Two versions of the Trinity

[shnarkle]

The "god in three persons" seems to be the more popular articulation of the doctrine, however, I have also noticed that the creed puts it this way: "one in being with the father", and this makes sense to me.

The word person is derived from the root "persona" which is defined as "a mask", or "what is presented to the world", and this fits perfectly with the second "person" of the trinity. It doesn't fit with the first or the third in that they aren't presented to the world. The first person is the origin while the third is in the world, but not objectively of the world.

I think the doctrine needs to be updated, and polarity is one of the best examples I've seen. Polarity is one, but there are two poles as well as a relationship between the two. God is one, but there is a relationship between becoming and being which is eternal. At the extreme, is the distinction between existence and non-existence. These are also eternal.
We tend to think of "being" as a noun, e.g. a being, human beings, etc. but it is also a verb, i.e. "be-ing", and while individual beings are things that exist, be-ing is not a thing.

Things may exist, but they wouldn't exist without existence which ironically is also a noun. It is also something except when viewed as the verb "be-ing". Note that we're not dealing with two things here, but one viewed from different grammatical perspectives.

And so it is with the trinity. The biblical god is viewed as the source of all that is created which necessarily means that God doesn't exist in the created world. God is not a thing. As the source of all that is manifest in the world, it stands to reason that God is potential. God exists potentially which is a paradox as potential doesn't exist. It is not yet manifest, and again the biblical authors indicate this when they supply us with the name YHVH which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be".

What is manifest was potential, but potential doesn't actually exist. It is the source of what is manifest or presented. The only way that what is manifest can be seen as what was once potential is through that personage. So we refer to what is as what was once potential, or we see potential in what is, but again potential doesn't actually exist until it is manifest.

So we're not really looking at three personages in one God, but the relationship between becoming and being, or the relationship between existence and non-existence which is eternal. So while we have three things:1.existence;2.non-existence, and 3.the relationship between the two. All three are different aspects of God. Existence is from God which is non existence, and these are equal to the relationship between the two.

So God is the source, or origin (not to be confused with a beginning) of all that exists or is manifest, and what is not manifest simply doesn't exist as anything other than potential which in itself isn't anything.

So non existence and existence are co-eternal, and what is manifest returns to non-existence just as Christ returns to the father.

 

[Faither]

The "god in three persons" seems to be the more popular articulation of the doctrine, however, I have also noticed that the creed puts it this way: "one in being with the father", and this makes sense to me.

The word person is derived from the root "persona" which is defined as "a mask", or "what is presented to the world", and this fits perfectly with the second "person" of the trinity. It doesn't fit with the first or the third in that they aren't presented to the world. The first person is the origin while the third is in the world, but not objectively of the world.

I think the doctrine needs to be updated, and polarity is one of the best examples I've seen. Polarity is one, but there are two poles as well as a relationship between the two. God is one, but there is a relationship between becoming and being which is eternal. At the extreme, is the distinction between existence and non-existence. These are also eternal.
We tend to think of "being" as a noun, e.g. a being, human beings, etc. but it is also a verb, i.e. "be-ing", and while individual beings are things that exist, be-ing is not a thing.

Things may exist, but they wouldn't exist without existence which ironically is also a noun. It is also something except when viewed as the verb "be-ing". Note that we're not dealing with two things here, but one viewed from different grammatical perspectives.

And so it is with the trinity. The biblical god is viewed as the source of all that is created which necessarily means that God doesn't exist in the created world. God is not a thing. As the source of all that is manifest in the world, it stands to reason that God is potential. God exists potentially which is a paradox as potential doesn't exist. It is not yet manifest, and again the biblical authors indicate this when they supply us with the name YHVH which means "I will be", or "I will be what I will be".

What is manifest was potential, but potential doesn't actually exist. It is the source of what is manifest or presented. The only way that what is manifest can be seen as what was once potential is through that personage. So we refer to what is as what was once potential, or we see potential in what is, but again potential doesn't actually exist until it is manifest.

So we're not really looking at three personages in one God, but the relationship between becoming and being, or the relationship between existence and non-existence which is eternal. So while we have three things:1.existence;2.non-existence, and 3.the relationship between the two. All three are different aspects of God. Existence is from God which is non existence, and these are equal to the relationship between the two.

So God is the source, or origin (not to be confused with a beginning) of all that exists or is manifest, and what is not manifest simply doesn't exist as anything other than potential which in itself isn't anything.

So non existence and existence are co-eternal, and what is manifest returns to non-existence just as Christ returns to the father.

There is a few mandatory, first day of school truths that must be understood to even begin to understand God and His ways.

One of them, is that God has a completely different framework of understanding than we or the world does. God's framework of understanding is paradoxical in comparison to ours.

The gifted teacher I learned this from, would take 6 months at a Stanford University level of learning to correctly teach what a paradox is. Not God's ways, just what a paradox is. And that was to quasie. geniuses.

Do you have any exposure to that understanding?

 

[Enoch111]

So we're not really looking at three personages in one God, but the relationship between becoming and being, or the relationship between existence and non-existence which is eternal.

More fantasy in fancy language promoting philosophy rather than Bible truth.

There is only one version of the Trinity, and that is in Scripture.

God the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
God the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit.
God the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.
THREE DIVINE PERSONS, YET ONE GOD WITHIN THE GODHEAD.

 

[shnarkle]

There is a few mandatory, first day of school truths that must be understood to even begin to understand God and His ways.

One of them, is that God has a completely different framework of understanding than we or the world does. God's framework of understanding is paradoxical in comparison to ours.

The gifted teacher I learned this from, would take 6 months at a Stanford University level of learning to correctly teach what a paradox is. Not God's ways, just what a paradox is. And that was to quasie. geniuses.

Do you have any exposure to that understanding?

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're referring to mysticism. if not, then what are you talking about, and what's your point?

 

[Faither]

If I'm reading your post correctly, you're referring to mysticism. if not, then what are you talking about, and what's your point?

That answered my question!

 

[shnarkle]

That answered my question!

And mine as well.

 

[justbyfaith]

Trinity vs. Tritheism: Understanding the Trinity.