freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Trinity concept.............
Trinity concept.............
Orthodox Jews and Muslims are fine with their understanding of God as 'One', in a pure monotheistic sense. Therefore, there is no need or necessity for a Deity of Trinitarian formation. A relational-context for 3 divine personalities making up One God just doesn't make sense to their concept of divine Oneness, but if you'd like to conceptualize 'God' as a Trinity, have at it. Frankly,...it doesn't matter beyond a relational/conceptual point of view, so represents just one view of 'God'...among others. I have fun with a Unitarian view of God since it makes the most sense, humanly speaking from a simple relational point of view. If you want to wholly divinitize Jesus and make a 'God' out of him according to an orthodox creedal definition,....that's your prerogative....but know that a lot of evidence can be shared that challenges that 'assumption' to support a more Unitarian view (or a host of others).
Oneness Christians have their own spin of course, in various modalistic fashions. Still they maintain some sense of 'monotheism', looking at the 3 persons as modes, aspects or manifestions of The One God. Its all the same beef,...just sliced and diced differently. So :idunno:
Actually I think Arius was pretty awesome (as good as any),...and the movement he started did gain momentum and acceptance with those in power during some seasons of the 'Arian Controversy',....it was kind of a tug of war,...but then the Athanasius Creed won the political vote and the powers that be just happened to have enough clout at a significant juncture in time to make it the official church-state dogma, while Arianism never made a full come-back, at least within the upper echelon of the Empire. Arianism in its various forms still exists today, and I see no reason to assume that the orthodox formulation of the Trinity that eventually won the day (and made Jesus 100% God and Man, a full on 'combo-pack') is anymore authentic than an Arian Christology,...again...just different points of view, conceptions of Christology. Apples or oranges.
Of course pros and cons for each perspective or position can be debated....and other views inbetween or related.
See: The Arian Catholic Church
Trinity concept.............
Why are Jews and Muslims so incapable of understanding the Trinity? The Trinity is logically sound and yet people like to make fictions and straw men out of it to argue against it.
It's not a difficult thing to understand, it's simply just out of the realm of conventional reasoning much like a lot of other things that are otherwise still true.
Orthodox Jews and Muslims are fine with their understanding of God as 'One', in a pure monotheistic sense. Therefore, there is no need or necessity for a Deity of Trinitarian formation. A relational-context for 3 divine personalities making up One God just doesn't make sense to their concept of divine Oneness, but if you'd like to conceptualize 'God' as a Trinity, have at it. Frankly,...it doesn't matter beyond a relational/conceptual point of view, so represents just one view of 'God'...among others. I have fun with a Unitarian view of God since it makes the most sense, humanly speaking from a simple relational point of view. If you want to wholly divinitize Jesus and make a 'God' out of him according to an orthodox creedal definition,....that's your prerogative....but know that a lot of evidence can be shared that challenges that 'assumption' to support a more Unitarian view (or a host of others).
'Oneness' Christians don't understand that, if you put Isaiah and the New Testament side by side, the Trinity is absolutely inescapable- you can't actually come to a conclusion of 'oneness'.
Oneness Christians have their own spin of course, in various modalistic fashions. Still they maintain some sense of 'monotheism', looking at the 3 persons as modes, aspects or manifestions of The One God. Its all the same beef,...just sliced and diced differently. So :idunno:
Arius was mistaken, despite his resilience in the matter.
Actually I think Arius was pretty awesome (as good as any),...and the movement he started did gain momentum and acceptance with those in power during some seasons of the 'Arian Controversy',....it was kind of a tug of war,...but then the Athanasius Creed won the political vote and the powers that be just happened to have enough clout at a significant juncture in time to make it the official church-state dogma, while Arianism never made a full come-back, at least within the upper echelon of the Empire. Arianism in its various forms still exists today, and I see no reason to assume that the orthodox formulation of the Trinity that eventually won the day (and made Jesus 100% God and Man, a full on 'combo-pack') is anymore authentic than an Arian Christology,...again...just different points of view, conceptions of Christology. Apples or oranges.
Of course pros and cons for each perspective or position can be debated....and other views inbetween or related.
See: The Arian Catholic Church