This is gold. This is the divine mirror to the Oedipus complex, which if understood correctly, is a universal situation of fallen man. The points raised here are exactly why the young child has such a problem traversing the oedipal years, but also why the oedipal years (roughly 3-6) confer such amazing advances in the child’s development, as the child moves from an experience of themselves as the special “I” in I-thou relations to an objective he/she. Mostly a breaking out of our infantile narcissism. However everyone’s oedipal development has its own unique fallen path as we are not born into the trinity but a fallen family and we are fallen too.
@@telosbound Well... Jesus has the faith and the "innocence" to take up the cross and to give up his power (become castrated) voluntarily, as in Abraham and Isaac. So right there is a bridge between the world of fearing death, lacking and taking power and into the world of trusting, accepting "lack", and giving life (in the voluntary allowing of his body to be broken up). So this sounds like the complete reverse of Oedipus, Narcissus and all negative triangular relations. So there is something to that. Perhaps one step further for us then - receiving adoption and sonship in The Trinity (A community of loving persons/minds) might allow us to re-appropriate whatever was traumatic or unresolved in our own oedipal journey, far more easily than trying to find that community of loving minds in humanity without it, as I can experience myself in a way that is REAL (objective) and at the same time Loving (and subjective). Interestingly in the object-relations versions of all this (which I am far more versed in, than the Lacanian), the oedipal complex is resolved by a kind of interiorisation, as the child interiorises (relates to them internally, via memory and fantasy, identification etc) first their I-Thou relations (eg mother) and then the relations between those other persons in their key I-Thou relations most specifically the parents (but also siblings and grandparents and very important others). But this is not the truly ontological interiorisation that takes place via The Holy Spirit.
@@telosbound So I have been trying to understand the lacanian/zizekian stuff because it is more connected to broader philosophical conversations, and to theology (as in your work around zizek's self-relating negativity), while I would love to bring into this discussion the object-relational ideas which I think are a bridge back to a universe that at least has the potential to be bathed in meaning and love (the possibility is there), as I see the oedipal complex as a fall away from our place being raised in a community of truly loving minds, where we grow incrementally according to what we can handle (we dont bite off more than we can chew, we dont take the fruit of knowledge for ourselves) and then we have the possibility of acting in faith, to give from the life that God gives us, and not from a place of personal control and autonomy. And of course you can imagine a broad spectrum from being too scared to go up the mountain and put yourself on the sacrificial table, to perhaps eventually doing it - and discovering that God's life continues beyond your own limits, to the rapid spiral downward of self-relating negativity and this passed along and reacted to down the generations.
Man, I love this channel! I am Roman Catholic and I haven't seen any differences in these two videos between our understanding of the trinity and the Orthodox understanding. Except perhaps that instead of describing the three persons for their attributes, we'd rather describe them in terms of relations. They are these relations, the way in which they relate to one another. The attributes are derived from the relations. Which is how the so hotly debated filioque makes perfect sense of the distinction between begetting and spirating. The filioque is also a good framework for making sense of the role of the Spirit as described in this video.
Thank you for this video! I really like how you explained it, even though its supposedly a "mystery" of faith. Would you say that it bears relation to hegel's dialectics? Taking into account that he originally studied theology and his fixation on spirit it's pretty safe to assume that he got it from the bible, but I don't know what's a Christian's take on it. I see that you have a copy of the Phenomenology of the Spirit in your bookcase, so maybe you can explain develop on it a bit? It would be truly interesting. Thank you again! Love your videos.
There are three because either: Father and son require a mother/wife, which is the Holy Spirit, or God is Soul/Spirit/Body, as we are, made in his image and likeness, and these are Father, Holy Spirit and Jesus.
Could the need for a third be imperfectly compared to the child of the loving couple? The child extends the couple's love from something private, something hidden between just two, into something projected out into space and time. Wherever the child goes, whoever the child touches, he publically extends the love that would have been private without him. Not saying the Trinity is a couple with a child, just seeing how created things imperfectly and fractally mirror something eternal.
The issue that I see with this explanation is that the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the premisses. Surely, a communion of just two entities doesn't open up an unlimited horizon. But, as far as I can gather, neither does the introduction of a third person. Another person in communion is simply another person in communion, how can it simultaneously represent the "inclusion in principle of all that can exist"? The inclusion of all that can exist can only be achieved by the inclusion of all that can exist. If communion is the fullness of existance, and god's mode of being must be one of relation, than I think the conclusion we can derive is that god is composed of infinetely many persons, as any finite number would mean that god is limited in its capacity for communion. The same characteristics applied to the communion of just two can be applied to the communion of just three: considered in itself it represents a certain act of limitation. And the possibility of more than one "acting as a third", seems to be a linguistic way of glossing over this limitation of three, since more than one placed in the position of a third, leads to there being more than three. Also, I see no reason for the limitation of space to just three dimensions to be revelation of the intrinsic character of god as being coposed of three persons. What would the relation be between the number of spatial dimensions and the number of persons that compose god? If something is gonna be a sign in the world that hints at the number of persons that composed god , wouldn't the persons in the world be the direct way of probing into that? Following this path, we see that the number of persons can be arbitrarilly increased, and this can be the "revelation of the intrinsic character of god" as being infinitely many persons infinitely relating to each other. Keeping in the paradigm that relation is the fullness of existance. Any finite number of persons in relation is a closed circuit. And any finite addition of persons can't represent an ultimate confirmation of existance (the validity of this paradigm that needs an ultimate confirmation could also be questioned). And if the fullness of existance can only be achieved by communion, and communion can only be achieved by multiple persons, than this leads me to conclude that every possible person is contingent, as they all need each other in order to be fully actualized.
Wonderful. I think you could also make the argument from the inherent logic of the ongoing *process* of making a creature, Adam, in the image of God, an image realized as a motion picture of procreative intersubjective love between male and female, revealing the drama of love’s blissful consummation as the very means thru which the two enjoin themselves to God’s creative act, becoming one flesh in the making of an other, become one flesh in the Son, the son, the daughter, children-love made flesh in family. The making of every child images the trinity. The image of God is a family portrait, albeit always a motion picture in the making.
I like the analogy with three dimensions. It makes me think of the threeness of vision as well-the necessity of foreground and background and POV. To see, that is to know, only Thou or even It, narrows being into a mutually imprisoned subjectivity. The Holy Spirit is not given a proper name *not* because he’s not a Person but because the third Person of the Trinity reveals the open space in Being where love is free to be found in the woods or under a waterfall. The Word gives form to beauty, calling us ever deeper into elaborately articulate love in the knowledge of God’s Son, but the Spirit that hovered over the waters in creation-He is ever calling us forth, up, out into ecstatic adventure in the freedom of love. The Wind blows wherever it wills. We are free to turn to God in worship thru the liturgy, to be transformed form on glory to another-to see face to face-and we are free to turn toward the world in the creative work of cultivating God’s Garden way of homemaking *with* God, to see his glory in creation-shoulder to shoulder, as it were.
Please let me know if I get this right. So within the Godhead there are three distinct yet not separate from one another self-aware realities who know themselves fully in the other two. And they share one Divine knowledge, power, will etc... which is expressed by each Divine Person differently according to His unique Hypostatic way of existing in relation to the other two
@@elijah4168 A person has aspects. The godhead is not 3 people acting as one. The godhead is one person with 3 aspects. People confuse Jesus with the Logos. They are 2 separate things. Did you know that anyone that God chooses has access to the power of the Logos? The aspects of god is what we call the trinity. You know what? I should write a book explaining what the trinity is and what is not.
If possible, id like to hear you elaborate more on the spirits role in the trinity. I have a better understanding as to the spirits role and how 3 is necessitated, but I'm having hard time now understanding why the spirit needs to be a hypostasis for the trinity to work, as opposed to being just the object or atmosphere of the 2. Also, why is the 3rd represented by the spirit and not the essence itself, since the essence is neither one or many according to the theology, wouldnt the divine essence effectively be a 3rd if its not identical to one or many? And lastly, if there needs to be 3 persons who share 1 essence, wouldnt that make the trinity a "quadrinity"? If the essence is distinct from the 3 persons, how is that not considered a 4th? Also, i thought the oneness or "monarchia" is summed up in the father, but the spirit is posited as the unifier of the 2, and i thought the unity was summed up in the father, so theres a confusion on that for me as well, I was hoping to get some help with these dilemmas. Also i have a video that helps to sum up the whole "4th" issue if your interested, hope to hear from you!
Genesis 1 uses ELOHIM and RUACH ELOHIM only. Genesis 2 uses YAHWEH of ELOHIM for Garden of Eden. Elohim is the plural construct "powers". Hebrew grammar allows for this form to mean "He is the Power (singular) over powers (plural)".
PERFECT knowledge is nothing more than ABSOLUTE knowledge. Knowing everything, no need to acquire knowledge because of absolute knowledgeability. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE!! Nor does it exist to explain why you belief in family of deities and than try to prove that you are a monotheist. God loves those who follow the prophet that he sent to them in full conviction and truth. If that library behind you is yours, I would advice you to diversify it. You are young, time is on your side.
How can you love that which you have no understanding of at all? How can you know its the right way to love; how do you assure you're not misguided, if you cannot understand love. To love is to understand love as you love. How else do you know its love and not something else if you do not become understanding. There are laws to love, you can't just get away with any which way to love; it has to be in perfect relation to that which asks your love. How do you recognise something if you have no knowledge.
It's funny how you talk about knowledge and in the same time you talk about islam (if I understand your words correctly) - science in the modern meaning of the word is a product of the Christian world, an ancient form of science we can find in every single civilization except the muslim civilization because all of their science they took from the greeks and you should know that. The koran is the worst possible cover of the Bible, just a mix between poor versions of the biblical stories and war agitations. Of course you don't want to look it that way because by the sheriat every muslim who decides to reject islam and join another religion should be killed - and if you kill such a man you will have more vergins that can't get pregnant in your commic porn version of heaven - so nice really...
I never even heard of the Shield of the Trinity while I was still a Christian, but if I had, I probably would have gotten out sooner. It makes ZERO sense, and every explanation I've ever heard requires the disabling of one's reason. Oh, A is god and B is god, A isn't B and B isn't A. Come on, now. To say exactly nothing of other belief systems describing their "god" in faceted personalities, such as Brahman, Atman, Shiva, Shakti, and being lectured by Christianity why that can't be true. This is precisely how cults work: "Oh, this is so mysterious that hardly anyone but the most [insert loyalist adjective here] can get it."
These videos are a little long but it's an important issue because it's still a common argument levied by Muslims to this day. ru-vid.com?search_query=logical+argument+against+trinity+branson
If you follow the classical Christian distinction between God (The Eternal Creator of all being, Who creates the time and space and is beyond them - even this we cannot fully imagine) and His creation (the universe), you have to accept that God Himself is The Absolute and there is no limitations for Him. At the same time the creation isn`t equal to God - the creation is limited by that definition. So the human mind and the laws of logic as a part of the creation also have their limitations. If the laws of logic could fully discribe the nature of God without any paradox, would that be really God? Or more likely this will be the idol that we build ourselfs because it fits our imagination... But if we open ourselfs for The Divine reality which comes from above ("from above" means that we are "bellow", so we cannot have control over it or complete rational understanding of it) we can really expirience God`s love because (again paradox) God is transcendent to the world by His Nature, but immanent to the world by His Energies. Every single dogma in the Orthodox Church is a paradox and for me this is a sign of the revelation. It isn't just some nonsense, it is the revelation from the absolutly perfect dimension when one can be equal to three in the name of love. Christ is risen!
Waaw you sound so sophisticated when you talk but when you really listen to yourself you will see all you are saying is not only baseless but totally ILLOGICAL! Baseless because God never tells he is multi personal nor does he tell he can’t love while being One in being and One in person. Taking the cube that you used as an example to understand why this is illogical: Is any one dimension of the cube EQUAL to the CUBE? The direct answer is NO, right? Why? The cube is ONE in being and ONE in personhood so to say. But the God you are describing is according to Christian dogma and orthodoxy ONE in being and THREE in personhood. Each one person is unique but still that same being. This breaks the laws of identity and is hence false.
O, N, E --> ONE. Distinct and one in essense. Does it still make no sense to you, or are you going to now tell me that the alphabet and words "break the law of identity and are therefore false"?
@@lejspul7655 very lazy or simple minded? What about T,W,O? Or S,I,X? or T,E,N? Gods? ONE is not the only word with three letters, nothing new here! Not that they matter because your thinking is flawed! The concept that you are trying to give an analogy for has nothing to do with this simple analogy you choose because you don’t think it through. O != ONE N != ONE E != ONE While Father = God Son = God Spirit = God And as a conclusion you can’t say O, N and E are not 3 letters but ONE letter, see? Nor can you say O, N and E are not 3 words but ONE word. In other words, try again, and keep do so till death or accept Islam which is simply The Truth!
@@brianguglielmin2873 What is John’s last name? And why should I care about what John says exactly? You have 4 different accounts called Gospels about the life of Jesus, why do you and every Christian I exchange words with pick verses from John and not the other accounts when proofing the divinity of Jesus? Is it because John is the real Holy Spirited man and the other 3 are false accounts or is it just because you know as I know that the accounts that are oldest according to historians don’t contain this polemic message that “whoever John may be” has put together? Whatever chapter of the book of John you point to, it contains a message by an unanimous man called John not the Words of Jesus. You nor your pastor have any clue about what Jesus said. You follow only conjecture! Like trying to argue God being THREE persons by utilizing the word ONE! Try that for logic! سبحان الله
