Categories of comprehension of being
I was studying Greek philosophy when an analogy between Logos and Jesus Christ led me to a question: How to propagate this analogy to other hypostases of the Trinity? What are hypostases? Why do we need to distinguish them? Why three?
Disclaimer: at the beginning of the article, there will be a lot of religion and philosophy, but be sure the Greeks and the Сhurch chewed on all the main questions a bunch of years ago. Read with respect to them — they had no internet and could not add memes to their texts to make them less boring.
How to propagate this analogy to other hypostases of the Trinity?
The first literary conjunction of the triad can be found in canonical 1st century AD scriptures: Synoptic Gospel of Matthew (28:19) and The Second Epistle to the Corinthians of Pauline (13:13). Citations from literal academic translation — The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version:
28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
13:13 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.*
*Grace of Jesus Christ . . . The Septuagint, Greek sentence can be read as expressing a wish, “May the grace . . .,” or an imperative “(You) let the grace . . . ” Grace and love are subjective genitives, thus: “the grace belonging to Christ,” “the love belonging to God.”
These snippets put three terms in one sentence, thus implying some relation between them. The relation soon received a term and definition.
The first usage of the term “Trinity” belongs to Theophilus of Antioch, who had a triadic formula in his 2nd century AD text To Autolycus II §15, 360.46:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God (Theos), and his Word (Logos), and his Wisdom (Sophia).
The definition of relations was given later after the Nicaean and Constantinople Councils conducted by the Fathers of the Church in the 4th century AD. The Fathers were as much Neoplatonic philosophers as they were Christian theologians. Trinity is actually their systematization of different ideas of Greek Philosophy, in particular, the theology of Plato:
Let us demystify the theological terms of the Church Fathers with the physical terms of Aristotle:
Boring part
Several quotations to justify this analogy:
διὸ ἡ ψυχή ἐστιν ἐντελέχεια ἡ πρώτη σώματος φυσικοῦ δυνάμει ζωὴν ἔχοντος.
Therefore the soul is a realization in the prime physical body potentially having a life.
— On the Soul II, 412a.27 => (Plato Theos ~ Reality) ⊃ (Plato Psyche ~ Realization)
πᾶν γὰρ μεταβάλλει τὶ καὶ ὑπό τινος καὶ εἴς τι: ὑφ᾽ οὗ μέν, τοῦ πρώτου κινοῦντος: ὃ δέ, ἡ ὕλη: εἰς ὃ δέ, τὸ εἶδος.
For everywhere, changes are something (subject) and by someone (agent) and into something (object): so by ‘that’ (agent) is the prime mover; ‘what’ (subject) is the matter; ‘what into’ (object) is the form.
— Metaphysics XII, 1070a => “Trinity”
ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι ἡ οὐσία καὶ τὸ εἶδος ἐνέργειά ἐστιν.
And as it is evident that the essence and the form are actuality.
— Metaphysics IX, 1050b => Form = Actuality
πρώτης κινησάσης ἀρχῆς
the first moving principle
— Metaphysics IV, 1023a.30 => Plato Logos ~ Principle = Prime Mover
ἐλήλυθε δ᾽ ἡ ἐνέργεια τοὔνομα, ἡ πρὸς τὴν ἐντελέχειαν συντιθεμένη
The name “activity” we trace to “complete realization”
— Metaphysics IX, 1047a.30 => Activity is particular Realization
ὁ γὰρ νοῦς ἐνέργεια
since mind is activity
… ἔστι τι ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, ἀΐδιον καὶ οὐσία καὶ ἐνέργεια οὖσα.
… is something that moves unmoving, eternal, both essence and actuality.
— Metaphysics XII, 1072a => Plato Nous + Plato Logos -> Actuality
~ “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son”?
What are hypostases? Why do we need to distinguish them?
Categories are often explained as the most general nonoverlapping concepts. If you try to express reality with as few categories as possible, you eventually end up with your own set of “hypostases” a.k.a. “substances”.
Why three?
Because it was natural to the authors of the categories of the Trinity, and it is still the golden mean between the number of categories and their expressive power.
How to get further?
We can use the concept of spacetime to turn the 3D space field (the first category) together with the actuality (the third category) into one 4D field.
At this stage, we have two categories, but we can get even further if we use the formal framework of Possible Worlds. There is no one particular Ultimate Principle anymore, but all possible definitions are now contained in the additional 5th dimension of one essence called Multiverse:
However, I have good news for 5D haters. We can use the concept of a Cyclic model instead. In this model, there are eternal series of oscillations, each starting with a Big Bang and ending with a Big Crunch. This idea is reasonable, given that according to the simple Big Bang theory, the past is finite, in contrast to the infinite future, which is weird. The Cyclic Model leverages eternity of oscillations allowing everything we have with the idea of the Multiverse not in alternative universes but in the future Big Bangs.
A good video about this.
Appreciate your patience,
Dmitry
