Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hypostatic Quaternity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    Hey! Thanks for contributing to my stream of thoughts here!

    I am beginning to think that God is not really a trinity per se, but that is something that man has imposed. It can't be One, because the Hebrew's have that number. It can't be two because then it would be too eastern (yin/yang). It can't be 4, 5 or 6, because then it just gets too complex. 3 is just a nice number.

    If God is a spirit, then it makes no sense to say the Spirit's spirit. Omnipresence intuitively makes sense to me, I guess I can sort of apprehend the concept, which would put the Spirit (which is God) everywhere, and then the theologians over the centuries creatively imposed a trinity upon their understanding of the history of the Jews, and of Jesus, and the way in which this omnipresent Spirit has interacted with mankind.

    I like the Trinity and I have no problem with associating with any group that is Trinitarian, but I fail to see how that is such an important doctrine.

    Also, I think the quantum analogy may have been a little overboard. I do think that if the Universal Spirit was indeed intrinsically 3 parts, then there would be an unmistakable 3-ness observable here in our plane. I think it was a literary device of sorts that evolved in the musings and meditations of ancient theologians. And I don't think it was done divisively or deceptively in any way. It was very imaginatively synthesized and codified and I have only immense appreciation for it. It's something I would not even dare bringing up in conversation with anyone in person because it's just not worth straining relationships I have with those who embraces this doctrine.
    All the way back to long before Nicaea, commentators have presented (from time to time) simple and easily understood models for the trinity, these having been based on human existence. Why those models have not been generally adopted is unknown, but I suspect that it is because they are not mysterious enough. Quite simply put: man, male and female, is created in the image and likeness of God, which shows that humans are in themselves analogies of God. Humans, themselves triune (body, soul, and spirit), provide an adequate analogy for understanding how an entity can be at once one and three; and that humans are triune is tacitly acknowledged, though in an admittedly restricted sense, even by some notable atheists; including Freud with his “id, ego, and super-ego”.
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      All the way back to long before Nicaea, commentators have presented (from time to time) simple and easily understood models for the trinity, these having been based on human existence
      Which commentators and in which sources?

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      Quite simply put: man, male and female, is created in the image and likeness of God"
      How does the Trinity fit with that?
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Hello! Thanks again for adding to the stream of consciousness that is this thread!

        Just a quick question: The whole mind body and soul thing...could a fourth be added? Could you creatively abstract a fourth here? Perhaps the Spirit? As in mind- body- soul- spirit? (The Bible seems to make a distinction between the soul and spirit.)

        Also, earlier in the thread I mentioned what Ayn Rand identified as the 3 fundamental axioms: Existence, Consciousness and Identity. Could a fourth be creatively synthesized and be made to fit functionally as the 4 basic axioms?


        "Why those models have not been generally adopted is unknown, but I suspect that it is because they are not mysterious enough." -Tabibito

        Yeah, it's got to have that element of mystery, otherwise it can't survive.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          This was the fundamental problem within Christianity, namely the attempt to reconcile the monotheism of Judaism with its ineffable and invisible deity and the Hellenised concepts of anthropomorphic deities. This problem has never really gone away and hence today there are still non-Trinitarian denominations in existence.

          Even after the First Council of Nicaea the issue was far from resolved and following that council where the party of Alexander [Trinitarians/Nicene Creed] had proven victorious over Arius [subordinationism] many Eastern bishops later withdrew their support for the imperial policy of Homoousion [as stated in the Nicene Creed]. They were led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of the chief advocates for the Arian cause. Despite accepting the Homoousion creed at Nicaea, he had refused to condemn Arius and for this Constantine deposed and exiled him. He was recalled within a matter of years and became Constantine’s confidant. Constantine wished to achieve a consensus theology to be established in the East and it was Eusebius who represented this recidivist move away from Nicaea much to the annoyance of Athanasius, whom Eusebius managed to depose at the Arianizing Synod in Tyre in 335 CE. In 341 CE he presided over the Dedication Council at Antioch.

          This event marked the ascendancy of official Arianism for the next generation in the East. It changed when Theodosius I became Augustus of the East in 375 as he supported the Nicene creed. He later became sole emperor in 392 and reigned until 395. However, prior to that those last decades of the fourth century saw imperial Christianity effectively split with the two Augusti supporting different belief as Valentinian II [375-392] in the West remained a Homoean [i.e. a subordinationist].

          The only way that a Triune Godhead could be established by the dominant Christian group was by force i.e. Imperial decree with penalties [often very severe] for anyone who disagreed/dissented. It was essentially a political decision.

          The history and evolution of the idea is fascinating. I wish I had more time to delve into it. Sovereignty of God however would resolve this. I know that's most likely not a satisfying answer, but I would venture to say that most Christians would counter with that.

          How you been? It's good to hear your thoughts again!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

            The history and evolution of the idea is fascinating. I wish I had more time to delve into it. Sovereignty of God however would resolve this. I know that's most likely not a satisfying answer, but I would venture to say that most Christians would counter with that.

            How you been? It's good to hear your thoughts again!
            Thank you for asking I am very well and I trust you and your family are also in good health..

            If you can find a copy second hand or even online a very good overview of this period and this problem is Charles Freeman's book AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State. It is not overly long [about 200 pages excluding appendix, notes, bibliography, and index]

            Take care

            H_A
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
              Hello! Thanks again for adding to the stream of consciousness that is this thread!

              Just a quick question: The whole mind body and soul thing...could a fourth be added? Could you creatively abstract a fourth here? Perhaps the Spirit? As in mind- body- soul- spirit? (The Bible seems to make a distinction between the soul and spirit.)

              Also, earlier in the thread I mentioned what Ayn Rand identified as the 3 fundamental axioms: Existence, Consciousness and Identity. Could a fourth be creatively synthesized and be made to fit functionally as the 4 basic axioms?


              "Why those models have not been generally adopted is unknown, but I suspect that it is because they are not mysterious enough." -Tabibito

              Yeah, it's got to have that element of mystery, otherwise it can't survive.
              In those records - "mind" stands for "spirit", or so I am told. But no - a fourth doesn't fit. In Paul's writing, the flesh has its own mind, as does the spirit, and he notes a division between spirit and soul as separate identities.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • Yeah, I am beginning to see that the reality we as humans inhabit (including our own bodily vehicles), as well as the logical and semantic web our perceptive faculties operate in is fundamentally 3 fold.

                Comment


                • An image with a four-fold structure, usually square or circular and symmetrical; psychologically, it points to the idea of wholeness


                  This is Quaternity Theory per the internet. Jung was fascinated by the idea of Quaternity so i've read. Can anyone here talk about this?

                  Maybe God is a Forinity
                  and not a Trinity
                  testing out a theory here
                  I can impose 4
                  and I can impose 3
                  upon any imagined construct of reality


                  I've been thinking more about the 3 foldness though, and it still seems like 3 ness is the fundamental reality: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. Could a fourth be added to this list? If so what, what would be the best addition?

                  Comment


                  • I'm seeing the Trinity everywhere!

                    The other major semiotic theory, developed by C. S. Peirce, defines the sign as a triadic relation as "something that stands for something, to someone in some capacity"[1] This means that a sign is a relation between the sign vehicle (the specific physical form of the sign), a sign object (the aspect of the world that the sign carries meaning about) and an interpretant (the meaning of the sign as understood by an interpreter)

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 08-17-2021, 04:44 AM
                    146 responses
                    703 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post tabibito  
                    Started by Machinist, 01-30-2021, 10:14 AM
                    158 responses
                    1,132 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Machinist  
                    Working...
                    X