How can I justify God's equity in being a united Trinity of persons in all the distinctness of each member? I cannot, I will not try to. It is a mystery beyond words. It is right that words fail to fully exemplify God as one and three.

Christ Jesus was man and God. He did not renounce his manhood; neither did he deny his kingship: 'my kingdom is not of this world' he said before the court. To the mere mortal mind it is a paradox, but to God, humility was never anything but the doorway into His Kingdom.

The anawim, the little ones, are harbingers of the Kingdom of God in our midst. A child has no trouble in understanding that God could come into the world as a baby.

Why do we have such trouble believing that God would allow the 'Son of Man', His Son, and our brother, to die the agony of a man left to hang upon the cross? Perhaps it is the core feature of our humanity, that we believe God will remain past our death.

Jesus’ cry “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” shows that in his agony Jesus thirsted for God's deliverance. Moreover, Jesus' last act (of freedom) was to give up his spirit to his father in heaven. Just as ours will be. And yet we are not so closely resembling of Jesus that we become him.

Only by the power of God may we participate in Eucharistic life, through becoming the body of Christ. So great is the temptation to take ourselves seriously (G.K. Chesterton’s lament in 'Orthodoxy'), that anxiety may prevent our being ready to enter the wedding feast with the Master.

I refer you to the editorial from April 2006 edition of The Mix by Fr Michael Whelan SM.
http://www.catalyst-for-renewal.com.au/prod02.htm
I particularly appreciate the quotations of Robert Louis Stevenson and Douglas Hall.
"The Christian always thinks with a paschal consciousness...the heart of the greatest paradox of all: Through the dying we come into the living. There is no other way.”

Boxgum,
I never thought I would read a homily from a pope that was so grounded in biblical text, so theologically complete and so in accordance with what I believe. Quite a shock for a Proddy! Perhaps I should change horses! This is a remarkable document and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I loved the way he dealt with the resurrection and established it as something more than the resuscitation of a corpse without reducing it to the subjectivity of the disciples. I think he has done a very good job of talking about the true source of the self, i.e. “I, but no longer I”. I am not sure what else I could say, Brilliant!

Narcissist wrote:

"No creed must be accepted upon authority of a 'divine' nature. Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted - no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!" TSB II.6

I agree. It is time that we ditched the liberal agenda of respect and tolerance with regard to religion. Religious belief should not be a no go area for reason. However, there is a qualification. While it is now common to understand “myth” as being just another way of saying “wrong” we must understand that the mythological can carry truth. A distinction must also be made between the myths of Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings which are truly mythological because they are unearthly, like the Babylonian creation myths, and earthly myth like the conversation between Mary and the angel Gabriel.

The other qualification is that theology must be studied using its own form of rationality. It is too often the case that the rationality of natural science is applied and theology found wanting. Theology is one of the humanities, we do not try to test its statements as if an experiment could be run to see if it is true. Also, just as the natural scientist approaches his object with the presupposition that certain laws apply, so too does the theologian. This is usually expressed as “faith seeking understanding”, we have to presuppose certain things before we can get off the ground.

So when we approach something like the doctrine of the Trinity, if we are going to understand, then we need to give it the benefit of the doubt. If we walk a bit along its path we will begin to understand that it is radical theology that unseats the sort of theism that has been so destructive and so vulnerable to criticism. It also tells us how we understand anything at all.

Sells, I was going to defend you for there is no need to dumb down your article, but you have done this already.
Your article is heavy going, but then we need a challenge from time to time to exercise our brain. It certainly gave mine a work out.
What amazes me is some presume to know all matter of things about you - including an implied assumption you would not smile at someone in need, give your coat to a person in need or be able to communicate with the less well educated.

Philo:
Your critique of the Trinity does not convince me. You write that “when we identify ourselves we identify aspects of only one character, I am a son, I am a father, I am a worker, etc.” This seems to be an analogy of the Trinity rather than a refutation! Though I am an “individual” I clearly recognise a number of different voices within my consciousness, each finding an objective context which allows it to become manifest. Thus as a “son” I speak and relate quite differently from the way I do as a “father”. As a “worker” I am different again. In this I am no different from other humans. Psychodynamic research has described in detail how within the one psyche a number of distinct voices interact and try to influence consciousness, even simultaneously. The great struggle is to integrate them all into a sort of single intra-psychic community. This seems to be very like the concept of God as the “community of three persons” – the Trinity.

Sells:
Thanks for another stimulating article, densely packed though it may be. I think what you describe as the “true self” is very like the Self that Carl Jung postulates as distinct from the ego. Though the ego is an absolutely necessary vehicle for living in the world, if we let it forever rule supreme it makes us utterly of the world. Through the long and arduous process of integration that Jung describes, the ego and other intra-psychic factors may be gradually subjugated with the Self as centre. Of course, the “Self” is not the everyday self that we speak of; that is the “ego”. The Self can be viewed as God manifest within the person. Of course, the human condition is that we can never fully and permanently become the Self.
How does this idea strike you?

Crabby,
By your pseudonym with whom do you identify? Is it another peson in your identity or is it another spirit in your identity? How many persons are you? God is not a diversity of voices - His character is one. If we believe Jesus lived by that very character of God then he certainly revealed one God, not another person, voice or spirit.

I read the Biblical text in context not systamatic theology produced by persons who collate similar ideas and define difference to establish a theory. The New Testament does not support a three person Godhead. Please give references!

We recognise the spirit of God was manifest in him because of his actions, attitudes, wisdom and character. This is how God is manifest, and that is how God was manifest in Him. That is how the spirit of God is manifest in us his sons / daughters.

In the very nature of God there is no defining features of either three persons or three spirits. The NT uses the "spirit of Christ, the Holy spirit, and the spirit of the Father interchangeably; and it emphatically states there is but one spirit. They are not defined by different voices conflicting for controll of the conscience. There is one Spirit, one God. The nature of the spirit of God is a unity not a diversity. There are no defining spatial realities as the Romans assumed.

Quote, "Though I am an “individual” I clearly recognise a number of different voices within my consciousness, each finding an objective context which allows it to become manifest... In this I am no different from other humans. Psychodynamic research has described in detail how within the one psyche a number of distinct voices interact and try to influence consciousness, even simultaneously. The great struggle is to integrate them all into a sort of single intra-psychic community. This seems to be very like the concept of God as the “community of three persons” – the Trinity."