Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
The only source you've used in response to me is a quotation of part of a Wikipedia post referring to unnamed Jewish legal authorities, some of whom say Jews are not permitted to hold a Trinitarian theology, 'though non-Jews holding such a theology would not be considered idolaters, and some Jews debate whether or not Christianity is formally polytheism, some allow non-Jews to swear by the name of God even if they associate other deities with that name, and some permit non-Jews to worship such deities. Some unnamed modern interpreters are said to allow Gentile belief that there are other gods besides the Creator, but forbid actual worship of them, and some consider worship of independent deities other than the creator to be idolatry. None of this, as described in your quotation from Wikipedia, actually pertains to Christian Trinitarian belief as i have described it. We do not believe any of the persons of the Trinity are other deities, nor that some deities are involved in creation and others not involved. As I've already responded, you are using 'person' in a different sense than as is generally done in Christian theology of the Trinity. We believe that God is beyond our human conception of personhood and beyond our human conception of interpersonal relations, thus our human conceptions of persons and relations between and among persons does not limit the oneness and simplicity of God who cannot be defined.
I note that in another post, you subsequently cited a secondary source describing Daniel Howard-Snyder's criticism of a literal interpretation of the Trinity using an analogy to the mythical three-headed dog Cerberus. This critique does not address the apophatic view of the Trinity I have described here. From what I can see of your quotation, he does not engage my view (nor do you) and I would generally agree with his conclusion as presented, namely that the literal view presents a low view of God, as do all analogies.
In yet another post, I see you cited an article by Michael Bea who critiques specifically the Social Trinitarian model of the Trinity. Again, it does not touch upon an apophatic understanding of the Trinity which I believe is best for all human models or images of God are insufficient to define his nature. In my experience most theologians readily acknowledge that whatever models or images or analogies used to describe God in general or the Trinity specifically are woefully inadequate.[/quote]
Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Comment