Joseph P. Farrell, Oxfor graduate, has written a lot of booksthat are worth reading, However, heas a theory regarding The Holy Trinity that it is a mathematical theory, where two blobs one produced by another if I recall right, are two persons and the dividing line between them is the third. I think it was Fr. Hoopko who told him to never talk to him about this again.
But there is a big problem. several.
1. it has a filioque-esque quality in that the third party the dividing line comes from both of them. The original filioque position was double oroigin, now RC backpedals and says they don't mean it likw that or some apologists do. But St. Pjotios Mystagogy of The Holy Spirit does not mention anything but double origin as being meant by those he debunks. So this should have in itself told Farrell something was wrong, since his background was Eastern Orthodox.
2. Farrell needs another blob. a diving line doesn't equal the blobs that produce it. Farrell is short one blob.
2. If however we wtay with the dividing line as the third person, then what of the dividing lines that separate the other blobs from outside world? they are persons too. So now we have four blos or five if we turn the central dividing line into a blob.
Now says St. Photios the Great, if you give generative ability to any but t
The Fatheryou potentially have a mess of descendants. Each one of who I might add, wh ould be divine. This asSt.
Photios says would result ultimate into reversion to polytheid.
(Trinitinarianism is not tritheim this is one God in three persons.)
So now with the first and second blobs giving rise together to the third (double origin filioqueism) you also havethe problem of all having generative power and all producing blos and more blobs and still more blos. UThis is beginning to look more like the reproductive style of a single celled animal or a yeast or something, rather then The Holy Trinity. And it would mean reversion to polytheis.
So then Farrell, not having read t
he Bible very carefullyin a long time, apparently, says that someone turns up claiming to be this mathematical formula in the flesh so to spek who becomes the god of Moses. and compounding the blasphemy claims yahwehh institutied human sacrfice or at least promoted it.
iN gENESIS IN THOSE DAYS HUMAN ACRIFICE WAS NOTHING UNUSUAL. tHAT aBRAHAM TOLD HIS SERVANTS HE AND THE BOY EOULD COME DOWN THE MOUNTAIN BACK TO THEM PROBABLY INDICATED HE THOUGHT THAT gOD WOULD RESURRECT HIM THAT THAT HE WAS THE PROMISED SEED OF THE WOMAN, THERE BEING A HINT OF A DEATH AND RESURRECTION IN THAT IN gENESIS 4. yahweh stopped abraham from killing isaac and substituted a stagor ram for him it was caught by its horns in the bashes nearby.
yAHWEH PROHIBITED HUMAN ACRIFICE, AND THE ONE TIME SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED IT WAS jEPHTHT'S DAUGHTER, WHEN THERE WAS NO KING IN THE LAND AND ALL SIS AS SEEMED RIGHT TO THEM, AND WAS A CAEIN POINT AGINAT RASH OATHS.
fERRELL CLAIMS THAT SOMEONE NAMED yAOL INSTITUTED HUMAN SACRIFICE AMONG THE aZTECS.
I don't knoew if he has outgrown this nti YHH mistundertsnding bia or not, seems he mnaged to see that the Babel even wasnot a an evil thing limited humanity but preenting n oppressive tyrannical empire from being built.
And each of these blobs would be divine, and if any presented itself to some people to be worshipped and obeyed they would do so, and another presentself to another people, and then if they fought echother they would figure their respective gods were at war with each other and one conquered the other bringing victory on the ground to the people who followed it. Vand we're back to polytheism nd its version of national secutiry iues.
