The doctrine of the Tri-Part man. (page 4)

LittleToe

Gumby:Ya know this kinda stuff is hardly essential reading.

What's the bottom line that most religious literature and religions point to?
Isn't it that the world tells us there's a "Creator", whom we're accountable to?
That all is not right in the world, and we need to connect to "Him"?

Specifically in the case of Christianity, isn't it just that it becomes a very personal relationship? That some part of us (be it bi-part or tri-part) will be with that one after death (answering the desire that most people have regarding life continuing after death)?

Even a child can understand that, and it's not limited to socio/cultural/demographic station.
As for the minutea of the mechanics, that's hardly necessary, as long as the basic philosophy works...

LittleToe

Midget:

Do the experiences of christian mystics have any bearing here?

My doctrines are steeped in the experiential. I find them reflected in religious literature (not just the bible) and to that end I believe I see what the various authors are trying to portray. THAT is one of the main reasons I see benefit in the Bible, and also am unphased by literary criticism of it.
As JamesThomas often says, though, it defies expression...

LittleToe

Didier:

Oops. I missed it. Nidneh is Aramaic, not Hebrew, that's why I couldn't find it in a Hebrew lexicon.

Double oops! My bad, I put it down as being Hebrew, sorry
Keep me straight, Didier, keep me straight!!!

gumby

My doctrines are steeped in the experiential. I find them reflected in religious literature (not just the bible) and to that end I believe I see what the various authors are trying to portray.

I like this approach LT! .....'Experiential'. Tis leaves you accountable to no one, christ included. I can understand this. Are you saying that mans attempts to explain God.....christians included, can be viewed as experiential interpretation? I can see this. Christianity however doesn't leave that option open in many areas. To have or give idea's on mans questions on lifes origin and purpose is natural for man...., but to insist on an absolute dogma relating to the subject is robbery when no conclusive proofs exist.

Gumby

Narkissos

What about 1/4 experiential (expression of first-hand religious experience), 1/4 cultural (reproduction of previously existing patterns), 1/4 political (the necessity of defending or promoting your views and your group against criticism or rival claims in definite historical, economic and social circumstances) and 1/4 literary (the inner logic and sequence of connections in writing, which leads the writer where s/he didn't necessary intend to go)? I guess this approximative recipee would suit many Biblical writings quite well.

LittleToe

Gumby:

...leaves you accountable to no one, christ included.

I would rather put it as being accountable to Christ alone - but that is also an experiential thing

Are you saying that mans attempts to explain God.....christians included, can be viewed as experiential interpretation?

That's exactly how I read it.

Christianity however doesn't leave that option open in many areas.

Christianity does, religion doesn't (especially a few brands of Christian religion).

To have or give idea's on mans questions on lifes origin and purpose is natural for man....

I agree. It's been done since the dawn of time.

...but to insist on an absolute dogma relating to the subject is robbery when no conclusive proofs exist.

I remember a householder once stating that to say you have it all right and evertyone else is wrong, has to be about the most bigotted thing you could even say. I had to agree, and it left a lasting impression on me...

Didier:
I haven't really thought about it in those terms before.

The experiential came first, followed by a natural falling in place of the culturo-literal. The political came later.

As for the literary side, it has to be remembered that the individual writer was writing out of their own experience, which varies from person to person. There are usually common threads, though, which are clear to see...

I've promised myself that I'll eventually get around to writing a "Gospel According to Ross"

LittleToe

In reply to some points raised in the Michael thread :

DD:

LT wrote: Was the unity of the deity of godhead ever broken?
DD wrote: Yes, when the Father forsook the Son.

Are you sure you're answering the right question? I was explicitly talking about his deity.
I believe his spirit was shrouded from his Soul / Body, and so he would feel the separation acutely.

LT wrote: If so, was God ever less than triune?
DD wrote: No, The Son did not cease to exist, nor was he annihilated as the jw's suggest. If we have a problem with this, we probably have a pagan ideal of death, not the Hebrew ideal of separation (death).

I agree.

LT wrote: This comes back to the doctrine of the Tri-part man, as an explanation of how Christ could be foresaken and yet still remain in union.
DD wrote: I don't know about that. I don't know how we have relationships with the various parts of ourselves. We may have three parts, but, not three persons. (although after thinking about this, I catch myself talking to myself.)

It's not so much a matter of having relationships with the parts, any more than a hand has a distinct relationship with a fingernail. The human is a holistic whole.

LT wrote: It also helps us attempt to answer the question "can God die?"
DD wrote: Maybe the better question is "How can God die? not "if God can die".

Maybe you'd like to answeer that qquestion, then

WillPower:

WP wrote: by electronically stimulating the temporal lobes in the brain you can induce a spiritual experience - an epiphany.

A good orgasm can have some folks calling out to god, too!

EW:

LT wrote: The only basis upon which I can accept it is if you take the word "angel" to merely mean messenger or herald and apply that directly to the specific office of the "Word".
EW wrote: LT, how would this ever apply to Jesus? I dont recall that in scripture.

I don't believe it does, but some do. I'm just allowing room to maneuver for those that hold an interpretation that Michael is Jesus. I have no desire to cudgel their beliefs, and I can see their perspective. I just don't share it.

LT wrote: I don't hold that opinion, but I'm not going to fall out with my brethren who do.
EW wrote: Yeah but I'd have a "pocket knife" to grind with them (not of the axe grinding class)

LOL.

EW wrote: You'll have to explain how that "oblong circle" representing Christ theory works?

It's only a philosophical construct to conceptualise how the Jesus remains "God, the Son of God", whilst physically on earth. I've added the picture to this post (along with the original one), for continuity of thread. If God is omniscient, surely he is in ever molecule, anyhow.

EW wrote: Do you think Jesus was triune in the flesh?

I think he became a tri-part man, like the rest of us. The significant difference being that his spirit was "God", of God, connected to God (?) rather than "man", of God, connected to God.

Narkissos

Ross,

Shouldn't your "HS" circle be elongated as well?

When you read Karl Barth you'll be interested in his exposition (and denial) of the classical difference between ontological and economical Trinity.

LittleToe

Didier:Gah!!!
Stop tempting me!
I really have got to have the discipline to leave Barth alone for another couple of months!
LOL.

Why do you say the HS circle needs elongating?

Narkissos

Ross,

Just because the Holy Spirit is supposed to be God's presence in mankind, at least from Jesus' time on. In your "elongated" graphic (which corresponds to the "economical Trinity") it (or he, or she, as you like it) should be on "earth" as well, shouldn't it (s/he)?

The doctrine of the Tri-Part man.

Share this