|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Why did Jesus not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity.
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
This question arose on another thread.
IMV, Jesus, being a Jew, would have been aware of the axiom :"The Lord, he is one.."
The paradigm shift involved in the separation of the Godhead would have been impossible for his audience.
He did, however, make claims for himself that only God could make, eg forgiving sins.
He also demonstrated authority that only God has, eg the power over death.
The transfiguration demonstrated his own divinity in that the Shekinah glory shone through him and the disciples saw it while at the same time hearing the voice of the Father affirming him.
The Jewish concept of sonship assumes that a son and a father are one though two. The Jewish reaction to his claim to be God's son, is that this was a claim of equality wuith God.
The baptism of Jesus signals God's presence as three 'species' if you like. This is a model of unity yet separateness.
Finally, Jesus promised that the spirit would teach and spoke of the Spirit as a personality separate from either himself or the Father.
All in all it seems Jesus claimed unity with, yet separation from the Father to whom he willingly submitted. He referred to the coming of the Holy Spirit whom he said, would bear further witness of himself.
To me this all adds up to a modelling of the Trinitarian Godhead though the concept itself is, of course, a later theological construct..
Any comments?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:39: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Yes. The later theological construct is completely wrong. They misinterpreted Jesus' words.
If Jesus claims identity with the Father and there is only one God then it makes more sense to understand Jesus to be saying that He is God, not that they are somehow two.
The metaphor of Father/Son/Holy Spirit is helpful in explaining how Jesus could be born on earth, grow up, and be killed and yet be God.
Of course it all depends on what you think He was doing here in the first place.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The metaphor of Father/Son/Holy Spirit is helpful in explaining how Jesus could be born on earth, grow up, and be killed and yet be God.
So, how much would orthodoxy (note the small 'o') admit your use of the word "metaphor". I was always under the impression that the doctrine of the trinity was somehow more than that. A real description of the nature of the Godhead. Perhaps I have that wrong.
Anyhow, to answer the question, I think Jesus was more concerned about how people relate to each other than he was about concrete theology. It seems to me that the trinity falls more into the second category than the first so I guess he just never got around to it. There are various oblique references to relationships within the Godhead (know me and you'll know the Father, for example), so I doubt Jesus would have denied the trinity.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I can't claim any special expertise here, but (unable to learn from experience) I will stick my neck out. I think one danger in discussing the Trinity is that to many listeners it may sound as if we are worshiping three gods and not one God. In a lot of religions, gods have a tendency to multiply, and we are not safe from that. For instance:
In another thread, there are references to Gaia and to the Earth as "our mother" or as "the body of God". Does that make four?
In the Caribbean region, you can find people whose religions conflate Christianity with other beliefs; they may have multiple deities and still call themselves Christian.
While I am sure educated Roman Catholics distinguish carefully between Mary and God or between the saints and God, I suspect there are many less-educated Roman Catholics who essentially have a pantheon.
I have heard of offshoots of Christianity that believe God (the Father) has a wife.
In general, I think when we discuss the Trinity, we need to make clear that ours is a monotheistic religion. God may have several names but remains God.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
While I am sure educated Roman Catholics distinguish carefully between Mary and God or between the saints and God, I suspect there are many less-educated Roman Catholics who essentially have a pantheon.
I must say that while statements like this frequently come up, I have never, ever met a Catholic who confused the Saints with God, and I have know many Catholics with little formal education, including relatives with only a year or two of grade school. I think this comes from a misunderstanding of the familiarity with which Catholics have with the saints or indeed Christ Himself (as manifested in devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, the Sacred Heart, etc.). Sorry for the quick rant but I think this idea is a non-starter.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Jesus did say 'I and the father are one'. The Holy Spirit explicitly descended on him in the form of a dove and on the disciples in tongues of fire. How much more do people need to see it's a holy three-in-onesome?
Perhaps it's there in some lost parable or other. I'd be surprised if we already had every last saying of Jesus.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In general, I think when we discuss the Trinity, we need to make clear that ours is a monotheistic religion. God may have several names but remains God.
They're persons, not names!
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
As I said, "unable to learn from experience".
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
It seems to me that the "problem" with the Trinity is that we limited humans are wrestling to understand what is fundimentally beyond comprehension. So we hold, more or less, in tension ideas that on the face of it are contradictory, because each in turn is an affirmation we make about God. History teaches that we are not too good at this mental wrestling, and Christian history is filled with an alphabet soup of alternative rationalizations (heresies) for the mystery of God. Maybe, Bullfrog, the response to the previous post might be "They are three persons, with three names." They are, in fact, names (titles). But we are always saying, "but God is more than."
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I'm not sure it's a contradiction if you really see the trinity as three independent persons sharing a common entity. My wife, myself, and my daughter make one complete family, yet we are three perfectly independent individuals that work, more or less, in concert.
It just takes rethinking of the notion of God.
Sorry if I overreacted to the names thing. I've been in seminary for too long and too recently, and it makes me theologically hypersensitive.
We need to be clear that we're monotheistic, but we also need to be clear that God is not an isolated monotheistic thing. Really, I think the trinity is neither monotheistic or polytheistic, because (as above) it has an understanding of God that kind of bends both categories.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
... Christian history is filled with an alphabet soup of alternative rationalizations (heresies) for the mystery of God.
I understand that at the time of the council of Nicaea it was necessary to counter Arianism, and I understand the appeal of thinking that God is mysteriously incomprehensible. But I cannot understand how it made sense to adopt the idea of a Trinity of persons as the best understanding of the Gospels and to dismiss all other explanations as rationalizations and heresies.
The council of Nicaea was an exercise in philosophy that has left Christianity with a legacy of incomprehensibility, tension between contradictions, and claims that God is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. I get the sense that some people think that a Trinity of persons should be believed because it is incomprehensible.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I think it is helpful to understand that the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to make sense of experience of God.
The one whom Jesus called 'the Father' is the first person known as God, yet the experience and understanding of the early church - even in the apostolic period is that Jesus also is God and that the Holy Spirit too is God.
The doctrine of the Trinity begins as an effort to mark the limits of what can be said about these persons without collapsing them somehow into mere manifestations of one being, or unduly separating them into three separate deities.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
An eggshell, an eggwhite and an eggyolk all have different meanings and benefits in my life. But I cannot say I have an egg in the house unless I have all three elements. Trinity Egg Doctrine...
Anyway, though you can find His statements like "the Father and I are one" and "if you've seen me, you've seen the Father", I imagine He didn't detail word-for-word, later-centuries-style discussions about the Trinity because it shouldn't be considered all that important an idea.
Exactly how does me thinking in great detail about the different ways the Lord manifest(s)(ed) change my Christian walk, today?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
W Hyatt: quote:
The council of Nicaea was an exercise in philosophy that has left Christianity with a legacy of incomprehensibility, tension between contradictions, and claims that God is neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. I get the sense that some people think that a Trinity of persons should be believed because it is incomprehensible.
In a way, yes. If I were to start thinking that I had the Lord God of the Universe in a nutshell, I'm pretty sure I would be on the wrong track. That "tension between contradictions" resembles the Immanence of God that I've been graced with a few times in my life.
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The concept of the Trinity is implicit in the Old Testament, although there it is the Lord (= perhaps, Father?) and the Spirit who get the most air time. Oops, I'm forgetting the "Angel of the Lord" who is many times apparently to be identified with Jesus Christ himself. But there are phrases like "Don't mess with him, because my Name is in him, and he won't take it kindly" (loose paraphrase WAY too early in the morning) and various occasions when the Lord, the Spirit and the Angel of the Lord are treated as interchangeable, with repeated shifts in point of view, pronouns, etc. What did the Jews make of this (outside the Scriptures)? I suspect the concept of the Trinity was far less alien to the first Christians than you might think.
As for why Jesus didn't sit down and connect the dots, well, first of all, we don't know that he didn't. He spent quite a long time (for him) in a little village with his disciples (no crowds) during the last months before his death. Presumably he was teaching them. Also, he refers on the last night to the Holy Spirit who "will guide you into all truth" and who will cause them to remember everything Jesus had told them. After all, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when the Comforter comes, ..." etc.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure it's a contradiction if you really see the trinity as three independent persons sharing a common entity. My wife, myself, and my daughter make one complete family, yet we are three perfectly independent individuals that work, more or less, in concert.
Of course, by that definition, the Greeks were monotheists -- they believed in one pantheon.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Exactly how does me thinking in great detail about the different ways the Lord manifest(s)(ed) change my Christian walk, today?
That's a good question and I'm sure it doesn't for some. But imagine what it's like to believe in the Trinity as a single person: Jesus Christ is Jehovah himself, the creator of the universe made visible. No substitution, no atonement or propitiation, no divine anger or condemnation, just pure and infinite love for the whole human race from a single divine human. The mystery and awe isn't eliminated, it's just all wrapped up in Christ as creator and savior. It affects everything about my relationship with him.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God - I have no trouble believing that. But why divide him into three persons when one works just fine?
Because if you do that, then Jesus ceases to be truly human.
I'll get back to other posts later. I'm on a five minute break from class at the moment...
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Re the remark: "a Trinity of persons should be believed because it is incomprehensible."
I think it is inherently a losing argument to say this, as there are countless doctrines we could invent that would be incomprehensible and which we should not believe. To the extent that a doctrine is incomprehensible, we should expect to lose customers over it.
The doctrine of the Trinity can be understood in a number of different ways, and I see no need for everyone to agree on it. (Of course, part of the fun of the Ship is arguing over trivia.)
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
...Jesus Christ is Jehovah himself, the creator of the universe made visible. No substitution, no atonement or propitiation, no divine anger or condemnation...
True - but then some of us who are Trinitarians don't believe in those thing either.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different aspects of one God - I have no trouble believing that. But why divide him into three persons when one works just fine?
(With apologies for repeat posting)
I think that the problem here is with the word 'person', and the different things it (and its alleged equivalents) mean and have meant in English, Latin and Greek.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV, Jesus, being a Jew, would have been aware of the axiom :"The Lord, he is one.."
With apologies for what's likely to be a third consecutive post on one thread:
Jesus wasn't just aware of this axiom. He used it himself in one of his most famous sayings. I learned the Summary of the Law by heart at confirmation class, and I supposed I shouldn't have been so surprised when, as I started taking more interest in Judaism, I encountered the first couple of clauses again:
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord is your God; the Lord is One."
I we take Jesus' own teachings seriously, then whatever we think about the Trinity has to remain compatible with the Shema.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure it's a contradiction if you really see the trinity as three independent persons sharing a common entity. My wife, myself, and my daughter make one complete family, yet we are three perfectly independent individuals that work, more or less, in concert.
Of course, by that definition, the Greeks were monotheists -- they believed in one pantheon.
--Tom Clune
Yeah, but the pantheon seemed to consist a bunch of disagreeing individuals who sometimes didn't seem to share anything in common besides being theoi (and I hadn't before thought of the obvious etymology of pantheon before.) The trinity are all essentially one, even if they function somewhat independently.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The concept of the Trinity is implicit in the Old Testament, although there it is the Lord (= perhaps, Father?) and the Spirit who get the most air time. Oops, I'm forgetting the "Angel of the Lord" who is many times apparently to be identified with Jesus Christ himself. But there are phrases like "Don't mess with him, because my Name is in him, and he won't take it kindly" (loose paraphrase WAY too early in the morning) and various occasions when the Lord, the Spirit and the Angel of the Lord are treated as interchangeable, with repeated shifts in point of view, pronouns, etc. What did the Jews make of this (outside the Scriptures)? I suspect the concept of the Trinity was far less alien to the first Christians than you might think.
As for why Jesus didn't sit down and connect the dots, well, first of all, we don't know that he didn't. He spent quite a long time (for him) in a little village with his disciples (no crowds) during the last months before his death. Presumably he was teaching them. Also, he refers on the last night to the Holy Spirit who "will guide you into all truth" and who will cause them to remember everything Jesus had told them. After all, "I have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when the Comforter comes, ..." etc.
I really wish that Luke could've spent a little more ink on the bits where Jesus "opened their minds to the meaning of the scriptures" after the resurrection. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
I think we humans get in trouble when we try to categorize the mystery of God. The process of categorizing is a process of limiting (literally of definition). The reality of God demands something akin to the exact opposite, a process of braking out of, or through the conceptual limits.
When Jesus opened up the scriptures, I believe it was in the context of experience, not theorizing. Emmaus was all about an encounter over broken bread and a shared cup that left the participants with "burning hearts."
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Exactly how does me thinking in great detail about the different ways the Lord manifest(s)(ed) change my Christian walk, today?
... imagine what it's like to believe in the Trinity as a single person: Jesus Christ is Jehovah himself, the creator of the universe made visible.
You'd likely call me a Trinitarian -- and yet I do believe Jesus of Nazareth, He that is called Christ or Messiah, is Yahweh. That which claims divine nature -- assuming it's the truth -- is God.
quote:
... No substitution, no atonement or propitiation...
Why not?
quote:
... no divine anger...
Why not?
quote:
... or condemnation...
Why not? Are you saying the Divine One has no right to anger? And are you saying Man doesn't handily and efficiently condemn his own sorry unredeemed ass?
quote:
... just pure and infinite love for the whole human race from a single divine human...
The love is pure, and unquantifiable. It comes from the GodMan as from the FatherGod as from the UnAssailableIndescribableBreathofGod. Do you really mean that people will rear upright on their teeny tiny little back feet and squeak at the MasterMind of All that His love is adulterated because He dares to feel more than love for us?
quote:
... mystery and awe isn't eliminated, it's just all wrapped up in Christ as creator and savior...
Well, d'uh. That of the GodHead that was the creative... interface, if you like... was He that we know as the Son. Y'know, the Word?
quote:
... It affects everything about my relationship with him.
I don't see how it makes a bit of difference in the deference due the Deity.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
You'd likely call me a Trinitarian -- and yet I do believe Jesus of Nazareth, He that is called Christ or Messiah, is Yahweh. That which claims divine nature -- assuming it's the truth -- is God.
And yet somehow, I'm left with a strong suspicion that we mean something rather different.
quote:
quote:
... No substitution, no atonement or propitiation...
Why not?
To be able to explain why they don't exist, I'd have to understand why it makes sense to expect that they do exist. Since I don't, I can't.
quote:
quote:
... no divine anger...
Why not?
quote:
... or condemnation...
Why not? Are you saying the Divine One has no right to anger? And are you saying Man doesn't handily and efficiently condemn his own sorry unredeemed ass?
Of course God has all right to anything - I'm simply saying he is incapable of being angry because anger is counter to his essence, which is best described as love itself. Scriptures do attribute anger and condemnation to God, but I think they are only describing how God's zeal for our salvation appears to us when we resist his love for us.
I'm confused about your capitalization of "Man," but I would say that while we are free to condemn ourselves all we want, the condemnation doesn't come from God. Self-condemnation is the way we react to the presence of his truth when we reject his love. I see it as much like when my children were absolutely convinced I was angry with them when in fact I was only sad and fearful for their sake, or perhaps just trying not to laugh.
quote:
quote:
... just pure and infinite love for the whole human race from a single divine human...
The love is pure, and unquantifiable. It comes from the GodMan as from the FatherGod as from the UnAssailableIndescribableBreathofGod. Do you really mean that people will rear upright on their teeny tiny little back feet and squeak at the MasterMind of All that His love is adulterated because He dares to feel more than love for us?
Interesting image - somehow I have trouble believing that you really inferred that as my meaning from what I said. If the essence of God is best described as love, then everything else he feels is in harmony with that love.
quote:
quote:
... mystery and awe isn't eliminated, it's just all wrapped up in Christ as creator and savior...
Well, d'uh. That of the GodHead that was the creative... interface, if you like... was He that we know as the Son. Y'know, the Word?
Once again, I have that strong suspicion that we mean something quite different. I don't feel the need to resort to terms like "GodHead" and "interface."
quote:
quote:
... It affects everything about my relationship with him.
I don't see how it makes a bit of difference in the deference due the Deity.
Neither do I, but the deference due to God is infinitely beyond the deference any one of us can ever actually feel towards him. My relationship with God is not limited by anything in God, it's limited by my perception of him.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
While I am sure educated Roman Catholics distinguish carefully between Mary and God or between the saints and God, I suspect there are many less-educated Roman Catholics who essentially have a pantheon.
And yet you would probably fail in finding this. I know a lot of Catholics none of whom believes in a 'pantheon.'
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In general, I think when we discuss the Trinity, we need to make clear that ours is a monotheistic religion. God may have several names but remains God.
So names can talk amongst themselves, then? They can communicate with each other? You might not believe in the New Testament, but modalism cannot explain it. As Dale Tuggy writes:
quote:
Modalism has no problems at all with consistency and intelligibility, but it utterly fails as a way to read the New Testament. If modalism were true, it would be a mistake to think that the Father and the Son have a wonderful, loving, cooperative personal relationship. Rather, what we see in the gospels would really amount to a single individual (God) communicating to, relating to, and cooperating with himself in various roles, much as a human suffering from multiple personality disorder or a versatile actor does. This is a terrible reading of the New Testament, which is why nearly all Christians in all ages have (at least, officially and in their clear-headed moments) rejected modalism. The trinitarian interactions therein are not to be thought of as divine delusion, pretending, or deceit.
Source: Dale Tuggy, "The unfinished business of Trinitarian theorizing," p. 13-14 (page reference to pdf-file). Religious Studies 39: 165-183. Cambridge University Press. [Retrieved: January 23rd 2010]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Because if you do that, then Jesus ceases to be truly human.
I'll get back to other posts later.
Sorry, I didn't read your second sentence carefully and I was waiting for you to elaborate (which I am still hoping you do).
Seeing God as a trinity of divine aspects within the one divine person of Jesus Christ does mean that he ceases to be merely human, but to my understanding it makes him truly human in the most perfect sense of the word because it makes him divinely human. We are each a single person with a trinity of soul, body, and operation because we are an image and likeness of him. How does seeing God as a single person mean Jesus ceases to be truly human?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Jesus did say 'I and the father are one'. The Holy Spirit explicitly descended on him in the form of a dove and on the disciples in tongues of fire. How much more do people need to see it's a holy three-in-onesome?
Well, quite a lot more, actually, if it comes to making it part of a credal test of faith.
"I and the Father are one" - Jesus expresses his identification with God. But is he one with God in some special way that no one else can be?
References to the Holy Spirit: God is Spirit, or the Spirit of God can just simply be another way of saying 'God'. God's Word, God's Spirit - these could all just be ways in which God interacts with creation.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
References to the Holy Spirit: God is Spirit, or the Spirit of God can just simply be another way of saying 'God'. God's Word, God's Spirit - these could all just be ways in which God interacts with creation.
Which, considering the New Testament data, doesn't make one bit of sense. Modes or names doesn't communicate with each other.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
(I know this must be a stupid question so be kind.) Did Jesus teach any theology at all?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Actually, it's a pretty durn good question, if you asked me.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Another from the treasure trove of mousethief's great one-liners!
How should 'theology' be defined here? Was he perhaps re-presenting OT (Jewish scripture) theology in the manner best understood by his audience?
The rest is silence...
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If theology is thinking about God, then Jesus lived theology.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Right but he also lived Trinity.
The OP asks why he didn't teach the Trinity explicitly. I wonder if he explicitly taught any theology at all?
He taught a lot about the right way to live -- orthopraxis as we'd say in The Plot™. "The OT says do this, I say do that." He told a lot of parables but those by definition aren't explicit. Did a little apocalyptic. I can think of one example -- "I shall send the Paraclete who proceedeth from the Father and he (etc)."
But I think you will not find a lot of places in the Gospels where OLGASJC teaches any theology. Which answers -- in a way -- the question why he didn't teach the Trinity explicitly. Answer: Because he didn't teach (much of) any theology explicitly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I've always suspected that he didn't want us getting distracted by it.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
Maybe our definition of "teaching theology" is a bit narrow. The parables may not be explicit x=y type of lectures, but they were used to teach something about God, no?
(Or the Church. I'm thinking about "I am the Vine, you are the branches", etc..)
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Maybe our definition of "teaching theology" is a bit narrow. The parables may not be explicit x=y type of lectures, but they were used to teach something about God, no?
Hence the adjective, "explicitly" -- as per the OP.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362
|
Posted
The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D 325. The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. It seems obvious to me these are just humans told by there benefactor the Emperor Constantine to get their act together. Jesus or his teaching had nothing to do with it no matter how many times you circle the wagon. Constantine
a Roman military man and administrator was just doing what came natural to him keep the peace and collect taxes the secret of the Roman Empire. Constantine knew that religion was part of that.
Hamp
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well, I'm with mousethief. It is pretty obvious from the gospels that Jesus' teaching was spontaneous, reactive to his circumstances and incredibly practical.
His life and death resound through history as do our attempts to understand them.
I certainly think he lived and modelled the trinity in a way that has taken much subsequent reflection to come to terms with.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
It seems obvious to me these are just humans told by there benefactor the Emperor Constantine to get their act together. Jesus or his teaching had nothing to do with it no matter how many times you circle the wagon.
I'm with you. It baffles me that a bunch of poorly educated men making politically-driven decisions 1,700 years ago still have such impact.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
It seems obvious to me these are just humans told by there benefactor the Emperor Constantine to get their act together. Jesus or his teaching had nothing to do with it no matter how many times you circle the wagon.
I'm with you. It baffles me that a bunch of poorly educated men making politically-driven decisions 1,700 years ago still have such impact.
You two exclude the Spirit from having any hand in pulling it together? All sorts of political and even sinful crap happens in the Bible, yet somehow things often turn out to God's end.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
The argument assumes that the Spirit has nothing (or even cannot have anything) to do with 'political' things. An assumption I have never seen substantiated. And if it's true, why do they still hold on to the Scriptures? Were the Scriptural canonization process less 'political'?
Edit: fixed a typo.
[ 29. January 2010, 13:56: Message edited by: k-mann ]
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
It seems obvious to me these are just humans told by there benefactor the Emperor Constantine to get their act together. Jesus or his teaching had nothing to do with it no matter how many times you circle the wagon.
I'm with you. It baffles me that a bunch of poorly educated men making politically-driven decisions 1,700 years ago still have such impact.
This seems to me completely irrelevant to this thread. The question is not why do we now believe in the trinity, or when did the church first start teaching the trinity, or is there any good reason to believe the trinity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
ISTM, Jesus emphasized a lot of practical theology--how to live, how to relate to God, etc.
--------------------
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")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You two exclude the Spirit from having any hand in pulling it together?
Yes. It was not the Spirit. People and organizations make mistakes. If it was the Spirit it would be consistent with the Gospels.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It baffles me that a bunch of poorly educated men making politically-driven decisions 1,700 years ago still have such impact.
This seems to me completely irrelevant to this thread. The question is not why do we now believe in the trinity, or when did the church first start teaching the trinity, or is there any good reason to believe the trinity.
I'm just confirming the aspect of the OP that notes that Jesus did not explicitly teach the Trinity. It is an invention that is consistent with some of what Jesus says, but which creates other problems.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362
|
Posted
I'm with you. It baffles me that a bunch of poorly educated men making politically-driven decisions 1,700 years ago still have such impact.
What concerns me is what what kind of impact today? In it's day the Trinity was designed to bring two opposing concepts about Jesus (human Vs supranational}into one. After cutting through what I will call "God Talk" Jesus seems to have wound up purely human and purely supernatural in the same personage. In the world we humans live we find it hard to relate to the supernatural, but to both at the same time very hard so it took two or three more gathering of Church Bishops before it was finally accepted as a mystery. 1,700 years ago the Trinity served a purpose. Outside of "God Talk" what purpose does it serve today? Does it help the Christan cause to have to say one of the tenets of my faith is not possible in the world we live in so we call it a mystery.Why not make him one or both but NOT AT THE SAME TIME. There is the religion of Jesus (what he taught) and there is the religion about Jesus (what Church Fathers said about him).
FOOTNOTE:
1. The argument which implies that since no one can prove the Holy Spirit is not working through some person it is. Strikes me like this, since you can not prove that Mars is not made of red cheese it is.
2. The argument that Church Fathers were closer in time to when certain things were written than scholars today ; therefore, must be more believable does not take into account what Church Fathers would want to say about Christian writings and today's technology to analyze these writings.
3. Homer's writing still have an impact on Greek scholars, but they are no truer today that the day he wrote them.
Hamp
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
