Jn. 20:28 is the same expression used by the Psalmist in the LXX about YHWH. csuguy's rationalizations are as feeble as the JW WT (fellow Arians). Only the Holy Spirit can illuminate the truth of who Jesus really is. I am not sure why csu is resisting this and not understanding basic verses/issues (Son of God is inadequate since false cults can claim this is what He is; what does it really mean to claim to be the Son of God, God, Lord, etc.? They are not just generic things that you can make mean what ever you feel like; truth is absolute vs relative).
toldailytopic: The Holy Trinity.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Selaphiel
Well-known member
csguy said:
Wrong. The milk in the cereal is fully milk, and the cereal is fully cereal. Fully != only.
Hypostatic union, two natures forming one person.
Wrong, that is not the way the Greek works. The form for that would be legein auto. http://isv.org/catacomb/john_20v28.htm
No. A definite article in front of theos means a lot. It is the conventional way of referring to God in the gospel. Especially not in 20:28, where there is a double article ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou.
Christ did not descend from heaven, he was incarnated, that is a big difference. You are confusing the historical Jesus Christ with the eternal Christ/Word. No one has seen the Word non-incarnated. Where does Jesus say that he is going in John 8:21-30:
"Where I am going, you cannot come"
And Isaiah sees God in Isaiah 6 btw, so does Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1
Whether one can see God or not depends on the theological school behind the text.Kabod/doxa is not a mere revelation, it is Gods own presence in the world.
And we are? Who canonized the NT? Was it God? And how is Arianism any different?
Carmen Christi is Philippians 2:5-11. And the Greek word morphe does not mean image or representative, it means physical external entity or form.
It cannot. Any academic of the NT will disagree with you on that.
It is a mystery in the sense that it is merely concept attempting to describe the biblical revelation, revelation itself is deeper than the abstract concept of it.
I'm not lifting up man's logic to revelation any more than you or the heretics did. Revelation is meaningless without logic and interpretation and that is necessarily human regardless of which side you are on.
I do not think that the church fathers disregard the Son of God title. You seem to attempt to portray it that way. They are simply having a different understanding of what Son of God is.
csuguy
Well-known member
C = A+B
A is fully A, and B is fully B, but C is neither fully A nor B.
Perhaps - you know more Greek than I do (for now :noid
so I'll submit that Thomas was calling him God in this verse. That still doesn't address the issue that Jesus himself did not claim to be God - but rather God's Son. John 10:30-36. That also doesn't address the fact that the gospel of John was written in order to support the idea that Christ was the Son of God (not God). I'll sumbit that there is some support for the idea that Christ is God, but the majority view presented in scripture (and the logical view) is that Christ is the Son of God - that is who he claimed to be.
The double article doesn't seem like anything special - the articles go with two different words - and the words are connected (and distinguished) by "kai." But perhaps this simply something I have yet to learn about :idunno:
Do you divide the man Jesus from the divine Christ? I know there are some historical forms of Christianity that do that, but haven't debated anyone who holds that view myself.
At any rate, my position is that Jesus is the Christ and the Logos - they aren't seperable, they are one in the same (at least as of his being born as a man). Christ was sent by God to us - whether he was also incarnated is another matter that isn't entirely relevant. I have already shown in scripture, in John no less, that Christ was sent to us from God. I'm sure I could find more verses which repeat that sentiment if you want?
That Jesus went where others could not follow is also irrelevant - because regardless of where he came from and where he went to - he was for a time amongst us, and he was seen by men. God, on the other hand, cannot be seen by men - for to see God is to die. Yet lots of people saw Jesus, and a couple of his disciples even saw him in his glorified form on the mountain.
Ex 33:18-23 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." 19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." 21 Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
And Isaiah sees God in Isaiah 6 btw, so does Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1
Isaiah 6 is prophecy first of all, so what he saw needs to be taken with a grain of salt - he wasn't really in the presence of the LORD (or at least I wouldn't say he was). Also, as Isaiah 6 says "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty." 6 Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, "See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for." It's not a matter of the school behind the text - its an established fact in Judaism.
And he didn't actually see the LORD in Ezekial 1 - it doesn't say he did. He saw "the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking."
I don't deny that God was literal WITH Christ, but he was not Christ - and he left him on the cross when he took on the sins of the world.
Men canonized the bible. Arianism isn't any different, except that I believe it to be a much more logical (and historic) position. Like with the trinity - I don't hold the arianist model for God to be salvific, merely a lot more logical and scriptural.
I thought so, but I'd never heard it by that name before. God is not physical but spirit. At any rate, all it is saying is that he is in the form of God - not that he is God. This sentiment goes right along with him being the image of God.
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
I'll submit that you are right on this passage for now. I'll need to study more Greek before I can effectively debate one way or the other on this matter.
You have a good position on what the trinity is, even if I disagree with you on whether it is the best biblical model :thumb:
However, it is a fact that trinitarians have redefined biblical terms to suite their theology. Here's another example: the title "Father." Trinitarians would have you interpret scripture wherever it says "Father" to be refering to one of the three 'personages' of God. However the scriptural usage of the term Father is as a title for the whole of God, not some 'personage' or part of God. They use this eisegeses to write off passages which clearly distinguish Christ from the Father - or even from God (saying that the Father "personage" is implied).
A claim that Jesus was Lord is a claim to being YHWH (not mere lord or sir). The claim to be the unique Son of God is a claim to equality of nature (as evidenced by the Jews' reaction; Jn. 5:18; Jn. 10:3-33 John's commentary for non-Jewish readers).
Jn. 1:1 still stands between you and hell. Get over your hang up about 'Son of God' and see that He claimed to be God (Son of God implies this; son of god as creature is insufficient and unbiblical, a counterfeit Christ that cannot save 2 Cor. 11:4; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-10).
Jn. 1:1 still stands between you and hell. Get over your hang up about 'Son of God' and see that He claimed to be God (Son of God implies this; son of god as creature is insufficient and unbiblical, a counterfeit Christ that cannot save 2 Cor. 11:4; Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-10).
csuguy
Well-known member
There's something funky about John 5:18, because the Jews themselves claimed that God was their Father - John 8:41. You'll have to reconcile those before you can use John 5:18.
Lord is a title of authority and power - Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Matthew 28:18. God's power and authority are innate - Christ's are given to him.
A full reading of John 10:30-36 reveals that while the Jews certaintly thought he was claiming to be God - the fact was that they misunderstood him - he only claimed to be God's Son.
It's not a hang up - its a very important distinction, at least if you are interested in Christology at all. John 8:41 shows that merely claiming God as your Father does not mean that you are claiming to be God, and in fact the fact that he is your father would eliminate the possiblity that you are him. Furthermore, the divinity of Christ is not a salvific issue - you won't find a single scripture that states it.
A counterfeit Christ cannot save - but were not talking about two different Christ's, we are looking at the same Christ and debating his relationship with the Father. A distinction you have yet to see.
Last edited:
You say Christ is creature; I say Christ is uncreated Creator God. This is more than semantics and certainly not the same Christ. Mormons say He is the spirit brother of Satan and JWs say He is Michael the archangel. Diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive views are not equally true.
Jesus was claiming absolute oneness with the Father (Jn. 10:30; Jn. 14:9), a unique relationship with the Father that was co-eternal, co-essential, co-equal. Jews know this is blasphemy if the person is not God. We claim that God is our Father because we are adopted sons. Jn. 10 says that He was making Himself equal to God. This was inspired commentary for a Greek audience, not a misunderstanding of the Jews?! Jesus and the Jews knew what He was claiming, but they rejected His Messiahship (you agree) and His Deity (you don't see that part).
You are in the same sinking boat as the JWs. I am not sure what it will take to get you out of your mental block.
Jesus was claiming absolute oneness with the Father (Jn. 10:30; Jn. 14:9), a unique relationship with the Father that was co-eternal, co-essential, co-equal. Jews know this is blasphemy if the person is not God. We claim that God is our Father because we are adopted sons. Jn. 10 says that He was making Himself equal to God. This was inspired commentary for a Greek audience, not a misunderstanding of the Jews?! Jesus and the Jews knew what He was claiming, but they rejected His Messiahship (you agree) and His Deity (you don't see that part).
You are in the same sinking boat as the JWs. I am not sure what it will take to get you out of your mental block.
Son of Jack
New member
I don't deny Jesus' humanity. Remember right after He prayed that, He went to Peter and said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." He had an actual choice to make, and it was a difficult one in light of his humanity. But, his spirit was willing to be in accord with the spirit of the Father. As one who was fully human, his humanity didn't want to suffer the pains of what awaited him, but, as One who was fully God, he was willing, knowing that He would bring many sons to glory.
Does that mean that the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union are simple and formulaic? No. But, in faith, I seek understanding, and realize that in faith I will gain what I need, trusting in the mercy and grace of God.
I'm curious why we have been avoiding a discussion of the Christology presented in the Pastorals, particularly in Titus.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
csguy said:
One last post then, I need to comment on this. You cite John 10:30-36 but you skip a rather central verse doing that, and that is John 10:38:
"The Father is in me, and I in him"
What do you make of that if Christ is a creation, even if he is bestowed with all authority and power? This and 10:30 speaks of the unity of the Father and the Son. The text says nothing about being one in mindset, but the text quite literally says that the Father is literally in Christ, just as Christ is in the Father. When he says this, the Jews try to apprehend him again for blasphemy because he claims the the Son and the Father are one in substance.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
spiritual unity
spiritual unity
Note as well, that Jesus prays we all be One in Him and the Father,....whereas we are all one in God,....a spiritual unity, which would equate to a kind of universal substance, where the Spirit pervades all. (Omnipresence). In spiritual unity we are one,...yet still maintain individuality of personality. One who is spiritually awakened/attuned...can with Jesus say "the Father and I are one", when he intuits his true identity in God in spirit. Therefore John's gospel is sufficient in revealing Jesus as the "Son" of God....wherein we as well awaken to discover our sonship with God. There is that non-dual realm of spiritual oneness, as well as the dual-relationships of personalities with one another, relating to one another in the Omnipresence of Spirit. This is what is essential, while the rest is more or less 'doctrinal posturing' according to one's Christology or dogma.
"I and the Father are one" - when this is realized, there is nothing more to know. The Spirit bears witness of both our essential oneness with God as well as our divine sonship in "relationship".
pj
spiritual unity
Note as well, that Jesus prays we all be One in Him and the Father,....whereas we are all one in God,....a spiritual unity, which would equate to a kind of universal substance, where the Spirit pervades all. (Omnipresence). In spiritual unity we are one,...yet still maintain individuality of personality. One who is spiritually awakened/attuned...can with Jesus say "the Father and I are one", when he intuits his true identity in God in spirit. Therefore John's gospel is sufficient in revealing Jesus as the "Son" of God....wherein we as well awaken to discover our sonship with God. There is that non-dual realm of spiritual oneness, as well as the dual-relationships of personalities with one another, relating to one another in the Omnipresence of Spirit. This is what is essential, while the rest is more or less 'doctrinal posturing' according to one's Christology or dogma.
"I and the Father are one" - when this is realized, there is nothing more to know. The Spirit bears witness of both our essential oneness with God as well as our divine sonship in "relationship".
pj
csuguy
Well-known member
There is no denying that the Son and the Father are one, or that there is a unity between these two. The question, however, is HOW are they one? Trinitarians made up a bunch of extra-biblical metaphysical speculation to try to explain this so that it didn't contradict their theology - saying that they are of the same "substance" but different "personages" composing one God.
However, as is witnessed in Jesus' reply to the Jews when they try to stone him because they mistunderstood what he was claiming, Jesus was not claiming to be God. There is unity - as is restated in another way in the verse you quoted in John 10:38 - but it is not a unity of being.
We can get a clearer understanding of what he meant when we look at a similar passage in John -
John 17: 11 - 19 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify[a] them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
There are a couple things you will notice in this verse that tie back with our earlier posts. It starts off with praying to the Father - who is in heaven! The Father did not descend to earth himself but sent Jesus as his representative and mediator. Jesus lived amongst men and was seen by them - but no one has seen the Father.
However, more on topic, he prays that "they [us] maybe one as we are one." Now, unless you saying that Christ wants us to literally become one being with a massive split personality disorder, you can't say that his statement "I and the Father are one" should be taken as a literal A=B statement, which doesn't work with the trinity anyways as I will discuss below.
It is clear from the context that he did not mean for it to be taken as a literal A=B statement, as the Jews mistook it. It is not in being that he claimed to be one with the Father - which doesn't even work with the trinity to begin with.
If Jesus is the Father, then there is no division between these two entities. "Jesus" "Christ" "Father" "Son" would all merely be names of God, any divisions merely an illusion. This is known as the "heresy" of modalism - and it is incompatible with the trinity (although many "trinitarians" today are actually modalists because they don't study).
If you do say that they are literally one in the same - then you must still reject the trinity.
csuguy
Well-known member
It is the same Christ. What is important for salvation is that we believe that he is the Messiah and proclaim him as Lord and follow his teachings. There is no salvific importance of him being God or not (and of course he claimed to be the SON of God so any discussion of the idea that he is God is really quite silly).
He prayed that we be one as they are one, so unless you are saying that he wants us to literally become one being with a massive split personality disorder...
A simple reading of John 10:30-36 makes it clear that the Jews didn't understand what he was saying - and trinitarians have fallen into the same error as these Jews that he is rebuking.
You are in the same sinking boat as the Catholics - stuck in your traditions, refusing to see the obvious.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
what really matters; transcending the 'conception'
what really matters; transcending the 'conception'
Indeed,...furthermore the condition of our souls are ever tempered by the law of karma, each soul reaping what it sows,...as long as such factors exist to condition our existence and experience in time. The reception and practice of 'the way' of Love and Light, is living in oneness with God, harmony with Spirit. One is only 'saved' as much as he is not bound by any sin, but living the law, wherein is perfect happiness and freeedom. No matter what theological conception one has of 'salvation'....only the direct experiential knowledge of God avails...wherein real freedom and Joy is the condition of the soul at one with God.
Indeed,....for such is ony a doctrinal imposition elaborated within a Trinitarian theology....a deityhood "assumed". Spiritual wisdom might include such but also transcends such 'forensics', for one's harmony with Spirit is all that is essential for life and peace (being a matter of conscious attunement). Being free in God NOW is all that matters, and abiding in that liberty. (all else is commentary, mentation, words).
One can still assume a trinitarian concept of the Godhead, wherever it pertains or serves as a helpful model of the divine economy. I have no problem with that (as expounded elsewhere) but where it becomes a dogma it dons 'assumptions' that are often unnecessary. since God is One Spirit....any conception of a Trinity is an artifact, unless I somehow in the most intimate sense experience and know God as a tri-une reality.- but most of this is coneptional, involving intellection. - has its place,...but knowing/realizing 'God' as Spirit has priority.
pj
what really matters; transcending the 'conception'
Indeed,...furthermore the condition of our souls are ever tempered by the law of karma, each soul reaping what it sows,...as long as such factors exist to condition our existence and experience in time. The reception and practice of 'the way' of Love and Light, is living in oneness with God, harmony with Spirit. One is only 'saved' as much as he is not bound by any sin, but living the law, wherein is perfect happiness and freeedom. No matter what theological conception one has of 'salvation'....only the direct experiential knowledge of God avails...wherein real freedom and Joy is the condition of the soul at one with God.
Indeed,....for such is ony a doctrinal imposition elaborated within a Trinitarian theology....a deityhood "assumed". Spiritual wisdom might include such but also transcends such 'forensics', for one's harmony with Spirit is all that is essential for life and peace (being a matter of conscious attunement). Being free in God NOW is all that matters, and abiding in that liberty. (all else is commentary, mentation, words).
One can still assume a trinitarian concept of the Godhead, wherever it pertains or serves as a helpful model of the divine economy. I have no problem with that (as expounded elsewhere) but where it becomes a dogma it dons 'assumptions' that are often unnecessary. since God is One Spirit....any conception of a Trinity is an artifact, unless I somehow in the most intimate sense experience and know God as a tri-une reality.- but most of this is coneptional, involving intellection. - has its place,...but knowing/realizing 'God' as Spirit has priority.
pj
Selaphiel
Well-known member
csguy said:
I read that text a bit differently. I read it as Jesus asking for the unity of the body so that the body remains one just as he and the Father are one.
The trinity does not deny that God the Father is in heaven, nor does it claim that the Father descended. It was the Son/Christ/Word that descended, the second person of the trinity that became flesh.
No one has seen the Father, except the ones who the Son reveals him to. Jesus Christ is the perfect revelation of the Father since Christ and the Father are one. And this pericope says that the followers should remain one just as Christ and the Father is one.
The doctrine of the trinity states that Christ, the Father and the Spirit are one, they are united in the one substance that is God. They are united in that they are all God. The Father is not the Son or Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son or Father. But the Son is God, the Father is God and the Spirit is God as is portrayed by the scutum fidei. The second person of the trinity is unique, since Christ incarnated in the flesh and assumed human nature and thus had two natures.
The unity of Christ and the Father can be maintained without calling it becoming modalism. They are united in the one substance of God preventing tritheism, yet remain separate as persons preventing modalism.
In addition you got the idea of perichoresis that in each person of the trinity, the two others dwell as well. John 14:18 being a text used to show that. The believers will receive the Spirit, but in the Spirit Jesus is present as well.
csuguy
Well-known member
John 17:1-4 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
According to Jesus himself - the only true God is the Father. If Jesus is God, he must be the Father. If the Father was in heaven while Jesus was on earth - then Jesus can't be the Father - he can't be God.
I know how the trinitarians would have you approach the scriptures - as I grew up a trinitarian myself. What you need to ask yourself is do the scriptures, read objectively, really lead you to the trinity? To Christ being God? And don't consider just one or two proof texts, but look at scripture as a whole - for as you said, there are multiple voices in scripture.
The unity of Christ and the Father cannot be maintained without calling it modalism. If the Son is the Father, absolutely one - then there is no distinction between these two and you have modalism.
If, however, you reject this notion - then you must admit that John 10:30 should not be read as a literal A=B sentence. You must admit that it is a matter of HOW they are one. Once you admit these two things (which a trinitarian must to maintain that this scripture supports the trinity) then you must ask yourself - does the scripture, read in context, lead to the trinitarian interpretation of the verse? Does scripture talk about them being of the same "substance" but different "personages." Is there more than one "personage" of God in scripture? Or is this all eisegeses?
There is a big difference between saying Jesus is a creature and saying He is the uncreated Creator God. Using your logic, there is no difference between a cat and a horse, because both have hair and four legs. Cults can say Jesus is Messiah, but whether He is Deity or not is not a moot point, but core truth.
As long as you think 2+2=4 and 5, there is no hope for you, csugal.
As long as you think 2+2=4 and 5, there is no hope for you, csugal.
csuguy
Well-known member
There is a big difference between our understanding of who he is - but not over salvific matters. We are looking at the same historic and scriptural Jesus, we both consider him to be the Messiah and Lord. We both acknowledge the things he said and did. These are the important things - the idea of Christ's divinity is an issue taht was developed by theologians, not an issue that plays any real importance in scripture - and it is certaintly not presented as a salvific issue in scripture.
As long as you hold onto tradition and place it over God's truth, there is no hope for you.
Using your logic, because Muslims believe Jesus is a teacher, man, etc. that they must be Christian. Just because we agree on some things about Jesus does not mean we can blur the distinctions between Creator and creature or other key aspects of who He is.
2 Cor. 11:4 JWs and Christians have different gospels/Christs. You are making a counterfeit coin of the same value as a real one.:bang:
Gal. 1:6-10 you also make a false gospel the same as a true gospel.:bang:
A sound Christology/doctrine of God is not optional, but essential (Jude 3; Jn. 4:24).
2 Cor. 11:4 JWs and Christians have different gospels/Christs. You are making a counterfeit coin of the same value as a real one.:bang:
Gal. 1:6-10 you also make a false gospel the same as a true gospel.:bang:
A sound Christology/doctrine of God is not optional, but essential (Jude 3; Jn. 4:24).
csuguy
Well-known member
You are being dumb GR. Muslims don't acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, that is what makes them not Christian - not that they accept him as a man.
I'll make you a deal - show me where scripture says "You must believe Jesus is God to be saved" and I will agree that the trinity is the biblically correct view. If you can't find it, then you must admit that your position is unbiblical.
Many verses identify Him as Deity, not creature. We agree you must trust Jesus to be saved, but we disagree as to the difference between the real Jesus and a false, fictious one that cannot save. As long as you think a gold tin-foil chocolate coin is worth as much as a $100 pure gold coin, I cannot help you. You are wasting our time.
- Status