up to be mentally indistinguishable from a Middle Class American, while the American baby, who is thus raised in a mentally &#34;primitive&#34; culture, will grow up to be mentally &#34;primitive&#34;. You see, the fact is that we are all primitives. Further, there is something to be said for how this fact plays out in the high-tech/high-science world. To wit:

There is a version of the &#34;Chinese room&#34; experiment in which there is a person born blind who has been given all of the mindless procedural rules of interaction by which to tutor a sighted youngster on the nature of sight and light, which tutoring is conducted through a Braille-to-visual computer link. Such an experiment would actually work, just like a computer which is programmed with these same procedures: the literate sighted child can learn of the nature of sight and light from this blind person, even though this blind person has never experienced sight.

Now, here is an either/or question:

1&#41;Is this experiment, in itself, a convincing case for the notion that real intelligence is mere mechanics?

or,

2&#41;, is this experiment convincing of this notion only because of some &#40;quite possibly wrong&#41; assumptions that many people both within and without the field of Artificial Intelligence &#40;AI&#41; do not realize that they are making?

The problem with this &#34;Chinese room&#34; experiment is that the rules must have been originated by a person who could see. The common failure to realize this simple fact is what has made current the notion that human functional intelligence is nothing but a complex combination of mindless procedures and interactions. In reality, the &#34;Chinese room&#34; experiment is nothing but a simulation--like all simulations--which is being made to work by way of the living intelligence that is behind it. The power and logic of the simulation seem to all be in place sufficiently well to raise the hopes of the atheist who seeks a way to make God into just another human; but, the &#34;Chinese room&#34; experiment, like the computer, actually knows nothing about what it is supposed to be doing. The missing third ingredient is that &#34;subjective&#34; quality which allows us to say &#34; I think, therefore I am.&#34; This is ontological agency, more often poorly known by its derivative, &#34;qualia&#34;. It is ontological agency which makes a power/logic entity, such as a human body, capable of doing things that exhibit ontological agency. There has to be &#34;somebody&#34; in there &#40;or, at least, somewhere&#41;, in order for the machine to be recognized by an ontological agent as having an ontological agent behind the behavior. The logic- and-power aspect is not enough, and there is not going to be any mere logic-and-power entity which can, without prior input, exhibit intelligence. Computers only do programs, and the car stereo speaker which is blurting out the voice of the talk show host does not have any idea of what it is saying.

Today, that primitive man I mentioned at the start has become educated just well enough to think that he can make a box in such a way as to &#39;have a little man inside of it&#39;.

Atheists who work in the field of Artificial Intelligence &#40;AI&#41; seek to nullify God by thinking that they actually have the ability to engineer an ontological agent &#40;an agent that can know something &#34;subjectively&#34;, as opposed to appearing to know something by way of its behavior, or, less, non-behavior, such as an inanimate object&#41;. If man can be his own true master, then God is a useless entity at best --and this premise is intoxicating to those who would deny the existence of an entity that is both personal and is the ground of all other being. This intoxicant is very much like that which pertains to the fantasy of making a surplus-energy perpetual motion machine. But, &#39;Strong&#39; AI it is so much more intoxicating, because it aims to cut at the very foundation of reality and to take that foundation to pieces, all while allowing man to gain dominance over it all. In the field of AI this aim has been unsuccessful; yet, the premise still holds captive the reprobate mind because other avenues are available by which to help maintain this self-deception, such as Transhumanism and the Hedonistic Imperative.

It has been by way of AI that the definition of a person has come to light, and this definition holds that a person--an ontological agent--is triune. I suggested as much in my mention of the problem with the &#34;Chinese room&#34; experiment. &#34;Strong AI&#34; wishes to get beyond the mere power/logic &#40;behavioral&#41; aspect of human intelligence and to arrive at a way by which to engineer ontological agency itself. Those in the field of AI have had to admit that ontological agency is required in order for a power/logic agent to be truly intelligent, and they also admit that this simple fact presents a fundamental barrier to the success of &#34;Strong AI&#34;. While there are those who hold to the idea that ontological agency &#40;life&#41; exists on a spectrum &#40;so that either there is no such thing as a non-ontological agent, or that ontological agency comes with a certain kind of power/logic which is simply not present in brute-engineered machines&#41;, yet, we can have the very notion of non-ontological agency only by our own ontological agency. This presents a sort of conflict, and the fundamental failure of the &#34;Chinese room&#34; experiment to uphold the &#34;Strong AI&#34; position is a case in point.

Not only is there some sort of a conflict in observing that the idea of non-ontological agency cannot be had except by an ontological agent, but our ontological agency asserts that something can be known to be objectively false. In order for us to be able to conclude that something is objectively false, we must, at least tacitly, be operating from something else which we take to be the objective truth by which to know that this first thing is objectively false. But, ontological agency is supposed, by many positivist evolutionists, to be inherently subjective, in the sense of being incapable of objectively knowing anything to be true beyond the fact that &#39;what seems to be seems to be&#39; &#40;a thing true by definition&#41;. In a sense, this is the correct view, but only so long as we are willing to see our mistakes as such. The denial that anything can be known objectively is a misapplication of the Adamic mind, by seeing the inability of the creature to once and for all define anything to a &#39;T&#39; as implying that ontological agency cannot have objective knowledge. There is no little man in the radio, and the only reason that &#34;Strong AI&#34; has a foothold in anyone&#39;s mind is because the aim of &#34;Strong AI&#34; can easily seem to be viable to the kind of mind that was created to have dominion over the physical world.

The Biblical data which has been used to support the Orthodox Trinity, is an implicit, multi-level revelation whose mysteries are open to inquiry. When this data is understood for what it is, and not as a bizarre notion which elevates mystery above God by way of a pan-logical view of God&#39;s ineffability, is in the most direct opposition to the most prized possession of atheism: belief in life-from-non-life, whether this be abiogenesis/evolutionism, or &#39;Strong&#39; AI.









To make a point, I offer the following:

There was a wise and powerful king who wished to prove, for all concerned, as to the loyalty of all his subjects to his laws for the poor. So, he disguised himself as a pauper and went through his kingdom living as a pauper. The pauper began his life by asking many questions to all the judges which the king had long ago appointed, and later began teaching and caring for the poor like himself. He quickly became very famous among the poor, and was to them as the king himself.

At some point the pauper charged some of the wicked judges with the intent to condemn him to the dungeon and throw away the key. They denied this, of course, because they had no reason, they thought, to condemn this good pauper to the dungeon---and now they wondered at his sanity for making such a charge.

The more the pauper taught and healed, the more the people of the kingdom asked, &#34;Who is this pauper?&#34; Some of the people realized that the pauper was the king, for no one but the king could say or do the things that the pauper said and did. As the fame of the pauper grew, the wicked judges felt threatened, because the people saw in the pauper something greater than what the people saw in these wicked judges. The pauper even seemed to claim to have perfect authority over the judges, and this made the judges mad. How dare the pauper presume to be equal to the king. Even the king himself had said, long ago, that &#34;The king is not a pauper&#34;, and these wicked judges stuck to this truth---or, so they thought.

Many of the people who realized that the pauper is the king wondered when he would take his throne and punish these wicked judges. Others, who did not believe that the pauper is the king, yet expected the pauper soon to assume military power and free the kingdom from oppression, just like other men of old had done. Just like old times. But, the king is no simple man, and will not repeat himself in vain.

These wicked judges came so to hate the pauper&#39;s truth that they began conspiring to condemn him to the dungeon, just as he had said that they were guilty of doing. Eventually, they were able to trick up enough support to have the pauper condemned to the dungeon. So, to the dungeon he was condemned, and he stayed down there for a little while. He stayed down in the dungeon just as many days as there are realms of proof, as yet another reminder to those who would become worthy to be made true delegates of the king&#39;s authority. Now, finally, the king has proved the full extent of the wicked pride of the judges and of the selfish willingness of the people to be mislead. The king has now allowed them every last measure of liberty to have a change of heart. Guess who has been wearing the royal key?

Now, what purpose, or office, did the pauper serve? Answer: The purpose of a living fulfillment of the king&#39;s laws. The Logos. The king sacrificed his life as the king, and even allowed himself to be condemned to the dungeon. All to make a point, to produce an exhibit to the royal court, in the trial held over the kingdom. The kingdom has now been tried according to the king&#39;s laws. There is yet another stage in the trail before the verdict is pronounced, but I digress.

The pauper always referred to the king as other, never did the pauper refer to himself as the king. This was only proper, and also for the fact that the full power and authority of the king would be misrepresented were the pauper &#40;who is the king&#41; to claim the king&#39;s throne. Only the king has the right to the king&#39;s throne, and the king will share it with only whom he will.

So, now, on to the subject at hand. The pauper is the king and the king is the king. Each of two people is the king. But, is the king therefore two people? Of course not.






&#62;&#62;&#62;you ask why someone should be held guilty of rejecting something he doesn’t understand. I would suggest that one suffers the consequence of rejection, forensically guilty or not. IOW, if I gave you a sealed beat up old cardboard box and you refused it not knowing that it had thousands of hundred dollar bills in it, the consequence would be that you ended up without the fortune. If there were a law requiring you to accept whatever was handed you, then you’d also be guilty, but that is what is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that in either case, you are out the several thousand dollars you would have had had you accepted the gift.&#60;&#60;&#60;

I think that is an unfair analogy. Besides, the Athanasian Trinity is only one of several interpretaions of the data, and is not the most significant interpretation either.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Mr. Pech,

You need psychiatric help.

[Daniel Pech]

&#62;&#62;&#62;Dear Mr. Pech,

You need psychiatric help.&#60;&#60;&#60;

Dear Owen Jones,

I appreciate your concern. But, what is the basis of your opinion that I need psychiatric help?

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Daniel,

&#40;1&#41; Are you not aware that the Athanasian Trinity is not Orthodox?

&#40;2&#41; Do you have what you consider the answer to the why and wherefor of God&#39;s Triunicity?

&#40;3&#41; The best answer to it I&#39;ve ever heard is, &#34;I don&#39;t know why God is Triune, but aren&#39;t we glad He is!?

&#40;4&#41; Your explanation sounds modalistic. Is it not?


Richard

[Daniel Pech]

The Orthodox Church teaches the Athanasian Trinity. But, that Trinity is not stated in the Bible, so the problem is how that Trinity was derived from the Bible and by what principles. I will tell you what principles: the principles of 1&#41;common sense &#42;against&#42; simple-minded Modalistic and Arian interperations of the data, and 2&#41;relevance.

The two kinds of arguments used in favor of the Athanasian Trinity is 1&#41;that common sense supports it by way of the concept of the Most Glorious Being [what all the MGB would include], and 2&#41;that the human mind could not have thought up this Trinity. These are consistently and solely the two kinds of arguments I get from those who hold to this Trinity. You will note, I hope, that these two kinds of arguments contradict each other. Now, my own take on the whole matter is exactly these two arguments, but with one qualification upon the latter kind of argument: the reason no human mind can think up the deep truths of God without God&#39;s input is not because of the nature of that truth in relation to the human mind per se, but because of the way in which the &#42;fallen&#42; human mind tends always to think. Look at atheism and see there an example &#40;one of countless examples&#41; of this tendency.

[Daniel Pech]

&#62;&#62;&#62;&#40;4&#41; Your explanation sounds modalistic. Is it not?&#60;&#60;&#60;

Now we must dispense with catch-all names, and instead argue in terms of what it is that we mean by these names. What is the &#42;complete&#42; essence of what you mean by the name &#39;Modalism&#39;?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Daniel and others,

There are two distinct elements of discussion going on in this thread. For the moment we'll keep it that way, since they have some relation; but in time we may break it apart to two separate threads.

Daniel, you asked:


I believe history is a trial, and over which God presides [...] Will any orthodox Christian say otherwise?

Actually, most will. There have been some Fathers who have viewed certain points in the human economy after the manner of a trial (e.g. Theophilus of Antioch on the prohibition against the Tree of Knowledge); but rarely have any espoused a notion of life itself, i.e. the whole of history, as a trial.

In fact, the majority of the Fathers don't regard any of the economy as a trial in the manner you suggest. Irenaeus of Lyons, for example, believed that the prohibition against the Tree of Knowledge was not a trial, but an act of divine providence in guarding against a false and unprepared use of the intellect before the appointed time. Most Fathers interpret the Akedah (the story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac) not as a genuine trial of Abraham, but as the manner of God's revelation to Abraham of His divine mercy and purpose, as well as the revelation of Abraham's own calling.

The only manner of 'trial' that is routinely espoused by the Fathers is that of the trial-leading-to-strength, or the presentation by God of a choice (trial) through which an individual's faith is intended to be strengthened and matured. Thus was Antony of Egypt 'tried' in his solitude (at which God said, 'I was waiting, Antony, to behold your contest'); and the apothegmata are filled with the stories of such divinely-sent 'trials' which were not at root tests of the persons involved, but opportunities for growth. There is no 'divine verdict' to be rendered in the case of such trials; God does not wait to see what the individuals will do and then judge them accordingly. They are points of deliberation provided by God for the strengthening of faith and union, which as often as not succeed in their purpose by the 'failure' of the test itself.

The notion that the whole of history is a divine trial in which humanity is the defendant and God is the adjudicator stems from a tendency to understand any moment of choice between right and wrong as a point in which God judges the individual faced with the choice. There is some history of this in Orthodoxy; but by and large it is not the view of the Church.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

I would add to the above that the fixation upon the life of man as tantamount to being in the docket of the law court, interminably awaiting the verdict, is an example of pneumopahtology, a deformed spiritual consciousness based on a warped and twisted view of Creation itself. Any number of causes can account for this pneumopathology, from childhood abuse, to the intellectual or religious environment.

Their are two typical options when one is exposed to a purely juridicial definition of the human condition. One either seizes on this, for the purposes of becoming the arbiter of divine justice oneself, &#40;demanding absolutes from everyone else -- and, failing to receive those absolutes, judging others unmercifully&#41; -- or one flees totally from such an inhuman vision of the world and concluding that all religion and God himself should be despised for having set up such a cruel system.

The development in the West of philosophical skepticism in reaction to a purely juridicial theology of the Church &#40;whether Roman Catholic or Protestant&#41; is an example of this second option.

To overcome this pneumopathology one might start with the classical idea of man as in-between. We are neither mortal nor immortal but in-between. What is important is the direction of our pilgrimage in between these two poles. We cannot in principle objectify either pole. The loss of the experience of the in between is the primary crisis of modern man and the cause of numerous soical pathologies. We seek to objectify and absolutize existence, usually by dominating others. But it is not a uniquely &#34;modern&#34; problem -- to wit: Phariseeism. Christ&#39;s wrath was focused not on the sinner, but on the Pharisee, who turned religion into a curse and a yoke around peoples&#39; necks.

[Daniel Jeandet]

Daniel, the Fathers of the Church EXPERIENCED God as Trinity. That is why they taught that God is Trinity, and that is why we believe that God is Trinity. We trust thier testimony because they teach from experience.

Unless you have seen God, why are you saying and thinking about these things?

[Moses Anthony]

Hello All,
Before I began reading I was wondering on what thread, and when I&#39;d see another post from Matthew &#40;I don&#39;t get every thread, or catergory&#41;.
Daniel P. It was stated above that the Fathers taught the Trinity from experience, which is why we trust their testimony. What does it mean Daniel when the Scriptures say, &#34;Let us make man in our image?&#34; Or what does it mean to us when we read in the Scriptures that when Jesus was baptized by His cousin John the Forerunner, a voice was heard from heaven saying, &#34;This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.&#34; and the gospel writer Matthew records that at the same time the &#34;Spirit of God descended like a dove, and lighted on Him.&#34; Or, what are we to interpret from reading that man who is created in the &#40;ourimage of God is body, soul, and spirit and that for Jesus Our Redeemer, it was neccessary fo be made in all things as those whom He came to redeem?.
History, despite what some preachers try doing to make truth memorable to their congregations, is not a trite acronym. And if as you say, history is a trial over which God presides as Judge, then God is as many repenting Protestants once thought, vindictive, and sitting in heaven waiting to pronounce wrath upon those who are prone to error. Also, the Evangelist John has lied on the behalf of God Almighty, in saying &#34;Behold how great a love God has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God,&#34; when in point of fact love hasn&#39;t been bestowed, but a dictatorial wrath withheld.
Holy Scriptures tell us that the &#34;...Church is the pillar and support of the truth&#34; and this is so not because it&#39;s something a synod of bishops agreed upon in ecumenical council prior to formation of the Canon of Scripture. It&#39;s true because, well... it is true. For as you should know; the life of that entity which your posts question as to their being biblical, is the life of the Church, into which catecuhmens are baptized and chrismated, which the Church celebrates during every Divine Liturgy.
Choir, forgive me!

the unworthy servant

[Daniel Jeandet]

James, Im not sure if you were directing a question to me or to the other Daniel who started this post. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Moses Anthony]

Daniel Jeandet,
My questions were directed to Daniel Pech. Sorry for the confusion.

the unworthy servant

[Daniel Jeandet]

No worries mate.

Not enough words again, sorry computer. still.