three in onedness

[AzurePhoenix]

Yeh, I know i didn't put this in religion, but even though it's religious in nature it's more of just a thought exercise, as anyone who knows me will understand that I'm in no way seriously trying to recognize or legitimize anything metaphysical, so i thought it better suited to philosophy.

 

Anyway, so I was just thinking of ways to get the Christian Trinity to make at least a tiny bit of sense, because I've been reading a TON of christian apologetics lately and kind've got frustrated with their smug explanations of the trinity that still never made the sense they claimed they did.

 

What I've worked out is that if you accept "God" itself as simply being the abstractly emergent property of the synergetic cooperative efforts of the three independent entities (The Son, the Father and the Spirit) and their collective works, you get a fairly simple rationalization of the idea. It does however reduce fullblown "God" (whatever that means, abrahamically) to essentially an organization, like the Boy Scouts. Which actually seems to be fairly similar to the concept of the evermentioned "Godhead" I guess, just explained point for point more explicitly with the final necessary conclusion clearly spelled out rather than politely unacknowledged.

 

But I still can't get monotheism out've this... Problem is, if you accept a deity as any entity or even an abstract concept worthy of worship or reverence and actively worshiped, the three component deities are still gods, and so now is the organization itself, leaving you with 4 gods total (ignoring other potential divinities in Christianity, like angels or saints or even demonic beings.) I suppose you could simply say that the three AREN'T worthy of worship and not worship them at all, but I was looking for a reconciliatory explanation of Christian ideas as they're practiced and I can't imagine most Christians accepting that particular stipulation of my version.

 

Anyone have any other interesting or preferably amusing interpretations?

[pink_trike]

Christian mythology has forgotten the original context for these three ideas, a context that dates back into the earliest Egyptian dynasties who likely inherited them from a much older civilization. They are different aspects of the Sun. This context was forgotten during the intellectual darkness of the middle ages.

[ydoaPs]

Christian mythology has forgotten the original context for these three ideas, a context that dates back into the earliest Egyptian dynasties who likely inherited them from a much older civilization. They are different aspects of the Sun. This context was forgotten during the intellectual darkness of the middle ages.

 

Dude, if you're going to spout crazy, give some citations.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yeh, I know i didn't put this in religion, but even though it's religious in nature it's more of just a thought exercise, as anyone who knows me will understand that I'm in no way seriously trying to recognize or legitimize anything metaphysical, so i thought it better suited to philosophy.

 

Anyway, so I was just thinking of ways to get the Christian Trinity to make at least a tiny bit of sense, because I've been reading a TON of christian apologetics lately and kind've got frustrated with their smug explanations of the trinity that still never made the sense they claimed they did.

 

What I've worked out is that if you accept "God" itself as simply being the abstractly emergent property of the synergetic cooperative efforts of the three independent entities (The Son, the Father and the Spirit) and their collective works, you get a fairly simple rationalization of the idea. It does however reduce fullblown "God" (whatever that means, abrahamically) to essentially an organization, like the Boy Scouts. Which actually seems to be fairly similar to the concept of the evermentioned "Godhead" I guess, just explained point for point more explicitly with the final necessary conclusion clearly spelled out rather than politely unacknowledged.

 

But I still can't get monotheism out've this... Problem is, if you accept a deity as any entity or even an abstract concept worthy of worship or reverence and actively worshiped, the three component deities are still gods, and so now is the organization itself, leaving you with 4 gods total (ignoring other potential divinities in Christianity, like angels or saints or even demonic beings.) I suppose you could simply say that the three AREN'T worthy of worship and not worship them at all, but I was looking for a reconciliatory explanation of Christian ideas as they're practiced and I can't imagine most Christians accepting that particular stipulation of my version.

 

Anyone have any other interesting or preferably amusing interpretations?

 

I'm not sure this really works. As you said, it's more of a polytheism. That being said, non of the original Christianities had the trinity; it was a later addition.

Edited May 16, 2010 by ydoaPs
Consecutive posts merged.

[pioneer]

There are four psychological functions, by which various humans orientate themselves to reality. These four functions are intellect, emotion, intuition and sensory. (from Carl Jung). We are not all the same. Different people will use one of these four as their primary orientation.

 

For example, an emotional person perceives things a different way than an intellectual person. The former may interpret events based on what they feel more than on the content. While the intellectual person may try to eliminate emotion and use cool logic.

 

If you look at the sign of the cross, in Christianity; father, son and holy spirit, the father touches the head symbolic of intuitive. The son is at the base of the cross and is connection the sensory orientation; god became man so we could see. The Holy Spirit touches right and left. The holy spirit is the two remaining functions; intellect and emotion.

 

If you look historically, God the father was an intuitive concept based on faith. One was not suppose to rationalize the laws or pass emotional judgement, or even expect to see God except in the final judgement. God then becomes man, in Jesus, so our eyes could see (sensory).

 

Then, the holy spirit appears in the drama to complete the trinity. The god concept becomes intellectualized and emotionally appealing. Christianity spread, since anyone could get on board. The trinity expresses God in a way that allows perception for all.

[AzurePhoenix]

I'm not sure this really works. As you said, it's more of a polytheism. That being said, non of the original Christianities had the trinity; it was a later addition.

Well as I said, "as practiced" meaning nowadays. Back in the day was certainly a whole different ballgame... sigh... but yep, that's where the rationalization attempt failed was with the monotheistic slant. You just can't reconcile the trinity with the monotheism. Even just for fun.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The god concept becomes intellectualized and emotionally appealing. Christianity spread, since anyone could get on board. The trinity expresses God in a way that allows perception for all.

I don't see how the trinity intellectualizes anything? Still seems to me that "Trinity" itself is simply a direct translation of "Screw It!" when faced with accusations of polytheism, regardless of any emotional value each component deity might offer independently.

[Double K]

The trinity is all to do with sun worship, if you look at the crown of radiating light that jesus is usually adorned with, it's not a crown of thorns, but a crown of rays there seems to be clear misinterpretation of Sun to Son.

 

Constantine forced the trinity in 325AD and anyone that didn't conform to the ideal was killed, or at least driven underground. Constantine himself was Sol Invictus, the high priest of sun worship.

 

"Egypt During the New Kingdom, the cult of the sun god Ra became increasingly important until it evolved into the uncompromising monotheism of Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV, 1364-1347 B.C.). According to the cult, Ra created himself from a primeval mound in the shape of a pyramid and then created all other gods. Thus, Ra was not only the sun god, he was also the universe, having created himself from himself. Ra was invoked as Aten or the Great Disc that illuminated the world of the living and the dead.

 

The effect of these doctrines can be seen in the sun worship of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who became an uncompromising monotheist. (worshiping Aten - the "one god") Aldred has speculated that monotheism was Akhenaten's own idea, the result of regarding Aten as a self-created heavenly king whose son, the pharaoh, was also unique. Akhenaten made Aten the supreme state god, symbolized as a rayed disk with each sunbeam ending in a ministering hand. Other gods were abolished, their images smashed, their names excised, their temples abandoned, and their revenues impounded. The plural word for god was suppressed. "

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egypt/a/locegyptmonothe.htm

[AzurePhoenix]

I would like to point out that i was aware of the origins and simply meant to have fun coming up with rational, non-contradictory interpretations of it. Fuddies.

[Genecks]

Christian mythology has forgotten the original context for these three ideas, a context that dates back into the earliest Egyptian dynasties who likely inherited them from a much older civilization. They are different aspects of the Sun. This context was forgotten during the intellectual darkness of the middle ages.

 

Are you making a Zoroastrian reference?

[pioneer]

Sun worship was/is a projection.

 

Projection, according to Carl Jung, occurs when a person sees in another qualities they themselves possess. This phenomenon goes on daily in most relationships and encounters.

 

The sun god was a projection of the central most aspect of the collective unconscious; the inner self. Most people are not even aware such unconscious aspects exists, which is why they become projected. This helps to indirectly make such things conscious. The characteristics attributed to the projection; sun god, give us hints into the nature of the inner self.

 

The sun god was a collective projection of the inner self. Unlike individual projection based on personal psychology, collective or group projection address aspects of ourselves common to all. If you go into other cultural mythologies, although the names change, one can see similar structuring within their mythology, since all humans have the same inner nature and this will project within certain parameters.

 

If we go back to the trinity, this is similar to the sun god. However this projection has differentiated the old inner self into a trinity; modernized. Or the primal inner self (morally neutral like animals) through evolution, has become more complex. Modern humans are much less primal today, than their ancestors 2000 years ago. The trinity reflected this change occurring in human nature. In my opinion, the dark ages reflected the transition. It was sort of an overhaul of the human mainframe (core brain firmware) with down time and disorientation during reboot.

 

The atheist may successfully reason away mythology. This reasoning also gets rid of the collective projections, resulting in some of the unconscious effects becoming less conscious. However, as history shows these will continue to project, but down other avenues.

 

"We are killing mother earth" is a projection, that feels just as real as the sun god. Being a projection it is attributing to others what belongs to those wrapped up in the collective projection. It says, one has lost a natural connection; damaging the earth. Being a projection, "others are to blame", since one can not see this in themselves. Like the old sun god worship, one tries to unconsciously change their inner nature, by acting outside themselves within the collective social projection. This externalization seems to work, as it does in religion; it helps with the repair. As the earth heals one also feels healing.

 

Another way to deal with collective projection is to cut out the middleman and go right to the inner source of the projection. Christianity has the inner voice of the holy spirit, where collective unconsciousness and collective projection become replaced with consciousness of the original source. But the herd prefers the unconsciousness of collective projection; works instead of faith.

[jimmydasaint]

Trinity is an addition to the original faith. IMHO, it makes sense that early Christianity bent over backwards to accommodate Pagan Roman customs and to strike a compromise which would make the Pagans happy to follow Christianity.

 

One idea that became popular among Christians around the fourth century was that of a trinity of gods. It was not, however, a new idea conceived by Christians, for there is much evidence of widespread belief in similar ideas throughout earlier recorded history.

 

Many scholars believe that the Trinity, as taught by Christians, comes from Plato as suggested in the Timaeus, but the Platonic trinity is itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples.(3)

 

In Indian religion there is the Trinitarian group of Brahma, Vishna, and Shiva; in Egyptian religion there is the group of Kneph, Phthas, and Osiris. In Phoenicia the trinity of gods were Ulomus, Ulosuros, and Eliun. In Greece they were Zeus, Poseidon, and Aidoneus.

 

In Rome they were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. In Babylonia and Assyria they were Anos, lllinos, and Aos. Among Celtic nations they were called Kriosan, Biosena, and Siva, and in Germanic nations they were called Thor, Wodan, and Fricco.(4)

 

Trinities of gods existed in other cultures as well, including, but not limited to, those of Siberia, Persia, Japan, Scandinavia, and Mexico.

 

We can see, therefore, that although the Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it.

(emphasis is mine)

 

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/trinity.html

 

As to coming up with an emergent God from three - I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea. However, the OP should realise that this is a matter of faith and should state their own position on this issue.

[Double K]

Man himself is a trinity and a septenary, as well as a unity. Let me expand this statement. St. Paul divides man into Body, Soul and Spirit. He leaves it there, except for the statement that “there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1. Cor., 15, 44). Proof that one functions in a multiplicity of bodies or vehicles is not difficult to attain by personal experiment and experience. It can be reached without any very great knowledge of the three methods or stages laid down for practice by Mas ters of this most ancient of all Sciences: viz. Concentration, Meditation, Contemplation. Yet another Triad!

This trinity of Mental, Desire and Physical Bodies is technically known as the Personality. We find it illustrated in the gifts brought by the Wise Men to the cave in Bethlehem (The House of Bread). Gold is the material nature to be consecrated to the service of God and Man;

 

Frankincense is the emotional nature, desires and longings which must rise like incense to God. It is also the symbol of p urification, of that cleansing fire which removes all dress and leaves only the pure essence for the blessing of God. Myrrh, bitterness, is related to the mind, through which, as human beings we suffer. The further the Race progresses are develops mentally, the greater becomes its capacity for suffering. Only when seen in its true light and dedicated to God can suffering be used as an instrument of conscious approach to God.

 

This three-fold Personality is, then, of vast importance. PER SONO, “I sound through”; it is a wonderfully expressive term.

 

source

[jimmydasaint]

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs. I have read part of the source but find it quite heavy and it seems to be a syncretic spritual belief that resembles Bahai belief but draws heavily from Judaism, Hinduism and Sufi Islam. Does the strong symbolism come from medieval English tradition or from the Knights Templar? Being a reader of Milton (Paradise Lost, Samson Agoniste etc...) he also uses symbolism heavily; I take it that medieval people would have recognised the symbolism immediately but it does not translate readily to the 21st century in my opinion.

 

Yet once more, O ye Laurels, and once more

Ye Myrtles brown, with Ivy never-sear,

I com to pluck your Berries harsh and crude,

And with forc'd fingers rude,

Shatter your leaves before the mellowing year.

Bitter constraint, and sad occasion dear,

Compels me to disturb your season due:

For Lycidas is dead, dead ere his prime,

 

'ever-sear. Never withered. 1638 has "never-sere". Laurel was considered the emblem of Apollo, myrtle of Venus, and ivy of Bacchus.'

 

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/lycidas/

 

This symbolism would have been lost to me had I not researched it but it resembles some of the statements you have made about triads which seems to reflect a pagan theme.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that the three are supposed to be different manifestations of the same one entity, "God". The "Father" is the closest to the omnipotent being he's supposed to be, and is in charge of being awesome and so holy that he can't stand the least sin and humans can't come before him. The "Holy Ghost" is in charge of directly interacting with humans mentally/spiritually and providing guidance/interpretation/miraculous abilities, the "Son" for physically interacting with humans and interceding for them, and for being a perfect sacrifice. I don't think it's really possible for Jesus to be both fully god and fully human.

 

Interestingly, monotheism is fundamental to Islam. For them, the Trinity would be polytheistic blasphemy; their first Pillar of Faith is that Allah is one and indivisible. I think they're the most monotheistic religion there is.

[Double K]

Does the strong symbolism come from medieval English tradition or from the Knights Templar?...

... I take it that medieval people would have recognised the symbolism immediately but it does not translate readily to the 21st century in my opinion.

 

Symbolism goes back much further than that (medieval english and knights templar) I think if you're seeing christianity as emerging during these times you need to look back further. Pictograms, hieroglyphics etc.. although aboriginal rock art also pre-dates alot of this, although it is a little more primitive, or perhaps less structured/complicated may be a better way to put it. It's still replete in today's society, just look at the proliferation of company logos....

 

"Let us first consider the Trinity in Unity and try to realize the necessity for the recognition of three aspects in any unity. The first examples which occur to us most naturally, as dwellers incarnate in time and space, are the obvious divisions of these three environments into their three components; Incarnation manifesting as Birth, Life and Death; Time as Past, Present and Future; and Space as Length, Breadth and Thickness. In some cases we have the attributes of Deity given to us as Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence

 

All these correspond to the most generally attributed functions of Annihilation, Preservation and Creation; but, instead of the word Annihilation, I prefer the more scientifically accurate Transmutation. These same attributes are found in the Hindu teachings as Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Preserver; and Shiva, the Destroyer, who is also the “Willing Bestower of Requests” or, in Christian terminology, “the Answerer of Payer.” For the benefit of those who are interested in the philosophies of India, I suggest a parallel in the Samkhya-Yoga, where we find the three attributes clearly defined in the three Gunas or aspects of Prakriti or Nature. These are Tamas - Inertia, Sattva. - Experience and Rajas - Energy. Prakriti is, however, impermanent and exists only in manifestation. Behind it lies Purusha, someti mes translated “Soul”: it is the transcendent unitary principle postulated by Kant"

source

 

This symbolism would have been lost to me had I not researched it but it resembles some of the statements you have made about triads which seems to reflect a pagan theme.

 

It's well acknowledged that christianity has it's roots in paganism, or at least some pagan ideals were incorporated in to make it more palatable to the masses who were transitioning from this pagan system - perhaps that corruption happened without the influence of the true teachings it may have simply been incorporated by the masses so they could understand the teachings, who knows!

 

To re-dress the symbolism of the cross...

 

The simplest psychological division is probably that which divides the septenary constitution of man in three parts: an uppermost duad which is immortal, an intermediate duad which is conditionally immortal, and a lower triad which is unconditionally mortal. (See Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy, 1st ed., pp. 167, 525; 2nd rev. ed., pp. 199, 601).

 

 

"The hieroglyphic representation of the tat is that of a tapered pillar surmounted by four crossbars, said to represent the branches of a tree, and to be connected with the four cardinal points. It was a favorite form for amulets fashioned out of lapis lazuli and carnelian. "The top part is a regular equilateral cross. This, on its phallic basis, represented the two principles of creation, the male and the female, and related to nature and cosmos; but when the tat stood by itself, crowned with the atf (or atef), the triple crown of Horus -- two feathers with the uraeus in front -- it represented the septenary man; the cross, or the two cross-pieces, standing for the lower quaternary, and the atf for the higher "

source

[Severian]

I don't have much of an issue with it, and I think many Christians go to far great lengths to mystify something which is actually very simple.

 

In my view, they are just different manifestations of the same being. I have no difficulty in thinking of myself as a scientist, and as a father and as a husband all at the same time. They are three separate parts to me, and I don't have some multiple personality disorder by being these things all at once.

 

Of course, God is a bit different, because there is a clearer physical separation between, say, God the Father and Jesus on Earth during the time before (and during) the crucifixion. But I think it is only a matter of degree. The me of today is not the same me as I was 30 years ago, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't still me - just that I have changed the way I interact with the world. If you are willing to accept God as omnipotent (or at least incredibly powerful) then you must be willing to accept the idea that he can be in three forms at once.

[forufes]

That being said, non of the original Christianities had the trinity; it was a later addition.

any proof of some sort?

[Double K]

Belief in God as Three-in-One is as old as Christianity itself.1 The word Trinity doesn’t appear as a theological term till near the end of the second century. It was first used as ‘Trias’ by Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioch in AD. 180 and later by Tertullian as Trinitas2 to signify that God exists in three persons.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2454

[bascule]

What I've worked out is that if you accept "God" itself as simply being the abstractly emergent property of the synergetic cooperative efforts of the three independent entities (The Son, the Father and the Spirit) and their collective works, you get a fairly simple rationalization of the idea. It does however reduce fullblown "God" (whatever that means, abrahamically) to essentially an organization, like the Boy Scouts.

 

God is a corporation. I like it. From a purely legal perspective, this is perfectly acceptable, at least under US law. There is no reason why the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can not be, at the same time, God, Inc.

 

From a philosophical/identity perspective, if enough information were shared between conscious entities I see no reason they couldn't be considered subcomponents of the same entity. Maybe they're all telepathic and capable of instantaneous knowledge transfer.

[Double K]

God Inc.

 

That's awesome.

[forufes]

Belief in God as Three-in-One is as old as Christianity itself.1 The word Trinity doesn’t appear as a theological term till near the end of the second century. It was first used as ‘Trias’ by Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioch in AD. 180 and later by Tertullian as Trinitas2 to signify that God exists in three persons.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2454

 

but then which one was god before the trinity was "invented"?

[Zolar V]

I like Double K's interpretation of the God Trinity, that bieng a symbol for the physical representation of the human.

 

Here is my take, much akin to Double K's:

The symbolism of the Christains Trinity is rather a representation fo the three different aspects of the human body. (and if you would like to get into some conspiracy theory, three is also closely related to pi and the proportionaltiy of the golden number )

I think The symbol of the Father, represents our Consiousness and our cognizants also he is the master or controller of all three.

The son represents our Physical body, it takes its direction from the Father who is the controller over all three.

The spirit is our subconsious, our desires. they take the form of the incorpreal because they dont arise from the physical or the congnative. it seems that they give advise or direction to the father but in no way control the father. It also seems that this is a logical conclusion to an primitave civilizations rationalization of these three elements.

 

OR

The son could be a representation of the sun or earth

The spirit could be a representation of the sun, earth or galaxy

The father could be a representation of the sun or galaxy

and the related material from the religion could be symbolism for a basic astrology.

[rigney]

However, simple speculation almost demands there be something more powerful out there, than what we see as a universe.

Edited June 9, 2010 by rigney

[AzurePhoenix]

However, simple speculation almost demands there be something more powerful out there, than what we see as a universe.

I speculate that a hyperdimensional polka-dotted neon pink elephant with butterfly wings is responsible of the disappearance of socks from even the most vigilantly guarded clothes dryers. My simple speculation of this demands there must be something to my random suggestion, beyond what we observe in reality.

[Double K]

I speculate that a hyperdimensional polka-dotted neon pink elephant with butterfly wings is responsible of the disappearance of socks from even the most vigilantly guarded clothes dryers. My simple speculation of this demands there must be something to my random suggestion, beyond what we observe in reality.

 

Everyone knows that's the doings of the underpants gnomes.

[padren]

I speculate that a hyperdimensional polka-dotted neon pink elephant with butterfly wings is responsible of the disappearance of socks from even the most vigilantly guarded clothes dryers. My simple speculation of this demands there must be something to my random suggestion, beyond what we observe in reality.

 

This could be a little unfair, as usually it is an argument not in favor of any specific personified deity, but a claim that "someone or something created the universe with intent" which, while entirely unsubstantiated and provides no useful information (or even any information, really) is at least simplified to the point of only defining what is necessary for the claim in question.

 

Your suggestion is just as credible of course and I am sure that's entirely why you made it, but it's worth noting that a baseless suggestion that something intentionally created the universe is technically a bit more elegant than a baseless suggestion that a specific characterization of a God, with a name, a personality, and bouts of emotional instability created the universe.

 

That said:

 

However, simple speculation almost demands there be something more powerful out there, than what we see as a universe.

 

Simple speculation and observation also suggests that the world is flat, space does not bend, the speed of light can be exceeded, a photon cannot be in two places at once, and an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation with infinite power.

 

It has been demonstrated many times over throughout human history, that the universe is under no obligation to make it's workings evident to ourselves through our own limit capacities for simple speculation.