drie-eenheid en twee naturen

[elbert]

Elbert's capture of Augustine's idea suggests two persons and the affection between them, implying inequality.

Hmm, well no, it was just an image I was referring to in order to make the Holy Trinity more understandable, not to imply inequality between the Divine Persons in the Trinity. In order to capture all aspects, this example (and many, many others) would be inadequate.

[Serenity]

these are all desperate trials to explain a "trinity" in the bible. First there is the theme (trinity) and to proof they are right they search the Scriptures for proof.

There truly isn't any. YHWH is ONE, and ONE only. There are no other gods.
Just a note: check your way of saying: "the Holy Spirit "is explained to be".. etc etc.".

Is explained to be.
The "Holy Spirit" isn't a "holy spirit". It is YHWH's spirit, which isn't a specific person, or something that looks like it. It's not part of a trinity, it's YHWH himself.
If you are describing yourself, you will never talk about yourself as "us", just because the strength that is in your arms is a split personality. Your strength is part of you, and not to be mistaken as a separate being in yourself.

But the church philosophizes that way to get proof for the "holy trinity", which finds its origin in paganism, in the world of the Egyptian and Babylonian world of gods.

It's nice that there is an explanation of the "father, son and holy spirit", but it's a satanic example brought into the church.
I'm not against it as symbolism, but I will forever fight against it when it's made a dogma, a truth, something that is thought to be the truth.

It simply isn't to be explained. A "duo-unity" would be closer to the truth, as you can see in Scripture that there is "god" (YHWH, the father), and Jezus (the son, the human being blessed with full strength of YHWH, his spirit).

Any other explanation is nicely found, but it's still a thought. Since the concilie where Constantine was present a trinity was inserted in the christian faith, before the church maintained the belief in a duo-unity, namely YHWH, the fatther, and his Image, Jesus, the Son.
Constantine, who was a believer of the sun-god (where a trinity was common, paganism) forced the church to use a trinity, and of course it can be explained with Scripture, but only by changes in that Scripture (and I believe those changes are there.... the command to baptize for instance... "go, preach the gospel to all nations and baptize them in my name" is what the oldest versions seem to say. Since the concile all versions of the scription have changed "in my name" with "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit".

No I can't proof that last thing is right, but you can't either, and what if it's true? No other trustworthy verses can be found in the Old Testament, nor the New Testament. Yes there is one in the New Testament (a manuscript that is changed alot... it's not to be trusted literally anymore, unfortunately) but it also doesn't specifically say anything to clearly proof a trinity.

(to the Dutchies: I apologise for this English, but my post was mainly meant for the other person above who wrote in English too).

[Serenity]

Even een vraagje tussendoor:
Kan iemand even een heleboel verwijzingen in de Schrift naar de Drieëenheid geven? Ik heb een stel Jehovahs Getuigen beloofd met een lijstje te komen, maar wat hulp kan op mijn grote dankbaarheid rekenen

Ik heb het geprobeerd met Mattheüs 3, probleem.. ze accepteerden mijn SV niet, in hun 'Bijbel' stond het wel wat anders..

leuk he, dogma's en onzuivere vertalingen

je moet ook nooit allerlei dingen gaan beloven als je zelf niet eens weet hoe en wat.
Maar ja, het internet staat vol met websites die de drie-eenheid als waarheid verkondigen (maar het klinkt vaak niet geloofwaardig omdat er teveel met dogma's en tradities gewerkt wordt... teveel gissen en "hear-say".)
Andere websites die het behoorlijk afkraken komen best wel geloofwaardig over, maar gaan op kleine punten ietwat ongeloofwaardig doen, met name andere artikelen over bepaalde dingen op dezelfde website.

Toch ben ik er van overtuigd dat Drie-eenheid niet zuiver bijbels is, maar meer gebaseerd is op dogmatiek.

[gloria]

This primarily to Serenity,

We must take utmost care in what examples we use to describe anything spiritual and supernatural. Our knowledge and our language are based on our sensory experience of natural things, and to extrapolate these conceptions to describe and explain spiritual and supernatural inevitably involves loss and constraint of meaning. The visible natural world is but a shadow of, or metaphor for the invisible spiritual world. Incidentally, one of my criticisms of the ger gem tradition arise when examples from nature or when an historical passage of the Bible are used to explain something spiritual. Such examples always have less meaning than the original, and may at most be but a reflection of the truth (and not an example of).

In connection with this I find it very disturbing when you try to understand the holy Trinity based on your conception of your own identity.

Perhaps we need to understand our own spiritual essence in order to have a proper conception of God. Here, too, I follow Edwards: we have soul that is divided into two major parts, understanding (mind) and will (affections). The function of the first is the acquisition and processing of knowledge (natural, and spiritual in the regenerated), and the function of the second is to be inclined towards (love) or away from that which is perceived and understood. Now, consider our knowledge of and reflection upon ourselves (metacognition, as psychologists call it). If it was perfect, it would be a duplicate but derived copy of the original mind and could be considered a continually derived person, or identity. Our heart, or will, or affection, too, when it is perfect and exercised in love between our self and self-conception, would be a separate "identity" or person. You see where I am going with this?
But this last reflection on the human identity is little more than my off-the-cuff speculation.

Serenity, I take great exception in your calling the belief in three Persons satanic. I fear it is no less than heresy. The Bible accords equal honour to all three Persons, something it would never do if the Spirit of God is less in any way than the other two Persons.

You refer to the Johannine comma. Check Gill's commentary on it. It is still very much credible, despite being absent in many manuscripts. It was quoted with approbation well before Constantine by no other, if I recall correctly, than Polycarp.

I may not be able to prove Edwards is right. But read the man for himself. He was a better thinker than all of us put together, and was the first to admit his explanation had shortcomings and raised more questions than it answered. Nor do I feel the need to prove myself right, as it is not my honour that is involved in this issue. But again, before we reject a belief held dear by the greatest theologians this world has seen, we better have good reason and carefully analyze our motivations for introducing change.

Anyway, feel free to respond in Dutch, as I read it well but am better able to express myself in English. And thanx for at least not being upset at my English; OSW kicked me off for it...

regards,
w

[Raido]

Toch ben ik er van overtuigd dat Drie-eenheid niet zuiver bijbels is, maar meer gebaseerd is op dogmatiek.

Dat is juist, de dogmatiek is wel weer gebaseerd op de Bijbel, maar of de conclusie die getrokken is, juist is kan ik niet met zekerheid zeggen. Ik geloof van wel.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triniteit
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichorese

Die artikelen zijn er ook in het Engels gloria (btw, aan iedereen spreek gewoon Nederlands, gloria kan het lezen en begrijpen maar niet goed schrijven) en het is dan voor mij wat duidelijker

[gloria]

One more comment, Serenity. Why do you assert that believing in three Persons is satanic? Surely not because other religions had similar ideas, as they had similar ideas of the Flood, creation, heaven, the existence of God, etc.

[Brion]

Maar ja, het internet staat vol met websites die de drie-eenheid als waarheid verkondigen

Laat ik die indruk nou toch helemaal niet hebben.......volgens mij zijn er 10 keer zoveel websites die de drie-eenheid ontkennen, dan websites die de drie-eenheid als waarheid verkondigen. Als iets een "waarheid" is, dan hoef je er niet zo veel reclame voor te maken, maar als je vindt dat iets een onwaarheid is, dan word het tijd voor aktie, en moet je er een heleboel websites over openen. Zelfde geldt voor de kinderdoop, en de sabbath op zaterdag. Ik zou bijna zeggen: geef me eens wat sites, waar propaganda gemaakt wordt om toch vooral de zondag op de zondag te vieren....

[gloria]

All doctrine is based on the interpretation of Scripture, and hence there is always a danger that we force an interpretation onto a passage. True, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't codified until well after the Apostles were dead, but not many doctrines were. It is only after controversy and dispute that doctrines are written down. Hence doctrine continues to develop (though I fear that after Gill it has not developed in the right direction; i.e. not in stricter accordance with Scripture).

We cannot be relativisitic; a doctrine is true or not, an interpretation is correct or not--two contradictory interpretations (or doctrines) cannot both be right. If the Holy Spirit is God, He is fully equal and therefore a Person. The Spirit cannot share some aspects of divinity and not others, cannot be infinite and perfect but not a Person, as that would imply imperfection and limitation.

We need divine light to understand these mysteries, hence my signature (from William Cowper).

[Raido]

One more comment, Serenity. Why do you assert that believing in three Persons is satanic? Surely not because other religions had similar ideas, as they had similar ideas of the Flood, creation, heaven, the existence of God, etc.

De dogma's over de drieenigheid ontstonden rond het jaar 300/400 nuttig om te vermelden is dan dat in die tijd veel godsdiensten een vorm van drieenigheid kenden zoals Baal/Astarte/Tammuz, Ishtar/Horus/Seth..

Toch typsich dat wij de zondag houden waarmen vroeger Helios of Mytras aanbad (ook wel de drie-eenige Zon genoemd )

[gloria]

Go ahead, read "The Pagan Christ" and all we once held sacred will actually come from older myths. But, I've read objective accounts of ancient literature, and there is much less to base our understanding of ancient religions on that we are led to believe. There are very, very few ancient manuscripts of the ancient Syrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. that describe their religion. But it is very popular by modern atheists to claim that all Christians believed were a bunch of plagarized, re-hashed tales of more ancient religions. Gimme a break, people. I guess the Sioux Indians also believed in a Trinity. And the Five Iroquois Nations, in a Pentaty? How about the Greeks' fire-earth-water: another trinity no doubt. Maybe my belief in the Flood came from the local Indians here, who actually believed (I do not make this up) that a log house floated to the top of a local mountain while the world flooded, and that the survivors repopulated the earth.
Baal and Tammuz were not even worshipped at the same time and in the same place.

[Raido]

Dat is een vieriteit gloria, de vier elementen je vergat wind.. Ik geloof zeker in de drieeenheid hoor, maar ik geloof ook dat het enkele met dogma's te ondersteunen is, en dat ook andere mogelijke oplossingen zijn voor het 'probleem'.

[Marnix]

* applaus!

3-1 voor Raido.

[gloria]

In theology as in nature, there are often multiple explanations that both have good arguments for and against it, but only one argument can be true. For example, I'm a 6day-24hour creationist, ex-nihilo, making me a frowned-upon oddity as a biologist, but I see and fully recognize microevolution and small-scale speciation (there were no poodles on Noah's ark--if there were, wouldn't he have drowned them?). There is overwhelming evidence of both creation and microevolution. Likewise, the Bible is clear that God is one in essence, but also clear that, to our limited conception of it, there are separate Persons in the Divinity.

As a scientist I believe we can only make models and approximations of the truth. We cannot fully comprehend most things, as light, the wave-particle-string nature of subatomic structures, energy and forces, the idea of descriptive laws and even time and causality. Our models of these things come from our aquaintance with the macroscopic natural world, and hence are limited and cannot be supposed to be the full picture. Depressing and sobering, isn't it? In the end we really dont know all that much.

[gloria]

Raido,

so right you are. the wind. me bad.

w

[Raido]

Likewise, the Bible is clear that God is one in essence, but also clear that, to our limited conception of it, there are separate Persons in the Divinity.

Dat zeg je wel erg stellig, maar goed, de Bijbel laat deze keuze open, er wordt niets gezegt over drie-eenigheid wel over EENheid, hoe of wat het ook zei, iedereen heeft er zijn idee over, maar ik denk dat het volkomen onnodig is voor je geloof om te weten hoe het zit..

Drie-eenigheid is een optie, maar twee-eenigheid zoals Serenity voorsteld is ook een mogelijkheid.