And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
If I read it correctly, the Christian and jewish God is in fact several ones. How do you interpret it?
God is an undivided Trinity...... The three in one and one in three......
That would be the father, the son and the holy spirit If I remember well. Jesus must be the son. What would be the diference between the father and the holy spirit? Is the entity of Yahveh is mostly the father figure or the is he allways the three at the same time? It's all a little blurry to me.
Don't burn too many calories trying to make sense of it. The Christian legend is just a vile distortion of pre-Judeo mysticism that is much more clear on the matter. In the beginning was the Father (Being) and Mother (Nothingness), and their union created the Child (the Universe).
I refrain from making any specific implications, but it is an interesting question; why did Christians removed the "Mother" from the original Trinity?
Actually the next obvious question would be who created the nothingness with which the Father united with? Have they both existed from all time? If that's is the case than what implications follow? Are the father, mother and child mutually exclusive, thus implying their own exclusively inherent divinity, therefore also implying a sort of polytheism? I get the feeling we are not really talking about the same Trinity to be quite frank. Catholics have a mother by the way, the Virgin Mary. Maybe, "mother" was removed from the "original" trinity because a new revelation deemed it false?
It is not so complicated if we divorce ourselves from the egotistical assumption that the universe was "created" by some anthropomorphic will. Stephen Hawking does a better job of explaining the Cosmic Egg's (singularity) impregnation by the Father's Seed (quantum fluctuations, which are small but when the universe is compressed into an infinitely smooth point of zero-space, all it takes is a little nudge to set off quite a big reaction) than religions do.
You can spawn a never-ending reductionist trap of questions if you begin with the idea of "will" and creation" though. That's why the handfuk of people who are really able to comprehend and explain this stufft remove the human element as far as possible from their assumptions and conclusions. The universe just doesn't make sense if you assume that it *built* just for us.
That was my point in the first place. You said that the Catholic Trinity removed Mother from the original Trinity, I was responding that your idea of the Trinity is different from the Catholic conception of the Trinity and your responses have verified that. As a side note, the idea of an Anthropomorphic will creating something is an oversimplification of Catholic Cosmology. Yes, life and the creation of the Universe is complicated, mysterious and not likely to be fully explained by human reason. Its no less egotistical to assume the Stephen Hawking via the scientific method and human reason has successfully explained the origin of life, universe etc. If you really believe that the science removes the human element from its explanations than I think you need to go back and read about the history and development of science, especially regarding the human made philosophical assumptions that underlie it all. Btw, Im not attacking science here but science is the ultimate expression of how human reason/rationality understands reality, i.e., the human mind projects, via science, its own laws onto reality in order to understand and make sense of reality (as it must, according to its nature). Knowledge gained through science is as much about revealing "laws" in nature as it is about understanding how human reason operates.
Actually, there is no reductionist trap if we begin with the idea that the Universe was created, I know very well where that reduction ends and it probably includes, in way way or another, the very idea of creation you are espousing. However, it goes further because it is not trapped in Rationalism, or the idea that because the human mind cannot penetrate any further that mother, father, child that nothing exists beyond it. In the end, it is a matter of doing justice to the idea of a "Creator" so that He is not reduced to some sort of superman, or Cosmic Santa. I too understand God as Being, as Ultimate Reality, that which has existed from all time, the source of all Ideas (Platonically speaking) and the source of the underlying structure and order of the Universe (Word). If there is a "father", "mother", "child", it has the source of its being in God, and so we begin at the beginning again....