One or three and a human too?

[ZackMartin]

5. God is one, without diversification within God's self.

I have read a bit of the Summa Theologiae, I could never understand how he squared his belief in the utter simplicity of God with his belief in the Trinity. Maybe he addresses that point later on (I have never read the whole thing.)

Zack

[Tanakh Keeper]

And lastly, when TK writes G-d he obviously doesn't mean it in the sense of the Godhood consisting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[headheart]

Also, where is the option "Three persons in one being, one of the person having a human nature in addition to his divine nature?"

Anthropomorphism is basically attributing human characteristics to someone/something that is not human. Could you explain to me how the idea of a trinity is a human characteristic? Are you saying that humans are triune by nature?

Add 8: God is Incorporeal

Catholic Teaching:
The doctrine of the incorporeal nature of God states that God is a spirit, and as such has no body (John 4:24). Neither is God a composition of body and spirit. It is true that Jesus was both God and man, but we must remember that Jesus had two natures: that of both the divine and the creature (man). As such, we say that Jesus’ Godhead in the divine nature had no composition of body and spirit.

Definition of the Dogma:
John 4:24 quotes: "God is a spirit". Additionally, the 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach: "God is absolutely simple" (De Fide). Since God is absolutely simple it must follow that he is a spirit.

Heresies which reject or confuse this teaching:
Anthropomorphism confuses the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 which states, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." Based on the mistaken interpretation of Genesis 1:26, Anthropomorphists believe that humans are made in the same material form as God. St. Thomas Aquinas proves that this idea is patently false by showing that the cosmological proof reveals God to exist in complete actuality. As a result of this actuality, it follows that God cannot be in potential and therefore must be entirely simple and without parts. If God had parts, a potential for movement would exist and Aquinas has already shown that God has no potential.

Thus Genesis 1:26 is an analogy between the spiritual nature of man and God; the quote is not an analogy between the material form of man and God. Anthropomorphism was part of the Audian heresy and is part of modern day Mormonism (Church of Latter-day Saints).

From: God is Incorporeal > An Analysis of the Summa Theologica > Philosophy > St. Thomas Acquinas Forum

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Add 9: Anthropomorphism, Anthropomorphites

A term used in its widest sense to signify the tendency of man to conceive the activities of the external world as the counterpart of his own. A philosophic system which borrows its method from this tendency is termed Philosophic Anthropomorphism. The word, however, has been more generally employed to designate the play of that impulse in religious thought. In this sense, Anthropomorphism is the ascription to the Supreme Being of the form, organs, operations, and general characteristics of human nature. This tendency is strongly manifested in primitive heathen religions, in all forms of polytheism, especially in the classic paganism of Greece and Rome. The charge of Anthropomorphism was urged against the Greeks by their own philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon. The first Christian apologists upbraided the pagans for having represented God, who is spiritual, as a mere magnified man, subject to human vices and passions. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, abounds in anthropomorphic expressions. Almost all the activities of organic life are ascribed to the Almighty. He speaks, breathes, sees, hears; He walks in the garden; He sits in the heavens, and the earth is His footstool. It must, however, be noticed that in the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature the same as man's; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively attributed to Him. The metaphorical, symbolical character of this language is usually obvious. The all-seeing Eye signifies God's omniscience; the everlasting Arms His omnipotence; His Sword the chastisement of sinners; when He is said to have repented of having made man, we have an extremely forcible expression conveying His abhorrence of sin. The justification of this language is found in the fact that truth can be conveyed to men only through the medium of human ideas and thoughts, and is to be expressed only in language suited to their comprehension. The limitations of our conceptual capacity oblige us to represent God to ourselves in ideas that have been originally drawn from our knowledge of self and the objective world. The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable. Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of the Anthropomorphites.

From: Anthropomorphism, Anthropomorphites > A > Catholic Encyclopedia > Home

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

I have read a bit of the Summa Theologiae, I could never understand how he squared his belief in the utter simplicity of God with his belief in the Trinity. Maybe he addresses that point later on (I have never read the whole thing.)

Zack

Hi Zack,

I love upturning stones but sometimes they have scorpions, snakes and all other manner of creepy crawling things along with the treasures and dirt that sometimes jump out and sink their venomous juices into those who are expecting a free and easy time in the realm of history, theology and biblical languages. (301) I'm not say that I find the study of the "Trinity" is such but anyone who's made a study of the history of this will pretty much come to the point where they are faced with that.
A few years ago, I engaged in an exchange on this forum which eventually made everyone so bored that the moderators began sending our arguments to the netherworld of the forum.
However, remarkably in the land of witches, mystics and proponents of Adviata Vedanta etc. etc. etc. there are some who take great pains to wrestle with the writings of the ECFs and eventually find themselves turning to this forums wizards of old who are hidden in the language dept.
Without dragging my reply on to long, firstly here's a link to a blog which is committed to explaining the Aquinas' Summa > Aquinasblog > Trinity , secondly here are two links: (1) that discussion in the netherworld of this forum and (2) a wizards discussion in the platform of the wizards. ( I only came along at the end of it - dropping a score of links in the last few posts ( Post 25-29 ) - and chatted to RonC who was most helpful in this regard. I trust you'll approach them as I'm still only getting my mind around such intense studies.)
I've found that John Reece and Co. to be truly helpful wizards who are pretty straight up and will save you wasting hours engaged in pointless scrummages with scorpions, snakes and all manner of creepy crawly dark things hidden under the rocks and things in cyber illusion-lands.

After that I feel like some music and who'd dare to deny me a little flesh-pleasure.


The Way - The Way (the album)

Peace,
HH'Eric

[pancreasman]

The trinity is a sophisticated theological view of God which allows God to act as a participant as well as creator. People who believe it have thought deeply about it. It just so happens I think they are mistaken but I recognize it is not foolish. It IS a theological view very easy to misrepresent. I don't think ANY of the options in the poll reflect a trinitarian position. Several posters agree.

Those of the Jewish faith will naturally assert their view of the unity of God and deny that Jesus Christ has anything to do with the Godhead. Again, they have their own good reasons for doing so.

I fail to see the point of the poll. I fail to see how the thread is likely to add anything to the centuries long debate on these issues.

[headheart]

The trinity is a sophisticated theological view of God which allows God to act as a participant as well as creator. People who believe it have thought deeply about it. It just so happens I think they are mistaken but I recognize it is not foolish. It IS a theological view very easy to misrepresent. I don't think ANY of the options in the poll reflect a trinitarian position. Several posters agree.

Those of the Jewish faith will naturally assert their view of the unity of God and deny that Jesus Christ has anything to do with the Godhead. Again, they have their own good reasons for doing so.

I fail to see the point of the poll. I fail to see how the thread is likely to add anything to the centuries long debate on these issues.

This thread was not meant to be about the trinity but instead about the doctrine of G-d as it is common to both Jews and Christians. As I am happy with the results I see no reason to revive that ancient argument.
Peace,
Eric

[Darth Executor]

Very mixed up? and complicated!

Reality should simplify itself to better match your own capabilities.

[headheart]

Reality should simplify itself to better match your own capabilities.

I wouldn't say that. Reality wasn't all I was led to believe it was cracked up to be. I'd settle for the nearest possible approximation to it and well there's always love. Peace, Eric.

[headheart]

Add 10: What do I know? Answer: 0 = Spirited Discourse on God's Gender ( Bible and Culture) by Professor Ben Witherington date: 2 May 2012

As I don't feel comfortable posting up too long a quote, I suggest you follow the link below my quote and head on over to discuss the matter with someone who does this sort of thing professionally. God bless. Eric.

Spirited Discourse about God Language in the New Testament (this is an expanded form of a recent article that I did for BAR).
In John 4, in his discussion with the Samaritan woman, Jesus has some profound things to say about the nature of worship, and indeed about the nature of God, and the connection between the two. Here are the words attributed to Jesus himself: “the hour is coming and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (vss. 23-24).

(read more)

John 4 - God is spirit, worship spirit and truth.jpg

[Doug Shaver]

Is the G-d of the Bible one or three and human too?

The God of the Bible, so far as I can tell, is incoherent. The Bible's authors did not agree on what the object of their worship was like.

Inerrantists will, of course, beg to differ with me.

[headheart]

The God of the Bible, so far as I can tell, is incoherent.

That's actually quite funny considering most scholars regard the idea of G-d speaking as closer to condescending to use human speech. Have you ever tried to hear G-d speak? Have you ever spoken in tongues? Or, heard and interpretation of tongues? Even that is not G-d speaking? The accounts of G-d speaking in the Bible are normally not pleasant events for those who hear and worse for those who catch a fleeting glimpse. So, sure G-d is incoherent and Paul describes G-d with terms that don't help either. Whatever G-d says it's clear that our ears are not the primary receptors and that would include our eyes, so Doug how would you go about hearing and seeing G-d? Any thoughts for your readers?

Peace,
Eric.

[Doug Shaver]

That's actually quite funny considering most scholars regard the idea of G-d speaking as closer to condescending to use human speech.

I did not mean that statements attributed by the authors to God were incoherent. I meant that the authors' statements about God were incoherent, taken as a whole.

Have you ever tried to hear G-d speak?

Yes. When I thought he was real, I tried very hard.

Have you ever spoken in tongues?

Yes.

Even that is not G-d speaking?

I thought so at the time. I was mistaken.

so Doug how would you go about hearing and seeing G-d? Any thoughts for your readers?

I stopped trying when I stopped believing. When I was a believer, I did what other believers told me to do, to the best of my ability. None of it worked. If God is real and he wants to tell me something, he knows what will work.

[headheart]

I did not mean that statements attributed by the authors to God were incoherent. I meant that the authors' statements about God were incoherent, taken as a whole.

Oh, okay. Would you be willing to unpack that idea a little more?

I stopped trying when I stopped believing. When I was a believer, I did what other believers told me to do, to the best of my ability. None of it worked. If God is real and he wants to tell me something, he knows what will work.

I can really relate to that. It seldom does. Jesus has a good answer to this and it involves asking, seeking and knocking.
I'm thinking of a young girl who prayed to G-d to bring her Daddy back and when that did not happen she decided that G-d was not worth praying to. I also spoke to one bloke who is a strong Atheist who has no confidence that prayers are answered and yet there are conditions that if they are not met then the results will be poorly and unsatisfactory.
I too spent a very long time trying to figure out how to pray. I started praying when I was 18 and after 28 years of doing what other said, I decided that I'd had enough of the books, the sermons and the lectures and decided to give it one last shot. After 8 months of earnest praying I was rewarded in much the same way that this author's statement about seeking G-d was coherent:

'.... rewards those who earnestly seek ....' Hebrews 11:6 NIV

Have you ever read Clyde Narrowmore's book 'Think and Grow Rich'? Now there's a story in there of a man who sold a goldmine after doing all the digging he could manage and the next guy came along and dug a few meters and POW!!! he hit the strand that led to the Mother Load.
I recall years ago (and it's funny how this stuff is coming back to me now) when I worked at a Pizza place in Fish Hoek (South Africa) and got into a chat with the owner who kept talking about tenacity of purpose and sticking to a thing. As a young lad (and I wasn't at the time) I remember how hard it was for me to stick to anything and would soon be thrown off my goal by difficulties. I think that when it comes to praying the views of certain Christians have harmed the cause when they say 'God will talk to you when God's ready' or 'save you when God wants to' etc. It requires considerable back bone and resolve. I got so tired of that lame view and decided that if I was ever going to find my way to G-d I'd have to do so with as much earnest as I could possibly muster seeing that if there were such a being (a weak word) then I'd need to learn what needed to be done and get on with it.

I did find that the Christian sacred texts thrust me in that way, but in the end I had to drop them like something poisonous as I stepped out onto the pathway behind my house with my dog Cassie and walked down to the Hexen Huis over and over and over again. I cannot go into the whole description of those eight months (as I am aware that each persons journey is special and unique) but all I can tell you is that it was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life and it took every bit of resolve to keep at it. It's sad that in our modern world we are taught that it's all a matter of G-d doing this that and the other for us and there's nothing that we have to do. Like in this song of Bob Dylan sang by Helen Baylor.


Helen Baylor sings WHAT CAN I DO FOR YOU

Peace,
Eric

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party:
(stuff I thought of after writing my post)

Though you can imagine how many stories I've read about people's prayer journey's, these two came to mind as I was thinking about you:

Charles Finney : An Autobiography by Charles Finney.

Rees Howells : The Intercessor by Norman Grubb.

[Doug Shaver]

I meant that the authors' statements about God were incoherent, taken as a whole.

Oh, okay. Would you be willing to unpack that idea a little more?

To what end? The issue of the Bible's theological consistency has been discussed to death in this forum and every other apologetic forum that allows unbelievers to state their cases. Have you not seen any of those discussions?

Jesus has a good answer to this and it involves asking, seeking and knocking.

You say so. I haven't heard it from him.

Now there's a story in there of a man who sold a goldmine after doing all the digging he could manage and the next guy came along and dug a few meters and POW!!! he hit the strand that led to the Mother Load.

A cute story. Is there supposed to be a lesson there for me? You left something out, though. Before I can learn anything useful from your story, I need to know: Why did the first man buy the gold mine in the first place? What made him think there was any gold there for anyone to find?