Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

---

Isn't that what separates standard Trinitarianism from something like modalism, it's not just that God decided for a limited period of time to incarnate himself as a human(as in modalism), but rather that the Son had existed right from the beginning, as part of the Godhead, even before he was incarnated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Unlike the incorrect teaching of kenosis, and according to Paul's teaching, he didn't lay aside his divinity but rather added the form of a servant to his unchanging nature as God, becoming fully man as well as being fully divine.

---

quote:

---

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The second person of the Trinity became Jesus? I.e. was solely expressed as Jesus from conception?

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...sorry, I thought this had all been sorted 1600 years ago

---

Well, you know the Ship. Gotta rehash it, over, and over, and over.


--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Since when has kenosis not been standard, mainstream Christian doctrine?

As far as I know it's never been defined as such by any major Council, but in the way Cliffdweller defines it my understanding is that it's been the prevailing small o and Big O o/Orthodox view.

Either Mudfrog has misunderstood it or he's putting forward something non-mainstream.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Mudfrog--

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...sorry, I thought this had all been sorted 1600 years ago

---

Well, you know the Ship. Gotta rehash it, over, and over, and over.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
The second person of the Trinity became Jesus? I.e. was solely expressed as Jesus from conception?

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

---

The Word was with God in the beginning and the Word was God. That Word became flesh.
So Jesus is the same being as the second person of the Trinity, in so far as we can apply any language of 'same' and 'being' to God.

I have to keep gnawing at this bone. Sorry. So Jesus is the same subjective, personal being, centre of consciousness as the second person of the Trinity? The centre of consciousness OF the second person of the Trinity became (fully and completely transposed, migrated, collapsed, moved to) the human centre of consciousness Jesus? After months of non-consciousness and more of consciousness development?

Or AS WELL AS?

The second person of the Trinity added a human being to His person? Such that that human being remembered being God, not 'just' by nature but in Person? YHWH, ego eimi. Seeing Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Which He also would have done if He had become omni-less Jesus INSTEAD OF omni God, but in the same continuous consciousness but for the oblivion of the womb and pre-identity.

The Chalcedonian definition has it that Jesus is one person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature.

Which person? I believe Catholic reasoning IS that the Person and the person are different beings. That they therefore(?) do not share the same consciousness. Or do they?

As I understand it, the easiest way to explain this is to look at the grammar. Talking about persons or beings is addressing questions about which or how many. To say Jesus is one person is to say that the answer to the question 'which being is the human being conceived by Mary and which dwelt in her womb, etc etc' and the answer to the question 'which being is the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father,' are the same being.

The same continuous consciousness then. Shared by a Person and a person. Serially. Not in parallel? Not in overlap, intersection, superposition?

Talking about natures is addressing questions about what kind of thing something is. So saying Jesus has a human nature and a divine nature is to say that he is simultaneously a human kind of thing (with all the properties and capabilities that humans have, which he has in a human way) and that he is a divine kind of thing (with all the properties and capabilities that God has, which he exercises in the way God does). Which or how many: one person. What is he? Human and divine.

Aye. Was the person a subset of the Person? Did the person intersect with the Person with the natures of each and a shared consciousness? Or a NEW consciousness. Which I believe is Catholic reasoning. If a new, personal consciousness, then was that perichoretic with the Personal consciousness.

A chair is wooden and chair-shaped. So you can have a wooden thing in a room, and a chair-shaped thing in a room, and yet have only one thing in that room.

Aye. Jesus was human and divine. And by your analogy one consciousness that had been omni-God but then wasn't?

When Jesus took decisions he took them simultaneously through the process that humans do and through the process that God does (in so far as it is meaningful to talk of a process of God making decisions which is not much). (The heresy that denies this is called monothelitism.)

Aye, He had two WILLS. A nature doesn't have a will does it? A consciousness does. There were therefore two consciousnesses involved? Or the divine nature imparted another will in, subject to one consciousness?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

---

Isn't that what separates standard Trinitarianism from something like modalism, it's not just that God decided for a limited period of time to incarnate himself as a human(as in modalism), but rather that the Son had existed right from the beginning, as part of the Godhead, even before he was incarnated?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So Jesus is the same subjective, personal being, centre of consciousness as the second person of the Trinity? The centre of consciousness OF the second person of the Trinity became (fully and completely transposed, migrated, collapsed, moved to) the human centre of consciousness Jesus? After months of non-consciousness and more of consciousness development?

Or AS WELL AS?

---

quote:

---

I believe Catholic reasoning IS that the Person and the person are different beings. That they therefore(?) do not share the same consciousness. Or do they?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Since when has kenosis not been standard, mainstream Christian doctrine?

As far as I know it's never been defined as such by any major Council, but in the way Cliffdweller defines it my understanding is that it's been the prevailing small o and Big O o/Orthodox view.

Either Mudfrog has misunderstood it or he's putting forward something non-mainstream.

---

Well it all depends doesn't it?

What is your definition of kenosis?

Would it accord with the poetic 'emptied himself of all but love?' which actually contradicts Wesleys' other wonderful line 'Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the'incarnate Deity'.

If Kenosis is defined as "Christ's 'laying aside' of certain divine attributes in the incarnation' (Alister McGrath) then I would reject it.

There is nothing in the Philippian hymn that suggests laying any divine attribute aside - it mentions no divine attributes at all. What it does say is that he made himself nothing in the sense of humiliation and status.

From my limited reading it seems that the earlier form of kenosis was that either Jesus used his divine attributes in secret (unlikely) or that he simply chose not to use them.

I have to say however that there are occasions when Jesus appeared to read the minds of his detractors, so there was a bit of omniscience going on.

The other objection to the later form of kenosis - i.e. that he laid aside all his divine attributes in order to become fully human - i that it goes against the immutability of God.

It seems to be that in Jesus the Word of God became flesh - he put on the form of a servant without actually becoming only a servant.

If Jesus was merely man from conception to resurrection, then who was on the cross?
If a man, great, he represents us.
But if he's not divine too - if God the Son did not die - then he cannot represent God for us as Saviour.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with..

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So Jesus is the same subjective, personal being, centre of consciousness as the second person of the Trinity? The centre of consciousness OF the second person of the Trinity became (fully and completely transposed, migrated, collapsed, moved to) the human centre of consciousness Jesus? After months of non-consciousness and more of consciousness development?

Or AS WELL AS?

---

According to the Chalcedonian definition, the distinction of each nature is not taken away by the union but the property of each nature is preserved.

In short, Jesus is a fully human being [person and substance?], and also is God [substance only?]. Since human beings are conscious in a human way and God is conscious in some other way, I suppose Jesus must have been conscious in two ways at the same time [this implies person as well as substance? But Jesus was ONE, new, single fully human person. NOT two persons. NOT a person and a Person. OR is consciousness an aspect of subjective person AND substance or even SOLELY an aspect of SUBSTANCE. This looks like a breakthrough I've never encountered before and as there's nothing new under the sun ... wrong! But it's thanks to reading what you say below and looping back that I'm here.].

Words such as 'subjective' and 'consciousness' are foreign to the philosophy of the authors of the Creeds. They didn't believe as Descartes did that the mind is a single self-transparent consciousness. A century or so after Freud and other psychoanalysts we shouldn't believe that either.


And there you are. I agree, thanks to Bertrand Russell initially, that 'cogito ergo sum' deconstructs to 'thought/thinking exists', 'something is thinking'. Is that congruent with what you are implying?

This is fascinating. What DID they assume about their personhood, their 'Me', their 'I'? I just Googled 'ancient greek philosophy of the mind'. Bugger me!

So, for now, my proposition that consciousness is an aspect of substance not person helps me and fits further with what you continue to say, I feel.

quote:

---

I believe Catholic reasoning* IS that the Person and the person are different beings. That they therefore(?) do not share the same consciousness. Or do they?

---

As I understand it, they are the same being, but not necessarily the same consciousness. (You are still the same person when you're asleep or under anaesthesia or otherwise not conscious, so consciousness is not the same as being even for a person.

Uh oh!

If a Person and a person are the same being CONCURRENTLY, in parallel, perichoretically, then being, there, means substance?

Can't be?!

Unless the perichoresis = substance?

If a Person and a person are the same being SERIALLY the problem goes away? And another arises ... a BIGGY. THE biggy: Whilst the second person of the Trinity was solely incarnate, who was minding the store?

Islam similarly makes the problems all go away by making God 'simple': a one person substance who shares nothing of his person.

'strewth!

Is a consciousness a person whether conscious or not?

What do you mean by a being? A philosophical, objective entity? Something that exists? Or/and ... a subjective person?!

Is consciousness with will, intellect an attribute of the substance nature that a consciousness, a person has, accesses when awake only? All painfully obvious stuff that I feel the need for definition of.

A person is a consciousness whether conscious or not?!

Stroll on!

(I agree that it is hard to see how a flesh and soul human being can be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul. But that I think is because we have no way of knowing what it is to be the Second Person of the Trinity, the being of God being entirely beyond our intellectual comprehension.)

NO! NO!! And thrice!!! C'mon Dafyd. Your're my best hope!

We have propositions. We have logic. We must be able to come up with a narrative that is initially independent of modern physics, that is classically logical.

"a flesh and soul human being person can be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul, concurrently, in parallel, overlapping IN CONSCIOUSNESS, in perichoretic separately willed, intellectual, conscienced consciousnesses ..."

AAAARRRGGGH! That still looks weasely. Meaningless!

"a flesh and soul human being person can APPEAR TO be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul, DUE TO BEING concurrently, in parallel, overlapping IN CONSCIOUSNESS, in perichoretic separately willed, intellectual, conscienced consciousnessES ..."

Sigh. For now I'll assume willed, intellectual consciousness is a fact of nature, substance. And that the one person Jesus could therefore have two such perichoretic consciousnesses.

Where consciousness means a willed, intellectual entity.

Classically that deconstructs to ... a will?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with..

---

That was my first impression as well-- which is why I began by saying "Mudfrog has misunderstood kenosis". But his response to Gamaliel sounds more like he understands it, but is objecting to the ancient doctrine. His earlier post might have been a bit of a straw man-- misrepresenting to some degree what we believe. But the later one seems to be tracking with the historic doctrine, but simply disagreeing with it on the basis of "immutability". I would argue that "immutability" is a concept from Greek philosophy, not biblical theology. Rather, what we see in Scripture is the consistency of God's divine nature or character, which is what remains constant in Christ even as he lays aside the "omnis".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with..

---

That was my first impression as well-- which is why I began by saying "Mudfrog has misunderstood kenosis". But his response to Gamaliel sounds more like he understands it, but is objecting to the ancient doctrine. His earlier post might have been a bit of a straw man-- misrepresenting to some degree what we believe. But the later one seems to be tracking with the historic doctrine, but simply disagreeing with it on the basis of "immutability". I would argue that "immutability" is a concept from Greek philosophy, not biblical theology. Rather, what we see in Scripture is the consistency of God's divine nature or character, which is what remains constant in Christ even as he lays aside the "omnis".

---

Which prior Greek sources contain these then?

Numbers 23:19 (KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 (KJV) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Psalm 102:26 (KJV) They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Malachi 3:6 (KJV) For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

2 Timothy 2:13 (KJV) If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Hebrews 6:17-18 (KJV)

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

James 1:17(KJV) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Did you mean impassible?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
In short, Jesus is a fully human being [person and substance?]

---

quote:

---

What DID they assume about their personhood, their 'Me', their 'I'? I just Googled 'ancient greek philosophy of the mind'. Bugger me!

---

quote:

---

So, for now, my proposition that consciousness is an aspect of substance not person helps me and fits further with what you continue to say, I feel.

---

quote:

---

Whilst the second person of the Trinity was solely incarnate, who was minding the store?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
In short, Jesus is a fully human being [person and substance?]

---

I am not entirely sure I know how you're using the words 'person' and 'substance' and so I'm not sure how to answer the question.

I was using them in the Trinitarian sense, which is incorrect in this context as you go on to demonstrate: a person is a substance, whereas a Trinitarian Person is not THE God ousia but is an hypostasis (a sub-substance?) of that ousia.

A substance, essence, ousia can therefore consist of others? Chemistry comes to mind. The substance water is made of two others, hydrogen and oxygen. Sub-substances.

So a p/Person - hypostasis - can be a substance, an ousia, an essence in themselves? According to Boethius to whom you allude below?

The matter is complicated in that the word 'hypostasis' (translated 'substance') is ambiguous in philosophical Greek.

Understood, Trinitarianly sub-stance = hypo-stasis != ousia = ... substance

quote:

---

What DID they assume about their personhood, their 'Me', their 'I'? I just Googled 'ancient greek philosophy of the mind'. Bugger me!

---

I don't think they talked about their 'Me' or their 'I' as far as I'm aware.

quote:

---

So, for now, my proposition that consciousness is an aspect of substance not person helps me and fits further with what you continue to say, I feel.

---

Firstly, I think that in most contexts other than Trinitarian philosophy 'substance' and 'person' are identical: a 'person' is an individual rational substance. The use of two different terms in Trinitarian philosophy is largely to avoid the logical incoherence of saying that there's both three and one of exactly the same thing.

Thanks.

In any case assuming I know what you mean which may be unwise I think I was saying that Jesus must have had two consciousnesses, assuming I have understood the implications correctly.

Agreed. And there's nowt wrong with your wisdom in dealing with my witless ambiguity.

quote:

---

Whilst the second person of the Trinity was solely incarnate, who was minding the store?

---

If I understand you correctly I think I was saying that the Second Person of the Trinity was not 'solely incarnate'. That would be claiming that the Incarnation was the conversion of the godhead into flesh, which is denied in I think the Athanasian Creed. The Second Person of the Trinity continued and continues to have a divine intellect and will, which would have been 'minding the store'.

I will pore over it again, thanks. I need these absolutes. And I'm sorry for not seeing with your clarity and what you clearly say!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

---

No.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power - Hebrews 1:3.

God imparted his personhood completely into Jesus Christ. Hence, God incarnate.

Jesus confirms he is the Father in John 14:8-9 in first person language.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?

---

quote:

---

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

---

No.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power - Hebrews 1:3.

God imparted his personhood completely into Jesus Christ. Hence, God incarnate.

Jesus confirms he is the Father in John 14:8-9 in first person language.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?

---

Cut that quote a bit short on both ends to prove a point, did we?

quote:

---

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

---

Jesus clearly never said He was the Father, and clearly speaks to them being separate persons of the trinity.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

---