Hypostatic Quaternity

[Machinist]

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)

[Machinist]

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?

[Machinist]

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.

[tabibito]

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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

[Machinist]

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!

[Machinist]

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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?

Quite simply put: man, male and female, is created in the image and likeness of God"

How does the Trinity fit with that?

[tabibito]

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”.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

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.

[Machinist]

The above diagram...it's an equation for the Trinity. It's an ontological equation, complete and whole. It exists in man's mind, and man's mind conceptualized and formulated this equation. Therefore it exists, but only ontologically. It is in itself the Fractal of the Trinity.

[Machinist]

I don't believe you can have a religion, or a doctrine, around something that makes sense. There must be, it is necessary, that at the heart of any doctrine, there must be something ineffable and incomprehensible. Otherwise, you understand, thus making the supernatural on the same level as man. A symmetrical abstraction, a puzzle, like the diagram above is a perfect mandala, so to speak...for lack of a better term here. It gives the mind something to do, something to look at, and trace with the finger and gives rise to the "ah-ha...I get it" feeling, from which all the other doctrinal details are then built upon.

I showed this diagram to a small child during service yesterday, and the child looked up at me and said " I get it" . I did not add anything to this either, just simply handed the printout to her. She looked at it for a few moments, then traced her finger around the triangular geometry and said " I get it...the Father is not the Son....The Son is not the Holy Spirit...The Holy Spirit is not the Father.............................The Father is God....The Son is God........The Holy Spirit is God." Those were her exact words to me.

The diagram has internal symmetry and a self contained and self verifying logic. But where did it come from? Is it Art? Or is this truly a triune axiom of the nature of God that can be observed in nature, independent of the Bible? Could you make a diagram with a quaternity for instance, and if I handed it to a young child, would they still "get it"?

[Machinist]

Is there a possible configuration of abstractions where Jesus is still Divine, still God, and not necessarily part of any Trinity? Per the above diagram obviously, no. But is this the right diagram for the Universal One Mind?

I mean, is it conceptual art or is there some logic here?

[Machinist]

Bonus points for the pretty picture. Because if you're going to violate the laws of arithmetic, it pays to violate the laws of identity first. Identity is transitive, in classical logics. Since my Christianity is restricted to God as an idea, and I grabbed the chance to study non-classical logics with Willem Blok, non-transitive identity for deities doesn't bother me much. -Juvenal





Now this is interesting. Thank you for contributing! Identity is transitive. Hmmm. That is very interesting. I don't get it. But it's interesting. I will get it if I keep thinking about it. I've got family here with me for the next several weeks, and it's hard to pontificate upon such abstractions while entertaining guests, but I would greatly appreciate more of your thoughts. I'll check back in most likely on weekends. It's really difficult for me to be proficient at anything on my job or with my family while my mind is off in theoryland pondering logic. It's really been a problem for me lately, and I've got to curb theologyweb a little.

[Juvenal]

I tend to allow a lot more slack here -- I don't think it's a damnable heresy to NOT UNDERSTAND the Trinity, but it would be silly to be able to be accepted without acknowledging the concept of "God in Three Persons".

If somebody "rejects" the Trinity, they're basically rejecting the Godhead, and Christ in particular.

(Double-checks to see if this is Xtian-only.)

193306935_10158159106000835_355398554030169554_n.jpg

My sis-in-law posted that meme las week. I had to google it.

Athanasian Creed
.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord ...

It goes on for a while ... Lutherans like that.

Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

Bonus points for the pretty picture. Because if you're going to violate the laws of arithmetic, it pays to violate the laws of identity first. Identity is transitive, in classical logics. Since my Christianity is restricted to God as an idea, and I grabbed the chance to study non-classical logics with Willem Blok, non-transitive identity for deities doesn't bother me much.

YXMV.