A History of God: Chapters 3 & 4

[Joseph_F]

I am very behind on keeping the discussion with the reading schedule, but I'm hoping to get caught up soon.

In any case, here is the official discussion thread for chapters 3&4

Some discussion thoughts (but please feel free to add your own!)

Chapter 3: A Light to the Gentiles

1. As she points out, in many ways Jesus did not fit the commonly accepted idea of what the Messiah would be. Most Jews believed that the Messiah would be fully human, a military leader who would deliver his people within his lifetime. Instead Jesus was a peacemaker, a manifestation of God, and delivers in all sorts of ways on all sorts of timelines depending on which theology you subscribe to. How much of this shift was due to the necessity of the time? How much was due to how Jesus's life unfolded? Does Jesus actually fulfill the role of Messiah as he had been described by Jews previous to his birth?

2. "All religions change and develop. If they do not, they will become obsolete." True? Not true? And if a religion changes (the Catholic church being a very good recent example), doe that change the God the religion worships?

3. Had you ever heard of bodhisattva? Why do you think it is a tendency of many religions to create human intermediaries between themselves and the divine? (Buddhism, bodhisattva. Catholics, saints. Jews, Talmudic scholars. Many modern evangelicals, a personal Jesus)

4. I actually haven't read the New Testament except in excerpt, so I can't judge her assertion that the concept of Original Sin and the redemption thereof never appears within it. If so, why don't you think it was mentioned? What do the gospels explicitly say Jesus's death was for? What might that mean?

Chapter 4: Trinity: The Christian God

1. Where do you think the idea that God created the world out of nothing came from, when Genesis clearly says that God had materials to start with? If we just go from Genesis, why does it start with certain things in existence (darkness, the waters, etc.)? Are these metaphors? Did God create these but Genesis starts after that creation? Or...?

2. I find it interesting that the creed on page 111 spends so much time on the Father and the Son, and only one line on the Holy Spirit. Why does the Holy Spirit get such short mention? Why is it needed in the Trinity? Why couldn't there just be the Father and the Son?

3. Armstrong says that even before the early Christians could articulate exactly the theology that would make Jesus's divinity work out in a way they could accept, they insisted on the importance that he be divine. Why was that so important to them, when so many other early religious leaders and would-be Messiahs made no such claims nor had no such claims made about them?

4. On the top of pg. 114 she mentions the meaning of myth as experiential, which we've discussed before. There is too much here for me to summarize, but Joseph Campbell is really the person who explicated the symbolic language of myth and how it allows believers to experience the story as a living thing rather than as text to be learned. Not really a question, just a note.

5. Later she compares describing God to describing music. This could be a good metaphor for her insistence that the Bible does not mean literally its description of theophanies (meetings with God), but is rather trying to describe the experience in metaphors in the same way you'd describe a really great song to someone who had never heard it.

6. What is your take on the Trinity? Is it paradoxical? Is it supposed to be paradoxical, as the Eastern churches say? Does it make perfect sense? And what is that Holy Spirit?

[Choisya]

I'll have a go at two of these Joseph, the others are too religious.

Chapter 1:3. Had you ever heard of bodhisattva?

Bodhisattvas were (are) Buddhist monks who sacrificed their own happiness for the sake of the people and returned to the world to teach others to find liberation. They were (are) motivated by compassion and seek enlightenment for themselves and for everyone. They practiced a version of the ancient Golden Rule  and Karen Armstrong thinks that this Axial Age ideal is what is needed in today's world.   The Dalai Lama is a Bodhisattva, as his message after 9/11 showed (especially the final paragaph).  

(I hope folks will listen to the Karen Armstrong lecture because it gives a great deal of insight into her thinking about religion and it might dispel some of the 'myths' about her which I have read here.)   

Chapter 4: Trinity: The Christian God

1. Where do you think the idea that God created the world out of nothing came from, when Genesis clearly says that God had materials to start with? If we just go from Genesis, why does it start with certain things in existence (darkness, the waters, etc.)? Are these metaphors? Did God create these but Genesis starts after that creation? Or...?

Wikipedia summarises creatio ex nihilo thus:  Before the last few centuries of the pre-Christian era, ancient Near Eastern mythologies envisioned the creation of the world as resulting from the actions of a god or gods upon already-existing primeval matter - the waters of chaos. The Greek philosophers came to question this (on a priori grounds), discussing the idea that a primeval Being (not conceived as a god or as God in the Christian sense) must have created the world out of nothing. Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenised Jew of the 1st century BC, melded together the Greek idea with the Book of Genesis's idea of creation and initiated the idea that a supernatural being (the Hebrew God) equated to the Being of whom Plato had written; early Christian thinkers later seized upon this identification and developed it into the idea of creation ex nihilo by their God. Jewish thinkers then took up the idea, which became important to Judaism, to Christianity and, later, to Islam:

Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.
(2 Maccabees 7:28, 100 BC)

I also think we have to take into consideration (if we are not literalists that is) that there were many Creation myths around at this time, all of which had certain things in common and that Genesis is likely to be an amalgam of some of these.  This will account for the discrepancies, both in the thinking and in the errors that may have occurred in the early copying by scribes.     

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-18-2009 04:06 PM

[Choisya]

Y'all are a lazy lot!   At least you could pitch in on the religious bits about the Trinity and stuff, about which I know very little.  In her chapter on Trinity: The Christian God (Chapter 4) Armstrong refers to the differences between the beliefs of the Niceans and the Cappadocians, the Western and the Eastern church, and writes:

'Thus the hypostases [basis/foundation] of the Father, Son and Spirit should not be identified with God himself, because, as Gregory of Nyassa explained, 'the divine nature (ousia) is unnameable and unspeakable': 'Father', 'Son' and 'Spirit' are only 'terms that we use' to speak of the energeiai [energy of God] by which has has made himself known.  Yet these terms have symbolic value because they translate the ineffable reality into images that we can understand.  Men have experienced God as transcendent (the Father, hidden in inaccessible light), as creative (the Logos) and as immanent (the Holy Spirit).  But these three hypostases are only partial and incomplete glimpses of the Divine Nature itself, which lies far beyond such imagery and conceptualisation'. The Trinity, therefore, should not be seen as a literal fact but as a paradigm that corresponds to real facts in the hidden life of God.' [My emphasis.]

Does this fit in with what folks here understand as The Trinity?  

[Peppermill]

This is a lazy response, since I haven't had time to review these links, but here are PCUSA sites on Trinity.   If they are typical, some will be quite useful, others probably hopeless distractions.

Here is a New Advent site on Trinity.

The Trinity in stained glass (use previous and next window selections as needed).

---

Choisya wrote:

Y'all are a lazy lot!   At least you could pitch in on the religious bits about the Trinity and stuff, about which I know very little.  In her chapter on Trinity: The Christian God (Chapter 4) Armstrong refers to the differences between the beliefs of the Niceans and the Cappadocians, the Western and the Eastern church, and writes:

'Thus the hypostases [basis/foundation] of the Father, Son and Spirit should not be identified with God himself, because, as Gregory of Nyassa explained, 'the divine nature (ousia) is unnameable and unspeakable': 'Father', 'Son' and 'Spirit' are only 'terms that we use' to speak of the energeiai [energy of God] by which has has made himself known.  Yet these terms have symbolic value because they translate the ineffable reality into images that we can understand.  Men have experienced God as transcendent (the Father, hidden in inaccessible light), as creative (the Logos) and as immanent (the Holy Spirit).  But these three hypostases are only partial and incomplete glimpses of the Divine Nature itself, which lies far beyond such imagery and conceptualisation'. The Trinity, therefore, should not be seen as a literal fact but as a paradigm that corresponds to real facts in the hidden life of God.' [My emphasis.]

Does this fit in with what folks here understand as The Trinity?  

---

Message Edited by Peppermill on 05-23-2009 09:38 PM

[Choisya]

Thanks P. It is all very complicated!  I read the New Advent website and was hopelessly confused.  

Do all Christian religions/sects believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?  I don't think Jews have the equivalent?  Muslims don't, although they recognise Jesus as a prophet and acknowledge a Holy Spirit in the form of the Angel Gabriel.  It seems to be a major dividing point between the monotheistic religions?  Perhaps Joseph knows something about this. 

This is what the Koran says about the doctrine of the Trinity:

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran 4:171)

"They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them." (Koran 5:73)    [My emphasis.]

[IBIS]

My understanding of the Holy Trinity is a simple one, perfectly attuned with my layperson's faith.

I remember a story about St. Augustine and the Trinity. St. Augustine who was then struggling with the dogma of the Trinity, was strolling along the seashore. He saw a young child busily filling a small bucket with water. The child then ran back and poured the water into a small hole in the sand.

He did this many times. St. Augustine asked him what he was doing. The child said that he was trying to pour the entire ocean into that hole in the sand. St. Augustine told him that it was impossible. The ocean was much too big to fit into that small hole.

The child then said that St. Augustine was doing the same thing. He was trying to understand the complex nature of the Trinity and make it fit into his limited human understanding.

The only analogy that ever worked for me is the example of water. There are 3 different forms that it can take: ice, water and steam. They are merely different phenomena of the same thing.

To me, there is only one God. And the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons of the same God.

[Peppermill]

Ibis -- beautiful.  Thanks for sharing.

I was reminded of this discussion here of the Trinity this Sunday as our local church service closed with "Eternal Father, Strong to Save."  One of the comments within our congregation is that often it is hymns that express our theology or at least our laymen's concepts thereof.  (I did not know that this hymn has been linked with the U.S. Navy until I went looking for the lyrics on-line, but how like our music director to make the connection for our Memorial Weekend service!)

Like you, Ibis, I never considered "Trinity" to be an expression of "multiple Gods", but rather as different manifestations of (ineffable) God.  However, when it is brought to my attention, I understand how other trains of thought/logic can be made.  Also, church history has made me more aware of the "battles" that were waged over whether Jesus is divine.

Pepper

[Laurel]

Now that hymn is going to be floating through my head all night long! It's one of my many favorites.

Choisya was asking whether most Christians believe in the Trinity. I think so. Catholics, Orthodox, and probably every Protestant denomination but Unitarian. Belief in the Trinity is one thing that has tied us all together down through the ages.

---

Peppermill wrote:

Ibis -- beautiful.  Thanks for sharing.

I was reminded of this discussion here of the Trinity this Sunday as our local church service closed with "Eternal Father, Strong to Save."  One of the comments within our congregation is that often it is hymns that express our theology or at least our laymen's concepts thereof.  (I did not know that this hymn has been linked with the U.S. Navy until I went looking for the lyrics on-line, but how like our music director to make the connection for our Memorial Weekend service!)

Like you, Ibis, I never considered "Trinity" to be an expression of "multiple Gods", but rather as different manifestations of (ineffable) God.  However, when it is brought to my attention, I understand how other trains of thought/logic can be made.  Also, church history has made me more aware of the "battles" that were waged over whether Jesus is divine.

Pepper

---

[Choisya]

Thanks folks.  It is still very confusing.  My OEED defines Trinity theol. as 'the three persons of the Christian Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)' which I interpret to mean God, Jesus and an Angel.  It defines the Holy Spirit as the 'third person of the Trinity'.  Paintings through the ages have also shown three different elements to the Trinity so it is small wonder that people (like me!) see the Trinity as meaning three persons and not one. This RC explanation of the Holy Ghost goes into very complex and detailed explanations, (including that he is 'one person').  I find it all too tiresome to contemplate. After reading about it, my conclusion was that I just do not care, why bother with all that sophistry.

Also, when I have been in Catholic churches, the 'equal' way that the Virgin Mary and Jesus are portrayed could lead one to think that she too is part of the Trinity and divine etc., so again, that must have given rise to misunderstandings throughout the ages. 

Folks might like to read this article on the Koran's interpretation of the Virgin Mary - her name is mentioned 30 times in the Koran.  The Koran interprets the Holy Spirit as the Angel Gabriel but as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Muslims deny the idea of a Trinity because they did not see it as meaning one god.   I sympathise with their p.o.v., given all the confusion that surrounds the idea.      

My atheist brain is obviously not up to all this esoteric stuff. 

[dulcinea3]

I have been browsing around on various boards and came across this discussion.  I realize that this is supposed to be a discussion of a specific book (which I have not read), but it seems to have evolved into a more personal discussion of people's views and understanding of the Holy Trinity, so I thought it might be ok for me to say what I believe.

In college, my Jewish boyfriend used to tease me all the time that we (I'm Catholic, but I guess it applies to most Christians) worshipped multiple gods because of the Trinity.  I do believe that his understanding of it was really that there were three separate deities involved, although I tried to tell him that this was incorrect.  I like Ibis' interpretation:

---

IBIS wrote:

My understanding of the Holy Trinity is a simple one, perfectly attuned with my layperson's faith.

... 

The only analogy that ever worked for me is the example of water. There are 3 different forms that it can take: ice, water and steam. They are merely different phenomena of the same thing.

To me, there is only one God. And the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons of the same God.

---

I agree that there is one God, and these are different manifestations of Him.  To me, the Father is the intangible, all-knowing, all-powerful God, who exists throughout all time and space.  The Son is Jesus, who was the human son of God, pure and without sin, who was resurrected and bodily raised to Heaven, where he is joined with the Father.  To me, he is the manifestation of God on Earth.  I struggled for a long time with the concept of the Holy Spirit, because I just couldn't undestand what it was.  Finally, I came to believe that the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of God within each of us.  In catechism, there was the old question/reponse, "Is God in all things?" "Yes, God is in all things."  So, God is in us, and that is what the Holy Spirit is.  The conscience may be linked to the Holy Spirit, and/or it may even be our soul.  So, in my conception, each of the three elements of the Holy Trinity becomes more local and concentrated, from all of time and space, to the individual human.

I also agree with Choisya that Mary is tangled up in there somewhere.  Maybe it was ancient patriarchal beliefs that kept her from being 'officially' included.  But, like her son Jesus, she was without sin and was also bodily raised up to Heaven.  She performs the role of an intercessor, so that we pray to her as well, as in the Rosary.  In her various manifestations (Fatima, Lourdes, etc.), she is a kind of go-between between the divine and the humans who see her.  Here in the U.S., in the Catholic churches, the main figure behind the alter is Christ on the cross.  I noticed when I was in Spain, that the prominent figure is the Virgin and Child.  I found that very interesting, and there is a much more pronounced Marian aspect to Spanish Catholicism.

[Choisya]

Hi Dulcie!  Nice to see you here.  The reason we are discussing the Trinity is because it is one of the questions Joseph asked us about when he opened this thread on HoG Chaps 3&4. 

Your boyfriend perhaps illustrates the fact that you were taught about the Trinity but he and I were not.  Maybe that is the key - you have to be taught that the Trinity is not 'three persons' because if you just hear about it or read about it or see the pictures/statues you can easily come to the conclusion that it means exactly that, three persons, God, Jesus and a Spirit/Angel. 

In her book The Great Transformation Karen Armstrong writes, re the idea that some have (not her!) that all theology be 'scrapped', or that it is now irrelevant: 'Instead of jettisoning religious doctrines, we should look for their spiritual kernel. A religious teaching is never simply a statement of objective fact: it is a programme for action. Paul quoted that early Christian hymn to the Philippians not to lay down the law about the incarnation, but to urge them to practice kenosis themselves. If they behaved like Christ, they would discover the truth of their beliefs about him.  Similarly, the doctrine of the Trinity was meant in part to remind Christians that they could not think about God as a simple personality, and that the divine essence lay beyond their grasp....the object of the doctrine is to inspire contemplation and ethical action.  This leads into her idea about the Golden Rule/Compassion being the essence of all the major religions, that religion should be practised (as Jesus practised it), not preached.

---

dulcinea3 wrote:

I have been browsing around on various boards and came across this discussion.  I realize that this is supposed to be a discussion of a specific book (which I have not read), but it seems to have evolved into a more personal discussion of people's views and understanding of the Holy Trinity, so I thought it might be ok for me to say what I believe.

In college, my Jewish boyfriend used to tease me all the time that we (I'm Catholic, but I guess it applies to most Christians) worshipped multiple gods because of the Trinity.  I do believe that his understanding of it was really that there were three separate deities involved, although I tried to tell him that this was incorrect.  I like Ibis' interpretation:

---

IBIS wrote:

My understanding of the Holy Trinity is a simple one, perfectly attuned with my layperson's faith.

... 

The only analogy that ever worked for me is the example of water. There are 3 different forms that it can take: ice, water and steam. They are merely different phenomena of the same thing.

To me, there is only one God. And the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different persons of the same God.

---

I agree that there is one God, and these are different manifestations of Him.  To me, the Father is the intangible, all-knowing, all-powerful God, who exists throughout all time and space.  The Son is Jesus, who was the human son of God, pure and without sin, who was resurrected and bodily raised to Heaven, where he is joined with the Father.  To me, he is the manifestation of God on Earth.  I struggled for a long time with the concept of the Holy Spirit, because I just couldn't undestand what it was.  Finally, I came to believe that the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of God within each of us.  In catechism, there was the old question/reponse, "Is God in all things?" "Yes, God is in all things."  So, God is in us, and that is what the Holy Spirit is.  The conscience may be linked to the Holy Spirit, and/or it may even be our soul.  So, in my conception, each of the three elements of the Holy Trinity becomes more local and concentrated, from all of time and space, to the individual human.

I also agree with Choisya that Mary is tangled up in there somewhere.  Maybe it was ancient patriarchal beliefs that kept her from being 'officially' included.  But, like her son Jesus, she was without sin and was also bodily raised up to Heaven.  She performs the role of an intercessor, so that we pray to her as well, as in the Rosary.  In her various manifestations (Fatima, Lourdes, etc.), she is a kind of go-between between the divine and the humans who see her.  Here in the U.S., in the Catholic churches, the main figure behind the alter is Christ on the cross.  I noticed when I was in Spain, that the prominent figure is the Virgin and Child.  I found that very interesting, and there is a much more pronounced Marian aspect to Spanish Catholicism.

---

Message Edited by Choisya on 05-27-2009 03:13 PM

[Peppermill]

I'll just add "Amen, amen, amen" to this discussion!  Praise and glory to God, the Lord Almighty, forever and ever.  (Read a treatise today for Dante that suggested "eternity" is more a spiritual, religious concept than a mathematical or scientific one.)  I think of the Holy Spirit as being that presence that is often sensed when two or more are gathered together, especially in fellowship, but sometimes even in dissension.

[Choisya]

All too religious for me P.

---

Peppermill wrote:
I'll just add "Amen, amen, amen" to this discussion!  Praise and glory to God, the Lord Almighty, forever and ever.  (Read a treatise today for Dante that suggested "eternity" is more a spiritual, religious concept than a mathematical or scientific one.)  I think of the Holy Spirit as being that presence that is often sensed when two or more are gathered together, especially in fellowship, but sometimes even in dissension.

---

[Joseph_F]

Hi everyone, my apologies for disappearing for awhile, but I went on vacation and internet access was not as easily accesible as I thought it would be.

Obviously we will not be finishing the book this month, but I'm rolling over the books to next month as well, so it should give us plenty of time to get through them.

[Peppermill]

I figured you might react that way, Choisya, but decided to post anyway.  Somehow, "the Spirit moved me."

---

Choisya wrote:

All too religious for me P.

---

Peppermill wrote:
I'll just add "Amen, amen, amen" to this discussion!  Praise and glory to God, the Lord Almighty, forever and ever.  (Read a treatise today for Dante that suggested "eternity" is more a spiritual, religious concept than a mathematical or scientific one.)  I think of the Holy Spirit as being that presence that is often sensed when two or more are gathered together, especially in fellowship, but sometimes even in dissension.

---

---

[Peppermill]

Yesterday was Trinity Sunday, at least in the faith I practice.  This was part of the service:

Call to Worship

Leader: Do you want to know what goes on in the heart of the Trinity?  I'll tell you.

People:  At the heart of the Trinity, the Father laughs, and gives birth to the Son.

Leader:  The Son laughs back at the Father and gives birth to the Holy Spirit.

People:  Then the whole Trinity laughs and gives birth to us.

Leader:  Let us worship the Triune God who loves us, the Father Son and Holy Spirit.  

Meister Eckhart (1260--1327)

The preaching pastor's sermon included a quotation or paraphrase from Augustine, who apparently wrote much on the Trinity (and which I have not read), to the effect that belief in the Trinity is integral to faith but that complete understanding is impossible for the mind to grasp.

Message Edited by Peppermill on 06-08-2009 11:18 AM

[Choisya]

What is the relevance of laughter here P?  

[Laurel]

---

Choisya wrote:
What is the relevance of laughter here P?  

---

I'll give a response to that. The laughter comes from the joy God has in His creation, His being, His plan, and His people. It is a joyful thing to be in God's hands, even in the midst of pain and heartache.

The joy of the Lord is our strength.

Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say, Rejoice.

Happy is the people whose God is the Lord.

[Peppermill]

I read it the way Laurel does -- that seems consistent with what I know of Meister Eckhart's writings.

Meister Eckhart 

(I have not read this, but I have sat in on lectures that have talked about him and his work.)

---

Laurel wrote:

---

Choisya wrote:
What is the relevance of laughter here P?  

---

I'll give a response to that. The laughter comes from the joy God has in His creation, His being, His plan, and His people. It is a joyful thing to be in God's hands, even in the midst of pain and heartache.

The joy of the Lord is our strength.

Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say, Rejoice.

Happy is the people whose God is the Lord.

---

[Joseph_F]

Laughter is a kind of joy that acknowledges the paradox and absurdity of life and the universe. In that sense, it's not surprising that laughter and humor has often been incorporated into religion.

Not based on any research that one, just my own opinion.