The Holy Trinity and Holy Tetrad

[melodious]

It seems that most Christians do not even know the correct formula of the original Trinity doctrine. So I'm dedicating a thread for debate on the subject. I shall give my version and then leave it open for debate and/or comments.

In my opinion, this is the correct formula according to the original Christian teaching that was adopted from the ancient Osirian religion of Egypt: It is the Transcendent, or Bornless/Nameless, Father and the Holy (Mother) Spirit (emanation of the Father) who give birth to the Eternal Christ, which in turn splits again into the Son (spirit) and Daughter (soul/psyche) to create what is known in Qabala and Gnosticism as the Holy Tetrad.

I will add to this a bit of esoteric contemplation:

As much as we are all a separate individual psyche, we are also, in essence, truly inseparable from the source of the One-consciousness-being, so too is this so with the Holy Trinity and Holy Tetrad.

This then leads to the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber where the Daughter (soul/psyche) is married to the Son (spirit) to create the Christos (perfect offspring of the Human One or Adam) who brings forth the Sethian generation. This is a spiritual generation that is ever-coming in humanity and connotes the Second coming of Christ, hence the first Christ came as the "son of man" or Adam (this is why 'The Great Seth' is a gnostic title of the Christos) and the second Christ will be called the son of Seth, which implies a kind of alien intelligence present in humankind.

This is alluding to the ultimate evolution of consciousness where one day we shall be looked upon as very primitive for having to communicate the way we do and always having to speak to be heard (this does not mean necessarily our voices will be no longer, just that we wont have to use them as much). Our knowledge and/or experience of clairvoyance and other such psychic phenomena is only the tip of the iceberg for the evolution of consciousness. Anything that inhibits this evolution in humanity would be considered anti-Christos, or to put it plainly, anti-evolution and anti-enlightenment of humanity. The involution (anti-Christ) and evolution (Christ) of consciousness on a collective human level is constantly happening according to the teachings of Qabala.

Question for debate: What is the correct formula of the Trinity?

[Cathar1950]

Why would they not be considered original writings?
Are you saying it is not the inspired Word of God?

I am saying that it is not the "inspired Word of God".
The best the Bible can say about the Bible is that writings are inspired and it gives no meaning to the word inspired except they were moved much as a beautiful sunset moves us.
If the passage is not in the oldest manuscripts and it looks like it is an addition then it most likely is an addition. There is nothing special about the original writings except they are original, some thought they they needed changing. Matthew and Luke can be looked at as rewritings of Mark or even versions of Mark as Mark didn't meet the needs of the communities where they were reworked.
The "Word of God" is a metaphor and even the unknown author of Timothy didn't call writings or scripture the "inspired Word of God". It isn't Biblical and you can not find any Bible interpreting Bible to say it is. You are using a doctrine to say something about the Bible that isn't there and then making all kinds of claims about what they Bible says as well as using to to make claims about other beliefs.

[InTheFlesh]

Cathar1950,

Sorry, but those questions were asked to mcarma.

[Cathar1950]

Cathar1950,

Sorry, but those questions were asked to mcarma.

I felt like answering.
One of the Bible-Believers big guns is to fall back on some notion of original writings where there are none and then claim the original writings are somehow inerrant, infallible and God's word in order to get around the fact that there has been changes and the variants are numerous and there are so many versions The writing processes didn't settle down for centuries. Of course the Church under Constantine outlawed writings that were not approved and the approval process included writing because they were used by another group they wanted included for political reasons.

[InTheFlesh]

You can answer when you like,
but there remains trust.
We trust that the Lord used man to publish his Word.

[Cathar1950]

You can answer when you like,
but there remains trust.
We trust that the Lord used man to publish his Word.

I suppose we could make it all about trust.
But I can't help but think that you have misplaced your trust in what you thin and not necessarily in God or God's Word(logic, reasoning, wisdom) but in a publishment of human origin and human ideas while trusting in the Bible.
Your trust in God seems secondary and almost irrelevant.
Why not trust that God can show His wisdom in human writings as well as human experience? You trust God that your interpretation is His word and make the claims about the Bible as God's Word an objectified metaphor you take literally yet fail to understand the meanings. Where does it say that the Bible is the Word of God?
Why do we even need a published Word of God?
I don't see so much as a trust in God but a trust in something human you believed God published.

[Mark75]

Why would they not be considered original writings?
Are you saying it is not the inspired Word of God?

No, not at all. We were talking about the last half of Mark 16. The original Greek manuscripts are debated as to what was originally included since we don't have the original autographs, and some of the early copies have the last, and some don't. If you look in your Bible, you should see Mark 16 vv. 8-end of the chapter as marked in someway with a marginal note or footnote saying that this section is not included in some Greek manuscripts.

So the question has always been "Did Mark really write those verses or were they added by a redactor (editor). My point was that either way, it does not contradict what the other gospels say, so to me, it's not that big of an issue.

[Blaze]

Why would they not be considered original writings?
Are you saying it is not the inspired Word of God?

No, not at all. We were talking about the last half of Mark 16. The original Greek manuscripts are debated as to what was originally included since we don't have the original autographs, and some of the early copies have the last, and some don't. If you look in your Bible, you should see Mark 16 vv. 8-end of the chapter as marked in someway with a marginal note or footnote saying that this section is not included in some Greek manuscripts.

So the question has always been "Did Mark really write those verses or were they added by a redactor (editor). My point was that either way, it does not contradict what the other gospels say, so to me, it's not that big of an issue.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It's not that big of an issue? Tell that to the parents who withheld medical attention while their child died because they faithed to the end, that this was the word of God.

So you see in the flesh, the internal evidence shows that the bible has been added to or taken from. How do you know it's not the word of man that your staking your life on?

[Mark75]

Why would they not be considered original writings?
Are you saying it is not the inspired Word of God?

No, not at all. We were talking about the last half of Mark 16. The original Greek manuscripts are debated as to what was originally included since we don't have the original autographs, and some of the early copies have the last, and some don't. If you look in your Bible, you should see Mark 16 vv. 8-end of the chapter as marked in someway with a marginal note or footnote saying that this section is not included in some Greek manuscripts.

So the question has always been "Did Mark really write those verses or were they added by a redactor (editor). My point was that either way, it does not contradict what the other gospels say, so to me, it's not that big of an issue.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It's not that big of an issue? Tell that to the parents who withheld medical attention while their child died because they faithed to the end, that this was the word of God.

So you see in the flesh, the internal evidence shows that the bible has been added to or taken from. How do you know it's not the word of man that your staking your life on?

Hang on, Blaze; let me call attention to some gross misunderstangs here. First of all, when I said that "it's not a big issue," I was answering another question that was posed, asking me if I was saying that the Word of God (i.e. God's Revelation to Man, a.k.a. The Bible) was not inspired, referencing the entire Bible. My answer was "No." I then qualified what I was saying by drawing attention to my previous conversation with McCuolloch, who was asking about my thoughts regarding Mark 16:9-20, known as the "Long Ending of Mark,", not the entire Bible.

Besides that, if you read my answer, you would have seen that I pointed out that the internal and external evidence seem to suggest that it was not included, however, no one can say that with 100% certainty unless the original autographs were extant, which they are not. And if it was included it would not affect any of the other endings of the other 3 Gospels by way of contradiction.

The group that you are referring to that withholds medical treatment of people, and does other strange acts like handling snakes, etc. in the name of Christianity or God, are one of the fringe groups that associate themselves with Christianity like the Christian Science group or some kind of Charismatic cult.

Those practices are not taught by Evangelical Christians, nor condoned. It is sad that they include themselves in the Christian faith because it gives others outside the faith the false impression that we teach and/or condon such behavior, which is definitely not true.

And the fact is, that if those verses are original to the autographs, that interpretation is a gross removal of context, as Jesus was clearly speaking to His Apostles and those personally commissioned by Him to start the establishment of churches and spreading the Christian faith. Jesus was telling them that they would be accompanied by signs/wonders as confirmation of their actions and as protection from harm. It only applied to those in the 1st century who were involved in the establishment of the first churches.

You will see this corroborated if you read the Acts of the Apostles.

[/u]

[InTheFlesh]

What's wrong with the second half of that chapter?

Absolutely nothing is wrong with it. There is just a very old debate about whether the last half was part of the original writing because it is not present in some copies, but it in others.

Why would they not be considered original writings?
Are you saying it is not the inspired Word of God?

Hang on, Blaze; let me call attention to some gross misunderstangs here. First of all, when I said that "it's not a big issue," I was answering another question that was posed, asking me if I was saying that the Word of God (i.e. God's Revelation to Man, a.k.a. The Bible) was not inspired, referencing the entire Bible. My answer was "No." I then qualified what I was saying by drawing attention to my previous conversation with McCuolloch, who was asking about my thoughts regarding Mark 16:9-20, known as the "Long Ending of Mark,", not the entire Bible.

I was not referring to the entire bible.
I was questioning whether you felt the second half of that chapter was inspired by God or not?

[InTheFlesh]

How do you know it's not the word of man that your staking your life on

Man does not have that kind of wisdom.
There's no way they could have known all those things.
The Word came from the mouth of God!