[Paradigm]

The Synoptic Gospels are Mark, Matthew and Luke. Q is the hypothetical document that they were based on.

Just a quick correction: Mark is not believed to have been based on Q. Rather, according to the two-source hypothesis, Q is supposed to explain the parallel sayings in Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark.

[nucklepunche]

Stripped of all dignity? Really? Was Jesus arse raped? Was he forced to suck cock? I'm going by the conventional story here, regardless of whether he actually existed even. And what about sin? This is often people's greatest humiliation. The acts that they have done for which they are ashamed. But Jesus was supposedly sinless So he could be proud of every moment of his life.

In spite of the portrayal of him on the cross with a loincloth on it was actually probably a lot more brutal than that, it was just added because nobody wanted to see the whole tasteless horror in medieval times. The truth is Roman flogging ripped around the entire flesh, and the flogs often wrapped around to the front. They stripped their victims completely so he was most likely naked on the cross in front of his disciples, his mother and his brothers (or cousins/half-brothers from Joseph's first marriage if you are Catholic) in a society that associates nudity with shame.

Your crude language is just juvenile atheist talk. I doubt those things happened but even if they didn't would you be dignified if you were up there nailed to two pieces of wood with blood streaming down in front of your friends and relatives. Look at the gory horror movies of today and that is basically what happened in real life back then. Of course it was a more brutal world and human life was cheaper.

Not for him the humiliations suffered by our peodo Catholic Priests or the recent spate of entertainment celebrities in Britain who have been exposed for sexual crimes.

These people stripped themselves of all dignity doing what they did long before they got caught. I read about that rockstar and basically he lowered himself lower than an animal.

[Atlantis]

@Paradigm, thanks for your excellent summary.

The corruption of the concept of the Trinity comes from Christianity's inheritance from the Hellenistic world of the Aristotelian concept of substance and the Platonic concept of emanation. These are two-dimensional frameworks that don't serve the emergence of an three-dimensional worldview. The phenomenon of creationism is perhaps one of Christianity's biggest embarrassments. This Neoplatonic worldview of permanent categories and changeless Being fails to grasp the intrinsically evolutionary character of the Trinity. But this is because Christians had long mistakenly understood the Trinity in terms of substance or "persons" when they should have been thinking in terms of process. By surpassing the Neoplatonic categories in which it has long been uncomfortably squeezed, Christianity can realize its own metaphysical genius and claim its destiny as the practice of participatory becoming with and through God.

Are you not putting the cart before the horse here?

Christianity is a product of Western thinking. Western thinking has been dominated by static "atomistic" or "substance" concepts, that presume an absolute truth, i.e. the existence of a monotheist god. This only becomes clear when we look at it from an Eastern point of view, where a dynamic philosophy of "change" that does not hold onto a permanent unchanging truth has flourished.

Thus, Christianity was not "perverted" by the ancient Greeks, it simply followed and developed along the lines of Western thinking, which has been formed by environmental and cultural factors far broader and deeper than Greek philosophy. In fact, Heraclitus taught a doctrine of constant "change", but Western thinking has preferred to ignore this and follow the static "atomistic" concept instead.

If we now develop a dynamic understanding of the trinity as a philosophy of becoming in which the Mahayana doctrine of non-duality is mirrored as a "non-dual becoming" (like your idea of "participatory becoming" mirrors the Buddhist concept of "dependent origination") then this may simply be a sign that Western thinking is merging with Eastern philosophy.

A similar phenomenon can be observed in science. Buddhists like to point to the fact that some advanced theories in physics resemble Buddhist concepts and take this as proof that Buddhism is compatible with modern science. I think it simply means that we borrow concepts from one field to explain what we mean in another field. And since Buddhist philosophy has been known in the West since the 19th century, it isn't surprising that we should find its concepts being borrowed to explain modern science.

PS: The Mahayana doctrine of non-duality cannot be interpreted as "non-dual Being" because Mahayana teaches non-being. Therefore, to claim that your idea of "non-dual Becoming" is more dynamic is only a play on words.

Edit: To oppose an "additive approach" supposedly manifest in the Christian idea of the trinity with a supposed "subtractive approach" of Mahayana "non-duality" is in itself dual thinking, which is alien to the non-dual mind. Thus, you yourself contradict your idea of "non-dual Becoming."

Mahayana non-duality is more psychological than philosophical, more practical than theoretical. It is to knock all our cherished beliefs from under our feet to arrive at tathagata (suchness), reality as it is, not distorted by the concepts of the conscious mind.

[One Degree]

Paradigm;
Thank you for phrasing intellectually what I have felt intuitively. I have never been a religious person, but I always saw the trinity as the past, present, and future. The past is our sins, the present is our recognition of past sins, and the future is the pursuit of godhood. It is all about transition.
Edit:
I always make the mistake of thinking people can read my mind, so I make my explanation too short. You could also say the Father is the past, the Son is the present, and the Holy Spirit is the future. Factual information means little to me. The Trinity concept is separate from the different factual representations of it. I simply see them as different attempts to explain the concept. Factual is the wrong word, but hopefully I still make some sense.

[Potemkin]

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God that was sent back to this world to protect those whom ask for His protection, as I once did. The Holy Spirit Looks like an orb, mostly white but with a tinge of blue.

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Potemkin]

So no pics then? Oh well....

[One Degree]

All of these experiences and you never get a couple pictures with your phone?
You could change the world, if you had pictures.

[Ganeshas Rat]

The Holy Spirit Looks like an orb, mostly white but with a tinge of blue.

The Holy Spirit looks like a dove, even children know it. I mean, how you can ever believe in God who is not a bird?

[One Degree]

A God that flies around shitting on everything. Sounds about right.

[One Degree]

and a little bit of an idiot in my opinion

I will have you know I am a full fledged self-admitted idiot. You should consider this possibility instead of degrading everyone around you.

[Rich]

Well returning to the thread earlier. My bad on the wording on the first page. What I meant to say was that Christians have focused on his suffering, not his humiliation, as opposed to Paul, who focused on his humiliation, not his suffering.

Galatians, Romans and the Pastorals are some of Paul's Epistles.

The Pastorals are not thought to be written by Paul, except by the most Conservative scholars.

Anyway I stick to my point. I would argue that Gadaffi's death was more humiliating than Jesus' as described in the Gospels. Rather pertinent as they were both "King of Kings" according to their followers. The stories in the Bible whether scripted by God, or fabricated / distorted by story tellers are meant to reproduce strong reactions. They are meant in many places to produce disgust, anger and rage. I don't see why non Montheists have any less right to procue interpretations, twists and analysis that causes strong offence. Monotheists have been offending each other for thousands of years. In fact Monotheists were always killing and torturing each other because they found each other's interpretations offensive. If God really inspired the Bible then he surely must have known what was going to happen. But what is really offensive, my and others comments about Jesus or adult Monotheists threatening children with eternal hell?

Check out this video: Uk's Scariest Debt Collector About 13 minutes 20 there's a story illustrating why being raped is the ultimate humiliation for men. People don't commit suicide because they've been flogged, scoured or publicly exposed naked.

[SolarCross]

Crucifixion isn't that bad, it takes days to die of thirst and exposure and a lot of people were rescued in the middle of the night which is probably why crucifixion was superseded by the gibbet; it is a lot harder to be rescued if one is in a cage rather than just nailed to a piece of wood.



Surely the worst form of execution is being burnt alive?



Anyway on the subject of the Trinity. Christianity's father was solidly monotheistic Judaism but its mother was polytheistic hellenism and this unlikely union resulted in a religion that wanted to be sullenly monotheistic but yet prone to exuberant relapses into polytheism so Jesus becomes a god just as Greek heros and Roman Emporers did, statues of the virgin mary are prayed to, a mere angel is elevated to the status of the god of evil and so on. The Trinity is just another weird artifact of Christianity's tendency to polytheism.

[RhetoricThug]

If Paradigm wanted to read my response to his time speculation, he'd see that the Trinity represents the hermetic idea of perfect formation or divine geometry. Also, that silly "What is math" thread... Math = language that consolidates geometry & abstract ideas. Language = technology and therefore one extension of the human mind or five senses.

Your title even suggests that the Trinity is a mystic's secret, so of course, I thought you'd bring up mystic ontology.

[Davea8]

I have always viewed it as:

God : Abstract concept of all powerful
Son: Gods presence in the real
Spirit: the connection between the two

Then ponder this if you will. (This will be a very abbreviated description.) The goal of the early monastics was to know "union with God". That is actually to say the goal was to know a state in which there is no distinction possible between the being of God and the being of Self. One Life, One Self, One "IS".

And the monastics spent centuries developing the practices and methods that could lead a devoted monk in progressive experiences that culminate in the final experience of Oneness with God. The path had some specific mileposts. The early practice in ones' spiritual life would be that of surrender. Purification would be the intention. Elimination of negative human qualities the hope. And along this early part of the path there was the awareness of help being present. This "help" was identified as "the Holy Spirit". Practiced properly, purification would proceed. And as purification proceeded, the awareness of "the Holy Spirit" would grow stronger and would become more personal. This is the first step and the "experience of the Holy Spirit."

The next step entailed being willing to let go of all attachment to the Holy Spirit in order to seek "Christ in me". (I know that many Christians today would thoroughly disagree with the ideas I'm presenting and many would even denounce them, but keep in mind that I am not trying to convince anyone of the ideas, but only presenting the ancient path of the early monastics whether they are found to be agreeable or not.) This all advances most effectively during meditation ("contemplation"). In fact proper meditation, guided by another person who has already progressed well along the path, is indispensable.

In this second step or phase, the purification continues as all aspects of the human self are discarded and overcome. They represent all the things in us that keep us focused in this world. They are the world in us. And the effort here was to "overcome the world (within)". As this process proceeds, an awareness of a Greater One grows. It is identified as the Christ within. It seems to grow nearer and nearer as the monastic advances in his progress regarding purification and "dying daily".

The day comes when there is no longer any distinction found between the Christ within and the Self. The experience is "I, Christ". This is where is becomes very important to not elevate self, and so never to utter the words "I, Christ". But the interesting thing here is that when the Christ within draws closer and closer, the awareness of "the Holy Spirit" diminishes until it is gone entirely and all that is known is "I, Christ". The two are never experienced at the same time. The Holy Spirit "leaves" and Christ shows up.

As the monastic surrenders fully in every respect to Christ identity, the identity is completed as Self. No longer is there any self of the human remaining during meditation. Christ is all.

At some point the third and final step begins, and that is the growing awareness of God, within.

And then, as full surrender and full identity is achieved, "Christ goes to the Father". No effort on the part of the monastic can help. In fact it can only interfere and stop the progress. One must entirely "exit" the scene and know only Christ Life as what "IS". When that happens, the Christ completes the journey "for the devotee" and AS the devotee.

And when God Consciousness is achieved, Christ vanishes. They are never known to be Self at the same time.

Now this is all very interesting as it explains much of what we read in the Bible and try to understand with our human mind. The Bible says there is one God in three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The experiences of the ancient monastics reveals that the Holy Spirit is God. The H.S. is simply the early experience of God by man who is not yet pure enough to see and know more than the H.S. It is God! But impure man cannot see It. It's like finding a lump of diamond in the dirt. It takes a trained eye to know it's a diamond that will one day be a beautiful, sparkling cut gem. All that is seen at first is a soiled strange lump which reveals itself only after plenty of work of taking it back to town, finding a gem cutter, and negotiating the process of transforming it into what it shall be as a cut stone. The H.S. is like that. It's all we can see of God at the time even though God is right there all the while.

Then the H.S. vanishes as Christ is revealed. "Christ the Son" is a purer, more advanced view of God than was available as the "H.S." It is still God but it is all that can be withstood at that point given the incomplete surrender that has left traces of a sense of self remaining. And as those traces are eliminated the full awareness of God comes.

That is the "Trinity", described as "three in one". It really is one, . . . --progressive views of the One as the condition of the monastic permits. There is not a Holy Spirit. It is God. There is not a "Christ" (and certainly not a "Jesus"). It is God.

This is the experience the monastics sought, and it is the experience sought by every mystic of every religion even if the path is all described by a different story . . . Kabbalah, Sufi, Christian monastics, Hindus . . . all seeking the same goal. For Christians it is a story of "three in one" but it is really all One.

[Paradigm]

Some of my latest thoughts:

The Trinity corresponds to three prominent types of ontology that have characterized philosophy throughout the ages. God the Father is substance: the underlying mystery that can never be accessed in itself, but which lies behind all appearances and manifestations. God the Son is relation: God as Thou, exemplifying the net of inter-being by which we come to grow together. He is the Logos -- the underlying order from which all things emerge and toward which all things are drawn. God the Holy Spirit is process: The dynamic movement of God within all things, seeking transformation and driving us toward some ultimate telos. And the thing is, we all have these three aspects within us. We are all, in a sense, trinities. God is simply the ultimate exemplar of this triune reality.

[mikema63]

What are your views on unitarians? You seem to think the trinity is an extremely important concept in Christianity so what do you think of groups that reject the trinity in some form or another?

[Paradigm]

What are your views on unitarians? You seem to think the trinity is an extremely important concept in Christianity so what do you think of groups that reject the trinity in some form or another?

I disagree with them. I know plenty of Christians who reject the trinity, including my grandfather, and I think that they're missing out on something highly significant. Though I will say that that is in large part due to some of the poor and convoluted ways that the concept has been presented. That's why I'm trying to explore the concept philosophically and uncover some of the mysteries concealed therein.

[Potemkin]

To be a Christian and to reject the trinity has always struck me as being a half-way house, an inconsistency. After all, it is one of the essential elements of Christianity to believe that Jesus was not merely a supremely gifted and inspired preacher or prophet, but was quite literally God. Why reject the trinity and then accept the idea that Jesus was the Son of God? What is that? The dyad? Either you are a strict monotheist, or you are not. According to strict monotheism, God is unitary and therefore cannot have a Son or a Holy Spirit or any other entity associated with Him. This is what the Muslims believe, and at least they tend to be self-consistent about it. Christianity, however, seems to advance a diluted form of monotheism, in which God has multiple identities or aspects - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why reject only one of those aspects? It seems inconsistent to me. If you are going to associated a Son with God, then why not a Holy Spirit too? And if you want to be a strict monotheist, then it seems to me you're in the wrong religion - you should convert to Judaism or Islam instead.

[Paradigm]

My grandfather once said he might have considered converting to Islam if they didn't have the Virgin Birth as an article of faith.

[Potemkin]

My grandfather once said he might have considered converting to Islam if they didn't have the Virgin Birth as an article of faith.

I'm sure there must be some obscure Sufi sect somewhere which could have accommodated him. He obviously just didn't look hard enough.