"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 20:13:18 -0500 george murphy <email@example.com>
> > "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:I don't think "Trinity" is a very good
> > basis
> > for your point. I believe that, while the term is not biblical, the
> > concept is, and could be recognized only on the basis of revelation.
> > The
> > traditional rejection, on the basis that 1+1+1 cannot equal 1, is
> > philosophical in nature. Only recently have some recognized that
> > aleph-null x3 necessarily equals aleph-null.
> > Both arguments miss the point since they fail to realize
> > that
> > the unity of God can be organic rather than mathematical. The
> > doctrine
> > of the Trinity is not theological algebra.
> > Shalom,
> > George
> Yes, George, you know that. But how many who are not trained in theology
> will recognize your point? In contrast, it seems that all Jews and
> Moslems, along with many others, know the addition problem.
Unfortunately even many who are "trained in theology" miss the
point. The root of the problem is starting with a concept of a single
divine nature which is known apart from revelation, & then trying to
shoehorn a threefold character into it somehow. The fact that western
theology for ~700 years started with an article on the unity of God & only
then spoke of the Trinity, instead of the other way around, meant that the
Trinity was always going to be a problem. If we start properly with God's
revelation in Jesus who spoke of God as his Father and who promised the
Spirit then doctrines of the Trinity are answers rather than questions.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 09 2001 - 20:05:06 EST