Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers

Recommended Posts

@Absonite, thanks I have actually only listened to Chris Halvorson speak for an hour on the Trinity paper, I still have a few more hours to go and all of this is what I have summarized so far from that one study session who knows what I will have to say after I have finished listening to him on speak about the Trinity lol. That narrative is really not all my invention haha. My cleverness only goes so far ahaha.

 

There is an analogy that can sum this up IMO. There are two viewpoints that are both logical at the same time. If we are in a plane and we see a bunch if islands those islands could be seen as seperate individual bodies and centers. Yet if we look at them from the complete opposite perspective on the seafloor we can see that all these individual bodies are actually one large body at the seafloor. The seafloor reveals to us that they are all one. Yet if we are standing on the other side we would see just these individual facets of one main body. I don't think this concept of the Trinity is illogical at all. Just the fact that we can use these simple analogies to show how this IMO shows just how logical this Trinity concept is in the u.b. The truth is that we have an adjuster who can help us with the top down viewpoint, and we can provide the bottom up viewpoint. Both perspectives can be true at the same time.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the three concentric circles were the symbol of the Trinity, which makes a lot more sense to me than overlapping circles. But then again, the overlapping circles give you seven subdivisions which is mathematically tidy as God the Sevenfold.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EEB aka AASB-AWSW

One must keep in mind, when viewing concentric circles, as depicted by the UB, that if one looks at this symbol from a central viewing point, assuming that each circle is the same size, but positioned one behind the other, assuming the visual center as the vanishing point, or looking through the open end of a vortex, the center becomes a vanishing point or infinit. Therefore, the concentric circles may be visualized as circles or rings laying on top of each other but because of the viewpoint of the observer, looks like they are concentric but ready the same sized or equal. Then from the alternate viewing point, or from the opposite end of the vortex, the three rings would appear from that observer as the same or reflection of each observer, yet in different locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonita - if one considers that image of overlapping circles (or if you can see them as spheres), there are three major areas - each with 2 distinctly different (respective to each circle) overlapping areas - where the overlapping area is in (part of) each circle. Associating those three circles with the basic meanings of volition, personlity, and mind results with this:

 

 

Circle #1: volition

In circle #1 there are: personality and mind

Thus circle #1, which emphasizes volition, has both personality and mind as aspects.

 

Circle #2: personality

In circle #2 there are: volition and mind

Thus circle #2, which emphasizes personality, has both volition and mind as aspects

 

Circle #3: mind

In circle #3 there are: volition and personality

Thus circle #3, which emphasizes mind, has both volition and personality as aspects.

 

And the center spot is where there is a three fold overlapping that is unlike any of the other areas.

 

 

 

Note: the word overlap is only really relevant regard to the drawn image. It's not really an overlap in the sense of one-on-top-the-other, in essence - but rather an interpenetration of the major property of a circle that qualifies the other two circles with unique versions of the penetrator's primary attribute.

 

 

If one then considers each circle as one of the Sources (where Circle #1 is the FSC - Circle #2 is the SSC - and Circle #3 is the TSC), then one might be able to see that what is being portayed here is an explanation for how:

 

 

A. The FSC (the Volitional Absolute) also has both unique personality and mind - because the personality and mind of the FSC (Circle #1) are different than the personality and mind of both the SSC (Circle #2) and the TSC (Circle #3) - and the personality and mind of the SSC and TSC are different compared to each other;

 

B. The SSC (the Personality Absolute) also has both unique volition and mind - because the volition and mind of the SSC are different than the volition and mind of both the FSC and the TSC - and the volition and mind of the FSC and TSC are different compared to each other; and,

 

C. The TSC (the Mindal Absolute - my own phrase there, not from the UB, but consistent with UB teaching) also has both unique volition and personality - because the volition and personality of the TSC are different than the volition and personality of the FSC and the SSC - and the volition and personality of the FSC and the SSC are different compared to each other.

 

 

 

And that, by doggie, just might indeedy doody explain several of the little conundrums involving how these three are indeed different persons, each with volition, each minded - while remaining intimately and deifically interconnected, in addition to being able to associate in various ways as their respective Selves and through trinity corporation, as well as other combinations!

 

(tentative wooooo!)

 

 

 

But now... I must admit that even though this approach "saves the appearances" - there is a little bit of heresy here with regard to the UB universe frame. Specifically: the UB universe frame repeatedly portrays the relationship of the Paradise Deities as an eternally occurring sourcing sequence - where the first sources the second, and the first and second source the third. This model of interpenetrating spheres-circles does not rely upon that eternally occurring sourcing sequence. That's something that I easily put aside here, because its more important to me to have a viable vantage from which I can consider the three as genuinely different people - instead of trying to tell the story of how those three ostensibly eternally "come to be".

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EEB aka AASB-AWSW

 

When one looks at the “The Tripod of Life, representing the Holy Trinity” above, picture these three circles as one continuous line jointed at one end. Or imagine the classic pretzel shape where you take one of the ends and turn it under the point where it overlaps, extend that end around to the other open end, join the ends and you will see that you have the aforementioned symbol. But this shape is actually one continuous line intertwined within itself. If you now assume that none of this line or thread can touch each other, you have a three dimension symbol which looks just like "The Tripod of Life" but it appears as if they are three circles that are shifted but depending on your visual viewpoint, is really one line with the ends joined but twisted inside itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else just occurred to me here:

 

This perspective of the Deities - as three interpenetrating spheres-circles - I think also can be is an accurately explanation for the layout of the Qualified (Deity) Absolute.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its key to notice that the Trinity is not a Triunity its not the 3 personalities coming together to work together. That is the 1st Triunity. It seems to be a super-additive concequence union of the 3 non-personal facets of Deity. Anywhos here is a neat illustration the authors use to describe the Trinity.

 

Trinity Union of Deity: (112.8) 10:4.5 Ever remember that what the Infinite Spirit does is the function of the Conjoint Actor. Both the Father and the Son are functioning in and through and as him. But it would be futile to attempt to elucidate the Trinity mystery: three as one and in one, and one as two and acting for two.

 

The Three as one and in one is easy to see that they are talking about the the bottom up approach of how we would view the Trinity."and one as two and acting for two" is where it gets really interesting. This is showing the top down viewpoint of this Trinity. In an effort to help us understand that new information they give us the example of the Infinite Spirit as the function of the Conjoint Actor, and here that 2 acting as 1 comes into play. "Both the Father and the Son are functioning in and through and as him. So we have 2 beings who conjoin to form the the Conjoint Actor who is one and yet is acting for two (one as two and acting for two). And somehow they are using this illustration to explain the "Trinity Union of Deity". So why? What does this have to do with the Trinity, why would they give us this example to explain the Trinity union? Perhaps because the Trinity is actually one side of Infinite One and the other is the First source and Center. The infinite (one) as two (First source and center and Trinity) and acting for two. The personal and impersonal aspects of god acting as two. The mystery is that the Father is able to work through the first source and center and in the Trinity. He kind of overides the boundaries by being able to have the Trinity do his will, this seems to be the mystery.

 

The other biggest mystery in the u.b seems to be the Mystery Moniters. Beings who come from a place that exists outside of time and yet they are in time at the same time.

Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonita - if one considers that image of overlapping circles (or if you can see them as spheres), there are three major areas - each with 2 distinctly different (respective to each circle) overlapping areas - where the overlapping area is in (part of) each circle. Associating those three circles with the basic meanings of volition, personlity, and mind results with this:

 

 

Circle #1: volition

In circle #1 there are: personality and mind

Thus circle #1, which emphasizes volition, has both personality and mind as aspects.

 

Circle #2: personality

In circle #2 there are: volition and mind

Thus circle #2, which emphasizes personality, has both volition and mind as aspects

 

Circle #3: mind

In circle #3 there are: volition and personality

Thus circle #3, which emphasizes mind, has both volition and personality as aspects.

 

How does this jive with the fact that there is no such thing as volition without personality and personality cannot activate volition without mind? They all have to exist as ONE. And what about the nonpersonal? What about Paradise? Where does that fit in?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonita - notice here that at no time am I saying (according to this model) that volition ever exists without either personality or mind. Indeed, I'm not saying that the three ever exist without each other. The UB tells us that the FSC is the Volitional Absolute - and it tells us that the FSC is minded and has personality. Now notice in the model that Circle #1 (the FSC) is indeed the Volitional Absolute and has both unique mind and unique personality right there with (and literally in) that Circle. Likewise, volition is respectively and uniquely is there as part of the other two Sources-Centers.

 

As for the Paradise, it still is the non-personal absolute complement to the SSC. This model doesn't change that, much in the same way that talking about trinity usual doesn't necessarily include discussing Paradise until we get around to discussing Paradise (which again, at that point of discussion, is comparatively complemented with the SSC).

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absonite, I'm not arguing or disagreeing with your logic. I'm trying to expand it.

 

There is a First, a Second and a Third Source and CENTER. Why do you suppose they add the word CENTER? Isn't Source enough? I like the concentric circles because the CENTER is always in the same place. All of the Sources originate from the CENTER and overlap at the CENTER. The Isle of Paradise is at the CENTER, which is the residence of the First Source and CENTER. It works for me. But just because it works for me doesn't mean that it's right.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes!!

 

All of them overlap at that center! And that might (just might, no certainty here) be one of the ways they superpersonally function - which in them also is still in each respect circle, and thus their individual as well as collective super function.

 

But now, let me be clear: this is just a model for helping me view the Paradise Deities as three persons. That's all. It's not truth. And there's a good chance it's no even fact. It's just a model for getting over the infamous trinitarian hump.

 

In light of it though now I am going to look for the qualitative difference from using this vantage and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Scott- I am thinking about what you are working out here. To me, you're hashing out a version of the cosmogenesis story. And although all those events are actually eternal, I do consider the explanation you're hashing out here, in light of the Trinity, to be valuable: both for your own edification and for that of others who stumble on this UB info.

 

One of my teachers over the yeas was Mr. Sadler from whose work "Study of the Master Universe" I stated cuttings teeth on all this (in conjunction with UB study). I highly suggest that, if you have not already done so, you check that work out. He had a formidable grasp of all this that has inspired me over the years to keep at it. I hope that you'll find it just as insightful for your approach.

Edited by Absonite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EEB aka AASB-AWSW

Maybe this will help:

 

III. The First Source and Center

 

(4.13) 0:3.1 Total, infinite reality is existential in seven phases and as seven co-ordinate Absolutes:

 

(5.1)
0:3.2
1. The First Source and Center.

(5.2)
0:3.3
2. The Second Source and Center.

(5.3)
0:3.4
3. The Third Source and Center.

(5.4)
0:3.5
4. The Isle of Paradise.

(5.5)
0:3.6
5. The Deity Absolute.

(5.6)
0:3.7
6. The Universal Absolute.

(5.7)
0:3.8
7. The Unqualified Absolute.

 

(5.8) 0:3.9 God, as the First Source and Center, is primal in relation to total reality — unqualifiedly. The First Source and Center is infinite as well as eternal and is therefore limited or conditioned only by volition.

 

(5.9) 0:3.10 God — the Universal Father — is the personality of the First Source and Center and as such maintains personal relations of infinite control over all co-ordinate and subordinate sources and centers. Such control is personal and infinite in potential, even though it may never actually function owing to the perfection of the function of such co-ordinate and subordinate sources and centers and personalities.

 

(5.10) 0:3.11 The First Source and Center is, therefore, primal in all domains: deified or undeified, personal or impersonal, actual or potential, finite or infinite. No thing or being, no relativity or finality, exists except in direct or indirect relation to, and dependence on, the primacy of the First Source and Center.

 

(5.11) 0:3.12 The First Source and Center is related to the universe as:

 

(5.12)
0:3.13
1. The gravity forces of the material universes are convergent in the gravity center of nether Paradise. That is just why the geographic location of his person is eternally fixed in absolute relation to the force-energy center of the nether or material plane of Paradise. But the absolute personality of Deity exists on the upper or spiritual plane of Paradise.

 

(5.13)
0:3.14
2. The mind forces are convergent in the Infinite Spirit; the differential and divergent cosmic mind in the Seven Master Spirits; the factualizing mind of the Supreme as a time-space experience in Majeston.

 

(5.14)
0:3.15
3. The universe spirit forces are convergent in the Eternal Son.

 

(5.15)
0:3.16
4. The unlimited capacity for deity action resides in the Deity Absolute.

 

(5.16)
0:3.17
5. The unlimited capacity for infinity response exists in the Unqualified Absolute.

 

(5.17)
0:3.18
6. The two Absolutes — Qualified and Unqualified — are co-ordinated and unified in and by the Universal Absolute.

 

(5.18)
0:3.19
7. The potential personality of an evolutionary moral being or of any other moral being is centered in the personality of the Universal Father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Absonite, Sure I will give it a look, I suggest if you are not busy sometimes that should give one of Chris' online study groups a try to we have one online every Tuesday night "symmetryofsoul.org". He seems to have uncovered the entire cosmology of the urantia book, so he is a huge help. Also you can call in and ask any questions during the show. I really think in regards to the Trinity that the author is showing all of his cards with this line. What do you make of this paragraph?

 

Trinity Union of Deity: (112.8) 10:4.5 Ever remember that what the Infinite Spirit does is the function of the Conjoint Actor. Both the Father and the Son are functioning in and through and as him. But it would be futile to attempt to elucidate the Trinity mystery: three as one and in one, and one as two and acting for two.
Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - putting aside talk of other models here, and returning to orthodox Ubology ...

 

 

Three as one -

 

The three referenced there are the Paradise Deities, and the one referenced there is the Trinity

 

 

and in one -

 

The one referenced there is the I AM.

The three Sources-Centers are in the one, infinite I AM.

 

 

and one as two and acting for two -

 

The second and in that statement tells me that the one there does not reference the I AM - because that conjunction ties the two phrases together. Based upon that, I must consider this statement strictly in context. The context of the information is the topic of the Third Source-Center. Therefore, the one there references the TSC, and the UB teaches that the TSC acts for both the FSC and the SSC. This last point is validated right in the previous sentence of that quote, which clearly indicates that the Father and Son function in and through and as the Conjoint Actor.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''All for one and one for all.''

 

Alexandre Dumas (1802–1870), French dramatist. Musketeers' motto, in The Three Musketeers, ch. 9 (1844)

Edited by Coop
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the and one as two and acting for two - is a top down perspective of the Trinity Union. Instead of looking at it from the bottom up of the 3 Paradise deities. They are using the example of the Conjoint Actor to explain how this top down relationship works. IMO the top is the Infinite One, and the 2 is the 2 that make up the Infinite one (1st source and center and the Trinity). And somehow the Trinity does the will of the 1st source and center. Just like the Conjoint Actor does the will of the Father and this is the mystery. I think they are using the Conjoint Actor relatioship as an example of this top down relationship works.

 

Also it would seem that the Trinity is a Union of the non-personal aspects of the 3 Dieties, viewed from the bottom up. (112.6) 10:4.3 The Trinity is an association of infinite persons functioning in a nonpersonal capacity but not in contravention of personality. The illustration is crude, but a father, son, and grandson could form a corporate entity which would be nonpersonal but nonetheless subject to their personal wills.

 

 

 

We Begin with the Infinite- Prologue

http://www.urantia.o...ning-beginnings

"All through the Urantia Papers there are statements and observations suggesting that behind everything, before the beginning, there is the Infinite. Somehow, we arrive at the “feeling” that all of the different manifestations of Reality – the Absolutes, the Deities, the Trinities – are different aspects and different phases of the Infinite. God seems to be the personification of the Infinite. The “Universal Father” is the name we give to God in recognition of his relationship to us – his mortal children.

 

Before the beginning of beginnings there is that being, that Infinite One, whom we know as God. His infinity must be the foundation on which he has built all the structure of Deity, and Absolutes, and Trinities, and all manner of other Reality – deified and undeified; existential and experiential; actual and potential; time-realities and eternity-realities; perfect existences and imperfect existences; space-creations and non-space conditions – in short, everything and everyone that could exist everywhere and everywhen."

 

It seems that the Universal Father is just the tip of the iceberg of the Father- "We will pursue the unfolding of his divine purposes (as we are able to discern them) throughout time and transcended-time and on into future-eternity, to see how far we may hope to progress in the quest for the Final Father, the Unqualified Father, the Absolute Father – even the Father Infinite."

Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Lao's model of ultimate causation which the authors reference we can see this model play out: : three as one and in one, and one as two and acting for two.

 

(1033.6) 94:6.3 Lao-tse built directly upon the concepts of the Salem traditions when he declared Tao to be the One First Cause of all creation. Lao was a man of great spiritual vision. He taught that man’s eternal destiny was “everlasting union with Tao, Supreme God and Universal King.” His comprehension of ultimate causation was most discerning, for he wrote: “Unity arises out of the Absolute Tao, and from Unity there appears cosmic Duality, and from such Duality, Trinity springs forth into existence, and Trinity is the primal source of all reality.” “All reality is ever in balance between the potentials and the actuals of the cosmos, and these are eternally harmonized by the spirit of divinity.” *

Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When considering the SSC and TSC as aspects of the FSC - the various dynamics of those three together seem like interactions.

But considering the three Deities as three persons makes their interaction interpersonal - as relationships.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the concept of these 3 deity interacting with each other is the 1st Triunity as opposed to the Trinity which is the non-personal facets of these deity combing to form a superadditive consequence. There seems to be a fairly big difference between the 1st Triunity (Father, Son and Spirit) interacting with each other and the Trinity (3 non-personal facets of deity as one). The Trinity is not really a direct consequence of personality.

 

(113.3) 10:5.2 The functions of the Paradise Trinity are not simply the sum of the Father’s apparent endowment of divinity plus those specialized attributes that are unique in the personal existence of the Son and the Spirit. The Trinity association of the three Paradise Deities results in the evolution, eventuation, and deitization of new meanings, values, powers, and capacities for universal revelation, action, and administration. Living associations, human families, social groups, or the Paradise Trinity are not augmented by mere arithmetical summation. The group potential is always far in excess of the simple sum of the attributes of the component individuals.

 

112.6) 10:4.3 The Trinity is an association of infinite persons functioning in a nonpersonal capacity but not in contravention of personality.

 

What is also intersesting is that the sons of the Trinity are also direct personalizations of god. So in a very literal sense all of these beings are also God.

 

(114.6) 10:6.5 This group of Trinity Sons embraces the following personalities:

(114.7)
10:6.6
1. Trinitized Secrets of Supremacy.

(114.8)
10:6.7
2. Eternals of Days.

(114.9)
10:6.8
3. Ancients of Days.

(114.10)
10:6.9
4. Perfections of Days.

(114.11)
10:6.10
5. Recents of Days.

(114.12)
10:6.11
6. Unions of Days.

(114.13)
10:6.12
7. Faithfuls of Days.

(114.14)
10:6.13
8. Perfectors of Wisdom.

(114.15)
10:6.14
9. Divine Counselors.

(114.16)
10:6.15
10. Universal Censors

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am being more careful only to use the phrases The Trinity or the Paradise Trinity to reference the cosmic corporation operated by the three C.E.O.s - the Paradise Deities.

Edited by Absonite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else notice this?

 

 

10:4.1 Of all absolute associations, the Paradise Trinity (the first triunity) is unique as an exclusive association of personal Deity.

 

104:3.15 The Paradise Trinity is not a triunity...

 

 

Bit of a slip there.

Edited by Absonite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this explain it?

 

104:3.17 There is, however, one point of comparison between trinity and triunity: Both eventuate in functions that are something other than the discernible sum of the attributes of the component members. But while they are thus comparable from a functional standpoint, they otherwise exhibit no categorical relationship. They are roughly related as the relation of function to structure. But the function of the triunity association is not the function of the trinity structure or entity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10:4.1 Of all absolute associations, the Paradise Trinity (the first triunity) is unique as an exclusive association of personal Deity.

 

104:3.15 The Paradise Trinity is not a triunity...

 

 

Bit of a slip there.

 

The first Trinity has always been referred to by humans in the same sense as the Triunity, so they are acknowledging what we think a Trinity is but by putting it in parentheticals they are saying no its not this. If they had left it without parentheticals it would have been a mistake, but they are speaking in a mockingly way about the Trinity being a Triunity the parentheticals help to make that distinction.

 

Jesus spoke like this all the time. He would take our concept and expand on it. Our concept of the Trinity is actually a Triunity. So they bring that up here. The Trinity (What you on Urantia have always referrered to as a triunity) is........

 

The Catholic concept of the Trinity is an association of the 3 Deity persons working together. That is the 1st Triunity. Yet we have always thought that this was the Trinity so they are clearing that up here.

 

Another Ex. Adam (Marduk) was a great man. See what I did just there. I took a human legend of Adam and expanded on it, even though Marduk is a wrong concept of Adam. I also did not specify that Marduk is a wrong concept of Adam but I am implying it by putting it in parentheticals.

 

Ex. Jody is "nice". Jody is (nice). If I speak like this do I really think Jody is nice? Obviously the reader would have to have an adult sense of humor to get it.

Edited by -Scott-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I put something in parenthesis, I do so either to expound upon, or to provide a parallel - perhaps a synonym in the case of a single word - with what was previously said. I don't ever use parenthesis to negate the relationship between whatever was first said with whatever is put in the parenthesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...