Actually I'm looking for Silkroad to reference his assertions about Graves' concept of the maiden,mother,crone, in that they are an ancient, common mother goddess triune. He did mention Shama, Sin and Ishtar. I know there have been other triads, if not in the Christin sense. But thanks for your help.
Do you want me to source the various trinities in different mythologies? Then just read them. Or, do you want me to quote sources that pre-date Graves use of the concept “Virgin-Mother-Crone”?Sources, please, to prove your assertion. He is correct about Graves, your sources to prove otherwise?
I am by no means an expert, but it was explained to me like this:
An egg has three distinct parts:
Yolk
White
Shell
but it all equals one egg.
God is three persons:
Father
Son
Holy Spirit
but it all equals one God. [...]
The Holy Trinity is the One God, like a good father of a family is a doctor by profession, a husband to a wife and daddy to his kids and oftentimes the chauffeur of the family. Akin to role playing but, yeah, a mystery.
It seems it was not very correctly explained to you, because the Triune God is meant to be undivided and without parts, the Persons are meant to be consubstantial etc. It is impossible to find correct analogies for the Holy Trinity, and in what I am concerned, I see no points in trying to make such analogies.
Neither this analogy is correct, in fact it looks more like the heresy of Sabellius Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is anathematized by the Holy Church.
This is what I love about discussions about the Trinity: you can't say a thing without being declared a heretic.
It's just an explanation with the intention to make an example of which, but, I know that it's beyond me. I just believe in the Holy Trinity.Neither this analogy is correct, in fact it looks more like the heresy of Sabellius Sabellianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which is anathematized by the Holy Church.
From a strictly religious point of view, and if you express unorthodox opinions, yes, because faith is not a matter of opinion. But as long as someone obstinately refuses to obey the teachings of the Holy Church, and wishes to be separated from her, I don't understand why that person would care.
Interesting theory.
@Rasta, couldn't the fourth dimension be discarded if we think of God as eternal (timeless)?
It seems it was not very correctly explained to you, because the Triune God is meant to be undivided and without parts, the Persons are meant to be consubstantial etc. It is impossible to find correct analogies for the Holy Trinity, and in what I am concerned, I see no points in trying to make such analogies.
Because Holy Churches have a way of setting up Holy Inquisitions.
If you meant the punishment for heresy, from the spiritual perspective of the Holy Church, to be put under anathema is the most severe, one more severe doesn't exist (Galatians 1:6-9). From the temporal perspective, there are laws which deal with different offences, and heresy was sometimes included amongst those offences. Such laws may vary from times to times and from places to places, whilst the doctrines of the Holy Church cannot change.
They have changed though have they not?
I don't think so. Whomsoever brings innovations in matters of faith is immediately under anathema, because the doctrines of the Holy Church are protected from modifications by anathemas.
Very clever semantics. So it doesn't matter how much people in the church change their opinions, beliefs, and dogma concerning the interpretation of doctrine right?
So for example the Pope saying that people from other faiths can gain salvation would not count to you as a change in doctrine?
And if the pope said such a thing, so what? I am not Catholic. But re: what the pope says, I can recommend you a very good book. It deserves a read:
Amazon.com: The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, Updated and Revised (9780941532983): Rama P. Coomaraswamy: Books
@Rasta:
I am Eastern Orthodox Christian, and my tradition is the Holy Apostolic tradition. If for whatever reasons you don't want to read the book, you can read at the link below the series of articles from which the book developed:
Biography of Rama Coomaraswamy on Studies in Comparative Religion