Originally posted by Evensong:
But I don't think your model fits with ALL scripture, anymore than the Trinity does.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:They're persons, not names!
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
... Christian history is filled with an alphabet soup of alternative rationalizations (heresies) for the mystery of God.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Of course, by that definition, the Greeks were monotheists -- they believed in one pantheon.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Because if you do that, then Jesus ceases to be truly human.
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?
quote:True - but then some of us who are Trinitarians don't believe in those thing either.
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...
quote:(With apologies for repeat posting)
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?
quote:With apologies for what's likely to be a third consecutive post on one thread:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV, Jesus, being a Jew, would have been aware of the axiom :"The Lord, he is one.."
quote: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.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Of course, by that definition, the Greeks were monotheists -- they believed in one pantheon.
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.
--Tom Clune
quote: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.
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.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:... 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.
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?
quote:Why not?
... No substitution, no atonement or propitiation...
quote:Why not?
... no divine anger...
quote: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?
... or condemnation...
quote: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?
... just pure and infinite love for the whole human race from a single divine human...
quote: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?
... mystery and awe isn't eliminated, it's just all wrapped up in Christ as creator and savior...
quote:I don't see how it makes a bit of difference in the deference due the Deity.
... It affects everything about my relationship with him.
quote:And yet somehow, I'm left with a strong suspicion that we mean something rather different.
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.
quote: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:Why not?
... No substitution, no atonement or propitiation...
quote: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.
quote:Why not?
... no divine anger...
quote: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?
... or condemnation...
quote: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: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?
... just pure and infinite love for the whole human race from a single divine human...
quote: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: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?
... mystery and awe isn't eliminated, it's just all wrapped up in Christ as creator and savior...
quote: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.
quote:I don't see how it makes a bit of difference in the deference due the Deity.
... It affects everything about my relationship with him.
quote:And yet you would probably fail in finding this. I know a lot of Catholics none of whom believes in a 'pantheon.'
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.
quote: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:
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.
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]
quote:Sorry, I didn't read your second sentence carefully and I was waiting for you to elaborate (which I am still hoping you do).
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Because if you do that, then Jesus ceases to be truly human.
I'll get back to other posts later.
quote:Well, quite a lot more, actually, if it comes to making it part of a credal test of faith.
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?
quote:Which, considering the New Testament data, doesn't make one bit of sense. Modes or names doesn't communicate with each other.
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.
quote:Hence the adjective, "explicitly" -- as per the OP.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote: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.
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.
quote:Yes. It was not the Spirit. People and organizations make mistakes. If it was the Spirit it would be consistent with the Gospels.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You two exclude the Spirit from having any hand in pulling it together?
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote: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.
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.
quote:So do you believe in a pantheon of three? Or are Jesus and the Holy Spirit created demi-dieties under the One God?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes. It was not the Spirit. People and organizations make mistakes. If it was the Spirit it would be consistent with the Gospels.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You two exclude the Spirit from having any hand in pulling it together?
quote:No pantheon of three. Jesus is God. He is the Father. He is the Holy Spirit.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
So do you believe in a pantheon of three? Or are Jesus and the Holy Spirit created demi-dieties under the One God?
quote:Than could you please point out were the inconsistency lies? If you don't do it you are practically telling us to ignore your post.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes. It was not the Spirit. People and organizations make mistakes. If it was the Spirit it would be consistent with the Gospels.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You two exclude the Spirit from having any hand in pulling it together?
quote:So you believe Christ had a personality disorder, then? Modalism is rational in and of itself, but given the New Testament it is utterly irrational. As Dale Tuggy writes:
Originally posted by Freddy:
No pantheon of three. Jesus is God. He is the Father. He is the Holy Spirit.
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 30 2010]
quote:Easily. God is one not three. The Trinity makes Him three, whereas Jesus makes Him one.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Than could you please point out were the inconsistency lies?
quote:Not modalism. Christ is God. His language describing Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not a personality disorder, but a way of explaining how He could be God of the universe and at the same time be a growing and changing human being.
Originally posted by k-mann:
So you believe Christ had a personality disorder, then? Modalism is rational in and of itself, but given the New Testament it is utterly irrational.
quote:It's such an old argument that Christians have gotten used to it. Still, God can't be one and three. It amounts to three Gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The Nicene view that the Godhead is both One and Three in a sense that only applies to God and not created beings is more Biblically consistent to me than Jesus praying to himself as if he had an imaginary friend.
quote:When I read this I get a feeling that you haven't read the NT. Or just the parts Swedenborg allows you to read.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not modalism. Christ is God. His language describing Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not a personality disorder, but a way of explaining how He could be God of the universe and at the same time be a growing and changing human being.
quote:Bad mathematics. You are applying the mathematics of finite quantities to the infinite. Doesn't work that way.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Still, God can't be one and three. It amounts to three Gods.
quote:What gives you that feeling?
Originally posted by k-mann:
When I read this I get a feeling that you haven't read the NT. Or just the parts Swedenborg allows you to read.
quote:If it worked any way at all it wouldn't be a mystery.
Originally posted by MSHB:
Bad mathematics. You are applying the mathematics of finite quantities to the infinite. Doesn't work that way.
quote:Because the New Testament presents us with three different persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - who communicate amongst each other. If this is just one person Christ has a personality disorder - or her is evil, as he tries to deceive us.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:What gives you that feeling?
Originally posted by k-mann:
When I read this I get a feeling that you haven't read the NT. Or just the parts Swedenborg allows you to read.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:The New Testament presents us with a metaphor. In this metaphor the Son sits at the right hand of the Father to eternity. We know it is a metaphor because Christianity has always said that they aren't really two but one, and it would clearly be two gods if they were able to sit side by side in separate thrones.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Because the New Testament presents us with three different persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - who communicate amongst each other.
quote:Because three omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent beings is impossible. That would not be three persons with one nature but one person with one nature.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Can you point out what is impossible with three persons sharing one nature?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:So metaphors for the same have meaningful relationships - and communicate - with each other, then? I'm sorry, but this just won't cut it. If the Trinity is false we are left with a highly disturbed person.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The New Testament presents us with a metaphor. In this metaphor the Son sits at the right hand of the Father to eternity. We know it is a metaphor because Christianity has always said that they aren't really two but one, and it would clearly be two gods if they were able to sit side by side in separate thrones.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
Because three omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent beings is impossible. That would not be three persons with one nature but one person with one nature..
quote:Jesus always obeyed the divinity within Him, which He called "Father." His outer humanity became, over the course of a lifetime of obeying the Father's will, united with the Father.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Nevertheless not my will but thy will be done." -- how does this parse on your reading, Freddy?
quote:The point is to find an explanation that fits with ALL Scripture. The Trinity fits with some Scripture. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement fits with some Scripture.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy, The discussion suggests you are just reading your theology back into the scripture. Now We all do this to a degree but there has to be a point where in all honesty, metaphor and allegory will not stretch. If we insist on our versions as only one then do we not take all objectivity out of the Biblical revelation?
quote:Yes it does. Unless you think that Christ and the Father literally sit side by side on thrones in heaven you are agreeing that the description is metaphoric. It isn't meant to be taken literally, but to provide a figurative description that is easily understood.
Originally posted by k-mann:
So metaphors for the same have meaningful relationships - and communicate - with each other, then? I'm sorry, but this just won't cut it.
quote:It isn't false, it just isn't meant to be taken literally. There is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Scripture, but they are not separate persons, any more than "God" and "Lord" are separate, or "my Rock" and "my Savior" are separate. They describe the visible God compared with the visible, or the power of God compared with His wisdom. He has many names, but only one person.
Originally posted by k-mann:
If the Trinity is false we are left with a highly disturbed person.
quote:By definition there can be only one of these. If you want to try to think outside of that box it's fine with me.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
Because three omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent beings is impossible. That would not be three persons with one nature but one person with one nature..
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is to find an explanation that fits with ALL Scripture. The Trinity fits with some Scripture. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement fits with some Scripture.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:No it didn't. This was at the end, and they weren't united, clearly -- he says as much flat out. And about the most important decision of his entire life.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Jesus always obeyed the divinity within Him, which He called "Father." His outer humanity became, over the course of a lifetime of obeying the Father's will, united with the Father.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Nevertheless not my will but thy will be done." -- how does this parse on your reading, Freddy?
quote:The darkest time is just before the dawn. The cross was the final and most terrible struggle in Jesus' glorification, and it therefore included an appearance of great and final separation from the Father, even abandonment.
Originally posted by mousethief:
This was at the end, and they weren't united, clearly -- he says as much flat out. And about the most important decision of his entire life.
quote:It is important that it fit ALL Scripture. If not then look for a better model.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But I don't think your model fits with ALL scripture, anymore than the Trinity does.
quote:I assume:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:It is important that it fit ALL Scripture. If not then look for a better model.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But I don't think your model fits with ALL scripture, anymore than the Trinity does.
The assumption here, and it may or may not be the truth, is that Scripture is authoritative in these kinds of issues.
And I think a number of the world's brilliant theologians would agree when pressed. Starting with St. Augustine....and most recently, John Macquarrie, regis prof of Oxford.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:If all Scripture has one source in God, that is, if God is its true author, then there must be one model that fits all Scripture.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I assume:
1) Scripture is authoritative
2) God cannot speak to humanity in a vacuum (i.e. without thoughts, culture, worldviews, subjectivity, limitations of understanding and perception etc. etc. etc.)
So one model cannot possibly fit all scripture.
quote:Swedenborgian.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm struggling to put your particular brand of Christology in a box but I don't think I've heard it much before (except perhaps in the Monophysites?).
quote:Jesus is both human and God. He is God made visble. Or as Paul said: "In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus is human and God, then you're talking about the Trinity. I don't see the distinction.
quote:Thanks. I expect that everyone actually agrees with this - at least once they think about it or are aware of the impossible imagery associated with the Trinity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I do however agree with you that the Trinity is metaphorical.
quote:So you're like a non-trinitarian Nestorian, then? (Remember: the Bible tells that the Logos became flesh; not that the Logos were two persons.)
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Jesus always obeyed the divinity within Him, which He called "Father." His outer humanity became, over the course of a lifetime of obeying the Father's will, united with the Father.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Nevertheless not my will but thy will be done." -- how does this parse on your reading, Freddy?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
But the Trinity denies the Shema.
quote:Which means Christ has a personality disorder. If we assume that you are right in that Christ is one divine person with a divine person within himself we still have one person left. That would mean that Christ has atleast two personalities - and thus a personality disorder. Names and 'metaphors' cannot communicate with each other.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It isn't false, it just isn't meant to be taken literally. There is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Scripture, but they are not separate persons, any more than "God" and "Lord" are separate, or "my Rock" and "my Savior" are separate. They describe the visible God compared with the visible, or the power of God compared with His wisdom. He has many names, but only one person.
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Freddy:
By definition there can be only one of these.
quote:Christ was not two persons. More like, as in the Athanasian Creed:
Originally posted by k-mann:
So you're like a non-trinitarian Nestorian, then? (Remember: the Bible tells that the Logos became flesh; not that the Logos were two persons.)
quote:The Logos was the voice of God, which became flesh in Christ. He is therefore the visible God, in whom dwells the invisible God as a soul in the body.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;
quote:Because it is not one God.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
But the Trinity denies the Shema.
quote:He is not one person inside of another. He is one person, the divine within Him being like the soul in the body. It does not take a personality disorder to be in touch with your inner being.
Originally posted by k-mann:
If we assume that you are right in that Christ is one divine person with a divine person within himself we still have one person left. That would mean that Christ has atleast two personalities - and thus a personality disorder. Names and 'metaphors' cannot communicate with each other.
quote:It's the "omni" part of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. But don't take my word for it.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Freddy:
By definition there can be only one of these.
quote:If you believe Jesus is both human and God, how do your views differ from the Trinity?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Jesus is both human and God. He is God made visble. Or as Paul said: "In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus is human and God, then you're talking about the Trinity. I don't see the distinction.
quote:I seem to remember something in the Athanasian Creed about the Father and the Holy Spirit being separate persons - three in total.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you believe Jesus is both human and God, how do your views differ from the Trinity?
quote:All that is needed to fit scripture is the idea that Jesus was born with a limited, finite human mind and body to start with, but instead of having a normal soul like the rest of us have, his soul was the infinite Divine itself. Over the course of his life up through the resurrection, he gradually and successively glorified that human to make it perfect and divine, completely united to the infinite. No need to resort to dividing the person of God into three.
How can you say this view fits all of scripture? Quite the opposite.
quote:How does the idea of a flesh and blood person being the creator of the universe qualify either as a metaphor or as being within the normal framework?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Therefore anything outside the normal framework must be metaphor.
quote:That still sounds to me like you're saying you believe it because it's impossible. I know that's not actually why you believe it; it just doesn't make for a persuasive argument. Neither does comparing the size of two infinite sets because no matter how interesting it is as set theory, the Athanasian Creed is not about sets or mathematics. (Besides, if you consider the set of all real numbers - the "omni" set - it is not only infinite, it's bigger than the other two sets combined.
As far as the Trinity goes, personally, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast. Or at least Three. Just like a scientist can shoot a single particle through one slit yet get a wave that goes through two slits and cause a wave interference pattern. Impossible but true.
) These comparisons might serve well as illustrations of the concept, but they utterly fail as proofs or even demonstrations.
quote:The funny thing is, I'll bet she knew that.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
That still sounds to me like you're saying you believe it because it's impossible. I know that's not actually why you believe it; it just doesn't make for a persuasive argument. Neither does comparing the size of two infinite sets because no matter how interesting it is as set theory, the Athanasian Creed is not about sets or mathematics.
quote:Strangely, she wasn't offering them as proofs or demonstrations. So that's quite irrelevant.
These comparisons might serve well as illustrations of the concept, but they utterly fail as proofs or even demonstrations.
quote:If he had a human mind and the soul of God at birth, he wasn't human. Human beings are heart, mind and soul.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:All that is needed to fit scripture is the idea that Jesus was born with a limited, finite human mind and body to start with, but instead of having a normal soul like the rest of us have, his soul was the infinite Divine itself. Over the course of his life up through the resurrection, he gradually and successively glorified that human to make it perfect and divine, completely united to the infinite. No need to resort to dividing the person of God into three.
Originally posted by Evensong:
[QUOTE] How can you say this view fits all of scripture? Quite the opposite.
quote:My views differ from the Trinity because instead of three persons there is one person, namely the Lord God Jesus Christ, the Creator, Redeemer and Savior of the world, in whom is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is God as He exists invisibly above all human understanding. The Son is God as He can be known and loved by humanity. The Holy Spirit is the Divine reaching out into the life of every person, enlightening and guiding them.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you believe Jesus is both human and God, how do your views differ from the Trinity?
quote:He was not pretending to be a man, He was truly born on earth as a man, but with a divine soul.
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he is God in human form, or God only pretending to be a man, then he is not fully human and this contradicts 99.5% of the New Testament.
quote:It fits Scripture perfectly and contradicts no Scripture. But a Trinity of three persons contradicts the idea of one God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
How can you say this view fits all of scripture? Quite the opposite.
quote:So you think that Jesus really does sit beside the Father in heaven? This isn't meant figuratively?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that Freddy (and presumably Swedenborg, being a scientist) can't get past the semantics and conceptual limitations of the created world. Therefore anything outside the normal framework must be metaphor.
quote:The point isn't the absolute nature of God. I'm sure we all agree that this is above human comprehension. The point is how our understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of Scripture reflects that reality.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
ETA: And Swedenborg only knew Newtonian physics, of course, a very absolute view of the natural world, very Enlightenment.
quote:Thank you for explaining Freddy. I see where you are coming from. However, I don't see how your construction explains how Jesus prayed and claimed a relationship to the Father in the gospels. If what you are saying is right, he was just praying and relating to another aspect of himself rather than a real, non metaphoric, entity which he,in his humanity, claimed to be submitting to and obeying.
Originally posted by Freddy:
My views differ from the Trinity because instead of three persons there is one person, namely the Lord God Jesus Christ, the Creator, Redeemer and Savior of the world, in whom is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is God as He exists invisibly above all human understanding. The Son is God as He can be known and loved by humanity. The Holy Spirit is the Divine reaching out into the life of every person, enlightening and guiding them.
quote:So he had three personalities, then?
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christ was not two persons. More like, as in the Athanasian Creed:
quote:
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
Because it is not one God?
quote:Trust me; I won't.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's the "omni" part of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. But don't take my word for it.
quote:Here we see not that Christ experiences something, but that the people experience three persons acting at the same time. If this was indeed only one person we must infer that Christ had a personality disorder. Or, perhaps, that he - as God - was evil. (He tricked people into believing falsehood.)
Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3,21-22)
quote:So you think that Jesus as to His soul was not God?
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he had a human mind and the soul of God at birth, he wasn't human. Human beings are heart, mind and soul.
quote:That's a pretty terrible way to look at it. Jesus did not have a human father, but the Divine itself was His Father. So He inherited humanity from His mother and divinity from His Father. Throughout the course of His lifetime, through obeying the will of the Father as opposed to the dictates of the world, He was glorified. He was not "possessed" but willingly did the Father's will, and went to the Father. this is why He described the Father as in Him:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If it was a case of God subsuming the human part of Jesus over time, well then it becomes a case of spiritual possession. *eeeeew*
quote:I guess I can see how that might sound like possession, but I think that the idea that the Father was in the Son is clear. That the Son was also in the Father describes their unity.
John 10:38 "...though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."
quote:The scriptures are crystal clear on this. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.
Originally posted by Freddy:
So do they sit side by side in heaven, or are they within one another?
quote:We talk about getting in touch with our inner child. Jesus was getting in touch with His inner divinity, which He described as the Father within Him. When He says "I and My Father are one" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" He is not speaking as if the Father was someone other than Him.
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't see how your construction explains how Jesus prayed and claimed a relationship to the Father in the gospels. If what you are saying is right, he was just praying and relating to another aspect of himself rather than a real, non metaphoric, entity which he,in his humanity, claimed to be submitting to and obeying.
quote:Then you really do worship two beings. I can't believe that anyone doesn't see this as a metaphor.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The scriptures are crystal clear on this. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father.
Originally posted by Freddy:
So do they sit side by side in heaven, or are they within one another?
quote:This seems inconsistent to me. You say his prayers are inner processes. If God seemed far from him in his struggles, you are suggesting as Evensong remarked, a schizophrenic God. The Trinity is in fact a mystery, yet to deny Jesus had a God to pray to is to reduce his high priestly prayer in John to rhetoric. In effect, you make his prayers lies as according to you, they are not what they seem.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:We talk about getting in touch with our inner child. Jesus was getting in touch with His inner divinity, which He described as the Father within Him. When He says "I and My Father are one" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" He is not speaking as if the Father was someone other than Him.
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't see how your construction explains how Jesus prayed and claimed a relationship to the Father in the gospels. If what you are saying is right, he was just praying and relating to another aspect of himself rather than a real, non metaphoric, entity which he,in his humanity, claimed to be submitting to and obeying.
Jesus' prayers to the Father are the only way we can think of His inner processes in His struggle. In the torture of these combats God seemed far away from Him, the dictates of His divinity and of His humanity diverged greatly. But in the end He did the will of the Father and commended His spirit into the Father's hands.
quote:Jesus prayed to God as if He were another, but He also said that the Father was in Him. This isn't a personality disorder, it's the way that the Gospels describe what was going on with Him.
Originally posted by k-mann:
My main point, which you don't seem to get, is that given the data of the New Testament we could either infer a Trinity or we must say that Christ has a personality disorder. If God was 'his inner being' it would still be himself.
quote:Christ's baptism portrayed for all to see the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the Bible we often see deeply symbolic metaphors miraculously realized in stunning events such as this. The display in no way means that the Trinity is not within Christ as He later says.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And what about the baptism of Christ?
quote:You don't know what modalism is. From Wikipedia:
Originally posted by k-mann:
You can say what you want; the New Testament and modalism doesn't go together. (You claim that your view isn't modalist; but the fact is that your view is identical to that which is called 'modalism.' If it quacks like a duck...)
quote:This is not what I believe. Rather, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are realities, not just distinctions perceived by the believer. From the same article:
In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.
quote:That's not modalism.
Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism. Neither, however, described God as appearing in three modes. It is not necessary to describe God in three modes to be Oneness. Both describe God as the One Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who has a Divine Soul of Love, Divine Mind of Truth, and Divine Body of Activity. Jesus, through a process of uniting his human form to the Divine, became entirely One with His Divine Soul from the Father to the point of having no distinction of personality.
quote:Jesus Himself sometimes described the Father as within Him and other times as if He were another person. This inconsistency reflects His alternating states of glorification and exinanition.
Originally posted by Jamat:
This seems inconsistent to me. You say his prayers are inner processes. If God seemed far from him in his struggles, you are suggesting as Evensong remarked, a schizophrenic God.
quote:They were not lies or rhetoric. His strength really did seem far from Him. The divine seemed far away. He spoke to His Father as if to another person.
Originally posted by Jamat:
The Trinity is in fact a mystery, yet to deny Jesus had a God to pray to is to reduce his high priestly prayer in John to rhetoric. In effect, you make his prayers lies as according to you, they are not what they seem.
quote:If it is incomprehensible why get so disturbed about a slightly different way of describing it?
Originally posted by Jamat:
Is it not easier to simply accept that Christ was God and the Father is God and their oneness is incomprehensible but a fact nonetheless?
quote:The early stories in Genesis are not meant to be taken literally. God is speaking as if to a celestial court of angels or immortals.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally, what do you make of the plural pronouns in Genesis? "Lest the man ..become like one of US"
quote:Noooo. IMO God is three persons in one divine essence, a kind of existence (since there isn't a better term I can think of) that has no parallels in creation. You might not see it that way, but I see no reason to trade my view and most of the rest of Christianity's just because you and Swedenborg assert differently. You just slide over more bits of scripture than most do with the metaphor explanation when the bits get tricky and "contradictory". It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to a strict monotheist like yourself to read the bits about the divine Three and have to consider whether the Bible describes an actual spiritual reality. To promote the divine truth of the One God in the face of seemingly three descriptors, you put it all down to metaphor. I don't. If the Bible says there is One God and also describes a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I do my best with my little human pea brain to believe they are a particle and a wave at the same time. That's me. Believe what you like.
Quantum mechanics may give us a way of appreciating that things are not what they seem, but the issue here is how we think about and approach God. If our conception of Him is mistaken, as opposed to being merely limited, then this inhibits our ability to worship. The Trinity of three persons is mistaken because people then separate God and Jesus and think in terms of two, or three, divine beings.
) quote:Thanks, mt. You saved me time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The funny thing is, I'll bet she knew that.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
That still sounds to me like you're saying you believe it because it's impossible. I know that's not actually why you believe it; it just doesn't make for a persuasive argument. Neither does comparing the size of two infinite sets because no matter how interesting it is as set theory, the Athanasian Creed is not about sets or mathematics.
quote:Strangely, she wasn't offering them as proofs or demonstrations. So that's quite irrelevant.
These comparisons might serve well as illustrations of the concept, but they utterly fail as proofs or even demonstrations.
quote:Freddy this is not true. You are trying to say there is no real difference between a 'trinitarian' view and a 'oneness' view. The difference is not slight nor is it a different way of describing the same thing.One view sees a separation of personality and function in the context of a unity of direction, the other sees no such separation. Since your view finds any separation abhorrent you resort to linguistics. I think God uses metaphor to describe himself in many places but you think he actually describes himself as a metaphor. now the issue becomes what is the reality. You simply cannot say metaphor is reality and expect to satisfy since metaphor is by definition merely a way of understanding various aspects of same. I think your theology is really a convoluted tautology.
Freddy: a slightly different way of describing it?
quote:Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible. So it's called a mystery and Christians are left worshiping three gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
God is three persons in one divine essence, a kind of existence (since there isn't a better term I can think of) that has no parallels in creation.
quote:I don't slide over any Scripture. You're the one sliding over it. How is the Father then "in" the Son? Do the Father and Son literally sit side by side, and if they do how is it that if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father? Are they identical?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You just slide over more bits of scripture than most do with the metaphor explanation when the bits get tricky and "contradictory".
quote:Yes, we all went round and round with him. Naturally I loved his position that the Father was the only one who was God, because I think that's where the Trinity actually ends up in people's minds. It certainly ends up there in academic Christianity, which quickly and decisively denies foolish tales such as that Christ was born of a virgin, was resurrected from the dead, and was the Son of God.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
(Whew. This is mirror-image deja vu all over again. I argued this from the Godhead-is-not-only-Three-but-also-completely-One side with Andrew before his miraculous conversion to atheism.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I'm not saying there is no difference. You said "their oneness is incomprehensible" and so I was asking why you are then so worked up about a different explanation. Why cling to a view that is incomprehensible?
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:Freddy this is not true. You are trying to say there is no real difference between a 'trinitarian' view and a 'oneness' view.
Freddy: a slightly different way of describing it?
quote:I'm glad that you don't actually think He is literally "a Rock." But He Himself says that He describes Himself in metaphor:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think God uses metaphor to describe himself in many places but you think he actually describes himself as a metaphor.
quote:If "figurative language" is not metaphor, then what is it?
John 16:25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."
quote:Yes, symbols represent reality, they aren't reality themselves. The Trinity is a truth that describes a reality in symbolic terms. There aren't literally three individuals who together somehow make up God.
Originally posted by Jamat:
You simply cannot say metaphor is reality and expect to satisfy since metaphor is by definition merely a way of understanding various aspects of same.
quote:But we see these three persons communicating and acting upon each other. This implies personality. Either real personality - as in a Trinity - or unreal personality - as in a personality disorder. Or that Christ was evil.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christ's baptism portrayed for all to see the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the Bible we often see deeply symbolic metaphors miraculously realized in stunning events such as this. The display in no way means that the Trinity is not within Christ as He later says.
quote:The part you quoted from Wikipedia was about Sabellianism. Which is just one aspect of modalism.
Originally posted by Freddy:
You don't know what modalism is.
quote:I cannot imagine sets or prime numbers. Therefore they don't exist. I can imagine unicorns and werewolfs. Therefore they do exist.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
quote:I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
quote:If his soul was God, then he wasn't a human being. He was God.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:So you think that Jesus as to His soul was not God?
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he had a human mind and the soul of God at birth, he wasn't human. Human beings are heart, mind and soul.
quote:So we have a human mind and body and God as soul. We have two parts to Jesus intially (one human, one God) that become God eventually.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:That's not modalism.
Both Michael Servetus and Emanuel Swedenborg have been interpreted as being proponents of Modalism. Neither, however, described God as appearing in three modes. It is not necessary to describe God in three modes to be Oneness. Both describe God as the One Divine Person, Jesus Christ, who has a Divine Soul of Love, Divine Mind of Truth, and Divine Body of Activity. Jesus, through a process of uniting his human form to the Divine, became entirely One with His Divine Soul from the Father to the point of having no distinction of personality.
quote:No. The view above is too heavenly bound. Jesus is not really Jesus of Nazareth, because his soul is God.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Freddy:quote:I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
quote:The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we see these three persons communicating and acting upon each other. This implies personality. Either real personality - as in a Trinity - or unreal personality - as in a personality disorder. Or that Christ was evil.
quote:Maybe you can tell us what the difference is.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:The part you quoted from Wikipedia was about Sabellianism. Which is just one aspect of modalism.
Originally posted by Freddy:
You don't know what modalism is.
quote:Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
quote:What is a human being? How do you see this emphasized in the Gospels? Having a divine soul in no way precludes Jesus from being human - by which I mean that He walked on earth, preached, loved humanity, and suffered as a genuine person. The divinity within Him did not immediately manifest itself, but did so gradually over time - or so the Gospels seem to indicate.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:If his soul was God, then he wasn't a human being. He was God.
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you think that Jesus as to His soul was not God?
quote:So Jesus and God are not really one then. If the Son truly and eternally worships the Father then there really are two Gods, or else Andrew is right and the Father is the only one who is really God.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So we have a human mind and body and God as soul. We have two parts to Jesus intially (one human, one God) that become God eventually.
Doesn't work. You have no original human being. You mention the Shema. One is to worship God with heart, mind and soul. In this case, Jesus would be worshiping himself.
Jesus is theocentric in 99.5% of the gospels. He worships the father, not himself.
quote:Neither. It is biblical. Jesus really is Jesus of Nazareth, and the Father dwelt within Him just as He says.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Freddy:quote:No. The view above is too heavenly bound. Jesus is not really Jesus of Nazareth, because his soul is God.
Yes, it is impossible to imagine. Because it is impossible.
quote:'Soul' is a Greek concept, quite alien to Jewish thought.
Originally posted by Freddy:
the divine within Him being like the soul in the body.
quote:So are you saying that its use in Scripture is meaningless? Words translated "soul" appear 341 times.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:'Soul' is a Greek concept, quite alien to Jewish thought.
Originally posted by Freddy:
the divine within Him being like the soul in the body.
quote:What are these "souls"?
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
Luke 12:20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
Acts 2:27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
Revelation 18:13 horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.
quote:Whatever. Keep asserting that all you want.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
quote:Says who? And what is it a symbol of? Delusion?
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
Originally posted by k-mann:
But we see these three persons communicating and acting upon each other. This implies personality. Either real personality - as in a Trinity - or unreal personality - as in a personality disorder. Or that Christ was evil.
quote:You claim this, yet deliver no arguments for this claim. Thank you for that. Now I can ignore you.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
quote:The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Says who? And what is it a symbol of? Delusion?
Originally posted by Freddy:
The vision involved in Christ's baptism was a symbolic representation of the reality, not a depiction of the reality.
quote:I have to disagree. I think Freddy has done an admirable job in trying to explain his position. He has also done it with patience and goodwill.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:You claim this, yet deliver no arguments for this claim. Thank you for that. Now I can ignore you.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
quote:If a symbolic representation and a depiction are the same thing, then I'll use different terms.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're making a distinction that doesn't exist.
quote:Thank you Evensong for those gracious comments. My arguments may be wrong but they aren't non-existent.
Originally posted by Evensong:
I have to disagree.
quote:I must disagree. Freddy just says 'it's impossible' without arguing the point. My question, then, is: Why is it impossible for God to be three persons? Just saying 'the word god excludes this' doesn't do. Because the discussion is just that; what is God like. He begs the question by using his conclusion as a premise.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I have to disagree. I think Freddy has done an admirable job in trying to explain his position. He has also done it with patience and goodwill.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:You claim this, yet deliver no arguments for this claim. Thank you for that. Now I can ignore you.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Impossible things are impossible. The point is that we are warned many times not to worship multiple gods. The Trinity as understood in Christianity is the worship of three gods.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think that you are too creation bound in your view of God.
If you choose to disagree, that's fine, but don't attack his efforts to deliver his arguments by claiming he hasn't any.
quote:It's not the word "god" it's the prefix "omni" - as in "omnipotent." Two persons can't both be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent without being one and the same.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why is it impossible for God to be three persons? Just saying 'the word god excludes this' doesn't do.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's not the word "god" it's the prefix "omni" - as in "omnipotent." Two persons can't both be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent without being one and the same.
quote:Didn't you already ask this? If one person has all power there isn't any left for another person to have all of. If one person knows everything then what another all-knowing person thinks can be no different. If one person is omnipresent, then there can't be any distinction between where he is and where another omnipresent person is.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why?
quote:Yes, but my question was for proof, not for you to restate your claims.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Didn't you already ask this?
Originally posted by k-mann:
Why?
quote:This treats omnipotency as a batch of cookies. But omnipotency just means that a person has the power to do whatever He wants in the way He wants it, providing it's logical. (It is impossible - even for God - to make married bachelors and circular squares.) It's not as if potency (power) is something that disappears. And of it was; we wouldn't have any potency or power. Which is an absurd position.
Originally posted by Freddy:
If one person has all power there isn't any left for another person to have all of.
quote:Again, this treats knowledge as a batch of cookies. Does your knowing 2+2= 4 mean that I cannot know it?
Originally posted by Freddy:
If one person knows everything then what another all-knowing person thinks can be no different.
quote:Because Jesus was a monotheist
Originally posted by k-mann:
I must disagree. Freddy just says 'it's impossible' without arguing the point. My question, then, is: Why is it impossible for God to be three persons?
quote:
“Man can believe the impossible, but can never believe the improbable” ---Oscar Wilde
quote:Actually, this is the Christian position. God has all power and we have none. Jesus said "Without Me you can do nothing." Of course that is something that needs explaining, because it makes no sense at first reading.
Originally posted by k-mann:
This treats omnipotency as a batch of cookies. But omnipotency just means that a person has the power to do whatever He wants in the way He wants it, providing it's logical. (It is impossible - even for God - to make married bachelors and circular squares.) It's not as if potency (power) is something that disappears. And of it was; we wouldn't have any potency or power. Which is an absurd position.
quote:Now I would say that these passages don't mean that Christ literally sits or stands at God's right hand. They are meant figuratively, the "right hand" then, as now, standing for strength or power (as in "His right hand man"). But someone who took this useful imagery literally might struggle with the concept of omnipresence.
Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 14:62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Mark 16:19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.
Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
Acts 7:56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
Romans 8:34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Colossians 3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Hebrews 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens
Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
1 Peter 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
quote:No - your interpretation of those verses is incorrect - if you read them again with my (the linguistic) definition of soul as the whole person, they make perfect sense.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Leo, are you arguing that the New Testament usage of the term is incorrect? What is the meaning of the word in these passages:
quote:What are these "souls"?
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
Luke 12:20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
Acts 2:27 For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Revelation 6:9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
Revelation 18:13 horses and chariots, and bodies and souls of men.
For my purposes I don't need the soul to be anything fancy. It is just a person's inner part, the real self that is not the body, and not necessarily the conscious mind. This is clearly meant in these passages.
quote:Umm, did you even read the passages?
Originally posted by leo:
No - your interpretation of those verses is incorrect - if you read them again with my (the linguistic) definition of soul as the whole person, they make perfect sense.
quote:In these passages the soul is clearly distinguished from the body, and in some from the mind and heart.
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
1 Thessalonians 5:23 and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless
Revelation 18:13 bodies and souls of men.
quote:But this begs the question. The question is wether Trinitarianism is monotheistic belief or not. You assume that it is, and use this assumption as a premise in your argument. You are in practice saying: Trinitarianism isn't monotheistic because it isn't monotheistic. But I disagree.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because Jesus was a monotheist
Originally posted by k-mann:
I must disagree. Freddy just says 'it's impossible' without arguing the point. My question, then, is: Why is it impossible for God to be three persons?
quote:No it isn't. Neither power, knowledge or presence is in themselves material objects.
Originally posted by Freddy:
But "all" is an exclusive descriptor. Two people can't have "all" of anything without being the same person. This is true of power, knowledge, and presence.
quote:Things don't need to be material objects to preclude two from each having "all" of them or it.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Neither power, knowledge or presence is in themselves material objects.
quote:Is there actually a way of making sense out of that? Or are you arguing, as Andrew did, that divinity is a single category, so that God is one regardless of how many persons there are.
Originally posted by mousethief:
God is three PERSONS in one BEING or SUBSTANCE. The omnipresence is predicated of the BEING, not the PERSONS.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:LOL. I suppose it proves it that you have got it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah well that proves it, then, if you don't get it and your prof didn't either.
quote:My point is that the Trinity is metaphorical, not literal.
Originally posted by mousethief:
As much as one does. It's not an axiom of geometry.
quote:Very nice. That's pretty much how I see it.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Metaphorically, the Trinity is not wrong. It works very well for me. When I see Jesus, I see a window into God the Father.
As the creeds of my tradition state, the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son and this case, when I think HS, I think Jesus and God after Pentecost and present today with us. Now.
quote:And my question, which I have aso posed to Freddy, is: for what is it a metaphor?
Originally posted by Evensong:
My point is that the Trinity is metaphorical, not literal.
quote:Do you know what a metaphor is? Doesn't my last post answer your question?
Originally posted by k-mann:
And my question, which I have aso posed to Freddy, is: for what is it a metaphor?
quote:Then that's just a reductio of your understanding of the Trinity.
Originally posted by Freddy:
To me this is the value of the Trinity. But when the Trinity is understood as three persons the whole point is lost.
quote:Life's dangerous. The way is open to a lot of things just positing the existence of God. We can't shrink back from truth because the possibility exists for error.
The way is then open to thinking of salvation in terms of a sentence passed by the Father, and a price paid by the Son, which, in my opinion, makes no sense at all and leads to no good end.
quote:I hadn't read your post when I wrote it. But given the content of your post it seems that you - even if your reject the label - say that the 'trinity' is a metaphor for a quasi-modalist doctrine, combined with a new age religion and delusion. You write:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Do you know what a metaphor is? Doesn't my last post answer your question?
Originally posted by k-mann:
And my question, which I have aso posed to Freddy, is: for what is it a metaphor?
quote:But this will not do. Because that still leaves the Holy Spirit. To call the Spirit some 'force of love' cannot be held while holding to the New Testament. They are not only distinct, but they communicate with each other.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The distinctness of the Father and Son shown in the Gospels has to do with the interaction of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ as His human nature was glorified, or formed in perfect obedience to His divinity. This is why the Son is always subordinate to the Father even though they are also one and have the same powers.
quote:So God is three people and one person at the same time because they communicate with each other?
Originally posted by k-mann:
But this will not do. Because that still leaves the Holy Spirit. To call the Spirit some 'force of love' cannot be held while holding to the New Testament. They are not only distinct, but they communicate with each other.
This leaves us with three options:
(1) That Christ is delusional, that he communicates with himself.
(2) Christ is evil, tricking us to believe in the Trinity. (In connection to #1 want to add that the 'delusional' argument is absurd as other people also saw what happened in the baptism. Or they could also all be deslusional.)
(3) The Trinity is real.
quote:I didn't realize this argument was trying to prove the deity of Christ, I thought it rather took that for granted and was trying to prove the Trinity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
By this argument, normal human beings are also God because we communicate with God and God with us.
quote:What's the difference if you're trying to prove the Trinity literally true?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I didn't realize this argument was trying to prove the deity of Christ, I thought it rather took that for granted and was trying to prove the Trinity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
By this argument, normal human beings are also God because we communicate with God and God with us.
quote:Now I'm confused too. Which is which above?
Originally posted by mousethief:
In the one, you start believing Christ is divine and in the other you don't. One of them requires more and different evidence than the other. If you haven't yet established that Christ is God then you will need evidence for that, as well as evidence for the Trinity. If you have then you only need evidence for the Trinity.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
quote:Not at all. It is more akin to Augustine's psychological analogy:
Originally posted by k-mann:
But given the content of your post it seems that you - even if your reject the label - say that the 'trinity' is a metaphor for a quasi-modalist doctrine, combined with a new age religion and delusion.
quote:In Augustine's model "mind" "knowledge" and "love" make one person. Something similar is described in the Athanasian Creed:
Augustine gave classic expression to the psychological analogy of the Trinity in which the unity of essence is likened to the rational part of the human soul, composed as it is of “the mind, and the knowledge by which it knows itself, and the love by which it loves itself.” (464) to which he compares the persons of the Trinity.
quote:Soul and flesh are two, but they make one person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ
quote:I didn't call the Holy Spirit the force of love. Rather it is God's presence with every individual, inspiring and vivifying all of creation. Surely you don't think that the Holy Spirit is actually a dove, or a flitting entity that landed on Jesus' head. The imagery used to describe it doesn't sound as if it were a man who flew down to Jesus, or like a ghost that somehow entered Him.
Originally posted by k-mann:
You write:
quote:But this will not do. Because that still leaves the Holy Spirit. To call the Spirit some 'force of love' cannot be held while holding to the New Testament. They are not only distinct, but they communicate with each other.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The distinctness of the Father and Son shown in the Gospels has to do with the interaction of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ as His human nature was glorified, or formed in perfect obedience to His divinity. This is why the Son is always subordinate to the Father even though they are also one and have the same powers.
quote:What? I didn't say it proves they are God, but that they are persons. Because they communicate. Just as you are a distinct person and able to communicate with other distinct persons. When we see Christ communicating with the Father, we know they are distinct. Or that Christ is deluded.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So God is three people and one person at the same time because they communicate with each other?
By this argument, normal human beings are also God because we communicate with God and God with us.
quote:Quote me a verse, please, that suggests the Father was ever 'within' Christ.
Freddy: Jesus Himself sometimes described the Father as within Him and other times as if He were another person. This inconsistency reflects His alternating states of glorification and exinanition.
quote:Quote me a verse, please, that suggests the Father was ever 'within' Christ.
Freddy: Jesus Himself sometimes described the Father as within Him and other times as if He were another person. This inconsistency reflects His alternating states of glorification and exinanition.
quote:Here are some:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Quote me a verse, please, that suggests the Father was ever 'within' Christ.
quote:Note that Jesus prays that He will be with us, or "in" us, in a similar way.
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
John 14:20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
John 17:21 You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; ..22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me;
quote:From answers.com:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Please tell me what 'exinanition' is also. (If you don't mind, that is.)
quote:The idea is that Christ went through exalted states and also states of suffering and humiliation.
[L. exinanitio.] An emptying; an enfeebling; exhaustion; humiliation.
quote:So you think that no true Christian sees the Trinity as a metaphor?
Originally posted by k-mann:
You cannot claim to hold on to the New Testament and some kind of quasi-modalism. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
quote:Sure. So while the Trinity itself is meant literally, some of the imagery associated with it, such as individuals seated on thrones, is not meant literally. No one, I'm sure, thinks that the Holy Spirit looks like a dove.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely you can see the logical flaw there?
quote:That it/they exists. As to your other questions; we don't know. And quite frankly I don't really understand why you bother asking questions noone can ever answer. And I don't see how they matter.
Originally posted by Freddy:
So what is there about the Trinity that is literal? Could anyone see all three at the same time? Do the Father and Son have conversations, as they are depicted in the Gospels as having? Does the Son really recommend souls for salvation to the Father?
quote:No argument from me there. The question of proof was rhetorical really as mousethief said we were trying to "prove" the trinity
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It's not that I think it futile or foolish to talk about what might be reasonable on the one hand or impossible on the other about the Trinity or any other Christian concept. They are valid discussions. You may even base your personal belief system on concepts mainly because they make the most logical sense to you. But if you think that you are going to pin down the Truth and prove it without using unprovable assumptions, I think that you are reaching.
I believe lots of things, but I know it's a combination of heart and mind, not proof.
quote:My apologies. I misunderstood your intention in the analogy. Hence mousethief's question about deity. Had a bad brain day yesterday
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:What? I didn't say it proves they are God, but that they are persons. Because they communicate.
Originally posted by Evensong:
So God is three people and one person at the same time because they communicate with each other?
By this argument, normal human beings are also God because we communicate with God and God with us.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Or you can be totally outrageous and say Jesus was a man ( not ontologically God ) and solve most of the problems in New Testament interpretation
Originally posted by k-mann:
You cannot claim to hold on to the New Testament and some kind of quasi-modalism. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Either you must believe in the Trinity or that Christ is deluded or that Christ is evil - or you must discard yourself of the New Testament. If you don't believe in it, why pretend?
quote:Yes. And much more popular.
Originally posted by Evensong:
My particular heresy is the opposite of Freddys.
quote:Yes, it's interesting about that. The wording in your link does indicate that Jesus had a human soul:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The definition of the Trinity at Chalcedon specifically states Jesus has a human soul, not God's soul. But I'm sure you knew that Freddy
quote:I'm not sure who added the {meaning human soul} but I accept that this is what it means. A different translation makes it sound slightly, but not much, different:
this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul {meaning human soul} and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned;
quote:By contrast the less well accepted Athanasian Creed, from the same time period, says almost, but not quite, the same thing:
the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity
quote:This last sentence, which I quoted earlier in the thread, makes it sound as if a comparison is being made between soul/flesh and God/man, or that Christ's soul was divinity.
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;... Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ
quote:"God made his indwelling (in Jesus) in such a way as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body." So, according to this, Jesus had a Divine Soul, which was the indwelling of the God the Father.
The Third letter of Cyril to Nestorius that is part of the Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D. states that "God made his indwelling (in Jesus) in such a way as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body." While the physical body of Jesus embraced His human Nature, His Divine Nature came from the indwelling of God the Father as His Divine Soul, over and above the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who gave life to the physical body of Christ. For a body without a spirit is dead. [Jn. 6:63; Jas. 2:26]
quote:I'm asking them to point out the absurdity of thinking literally about the Trinity. The answer is always "we don't know." Hence the Orthodox refuge in apophatic thinking.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:That it/they exists. As to your other questions; we don't know. And quite frankly I don't really understand why you bother asking questions noone can ever answer. And I don't see how they matter.
Originally posted by Freddy:
So what is there about the Trinity that is literal?
quote:No. I always thought yours was.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes. And much more popular.
Originally posted by Evensong:
My particular heresy is the opposite of Freddys.
quote:Ephesus is before Chalcedon. Likely Chalcedon is "orthodox". Tho Cyril certainly won the day over Nestorius from memory.
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not sure, then, which is the accepted view. Does Jesus have a human soul or a divine soul? I would obviously pick the latter.
quote:Only in the gospel of John (as you quoted above to Jamat) is the evangelist explicit about this. But even in the Gospel of John we have "the father is greater than I".
Originally posted by Freddy:
The question in the OP is "Why did Jesus not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity?" I think the answer is that He never intended people to conclude from His language about the Father that He was a separate person. Instead He was at pains to emphasize their unity and identity of powers.
quote:But you would explain that by saying Jesus' divine nature is greater than his human.
John 14.28:
You heard me say to you, “I am going away, and I am coming to you.” If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
quote:The Trinity works for me metaphorically. But if pushed to a literal understanding, I think the gospels portray him as a man more than as God
mt 23:9-10
And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.
mk 10:18
Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
mk 13:32
32 ‘But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
quote:Yes, maybe he intended for people to conclude that he had a personality disorder or that he was evil.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The question in the OP is "Why did Jesus not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity?" I think the answer is that He never intended people to conclude from His language about the Father that He was a separate person.
quote:I don't think it's as simple as that. Showing some sort of supernatural power is not claim that one is God. One could just be delegated by God to do so, one could be God's prophet or God's vicar.
Originally posted by Jamat:
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.
quote:k-mann. You are pushing Freddy to choose, but the Trinity itself does not choose. It says Jesus and the father are different but the same.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:Yes, maybe he intended for people to conclude that he had a personality disorder or that he was evil.
Originally posted by Freddy:
The question in the OP is "Why did Jesus not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity?" I think the answer is that He never intended people to conclude from His language about the Father that He was a separate person.
You must choose; either they are 'separate' (I prefer 'distinct') persons or Christ is deluded or evil.
quote:Yes, I'm pushing him to choose. So what? This is a debate. With arguments. And I have no idea what you mean when you say that "the Trinity itself does not choose." Choose what?
Originally posted by Evensong:
You are pushing Freddy to choose, but the Trinity itself does not choose. It says Jesus and the father are different but the same.
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying? What do you mean by 'the Trinity says'? And to say that "human nature is eventually subsumed into the divine one" just doesn't work. It's metaphysically impossible. A nature is a things inner essence; it cannot be altered without the thing being destroyed. So if Christ's human nature is "subsumed into the divine one" it means that both the human and the divine nature stopped existing 2000 years ago. Which is absurd.
Originally posted by Evensong:
The way Freddy differs with the traditional Trinitarian definition is he says that Jesus has two natures (like the trinity does) but that the human nature is eventually subsumed into the divine one. The trinity says they do not do this. They do not comingle
quote:I like what Evensong says, although I don't quite think that Christ's human nature was eventually subsumed. Rather, Christ's human nature was glorified, so that His human was made divine and is now the Divine Human.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And to say that "human nature is eventually subsumed into the divine one" just doesn't work. It's metaphysically impossible.
quote:I don't think we can know anything about the historical Jesus; the Jesus we know things about is only the Jesus of faith. So, to me, the quest for the historical Jesus is futile. We can't know what he really said, but we do have much information as to what various faith communities believed about him.
Originally posted by Evensong:
El Greco,
Do you think the "Quest for the Historical (hysterical?) Jesus" is incompatible with credal Christianity?
I think there must be a way to fit them together and move into the future......
quote:You sure about that? You "speak" very similarly to the historical Jesus school. You seem to base your assumptions on historical critical methods
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:I don't think we can know anything about the historical Jesus; the Jesus we know things about is only the Jesus of faith. So, to me, the quest for the historical Jesus is futile.
Originally posted by Evensong:
El Greco,
Do you think the "Quest for the Historical (hysterical?) Jesus" is incompatible with credal Christianity?
I think there must be a way to fit them together and move into the future......
quote:Which, as I've pointed out, is metaphysically impossible. You cannot alter a things nature. It just doesn't work like that.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I like what Evensong says, although I don't quite think that Christ's human nature was eventually subsumed. Rather, Christ's human nature was glorified, so that His human was made divine and is now the Divine Human.
Originally posted by k-mann:
And to say that "human nature is eventually subsumed into the divine one" just doesn't work. It's metaphysically impossible.
quote:Sure it does. Christ was crucified but rose again from the tomb. The risen Lord is the same Lord as was crucified, and His body was the same body, but His body was manifestly different in that it was able to appear and disappear, and eventually rise into heaven. What happened to His body?
Originally posted by k-mann:
You cannot alter a things nature. It just doesn't work like that.
quote:I just have to add that this depends on what you think was going on with Jesus and what He came to do.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Which, as I've pointed out, is metaphysically impossible.
quote:He still had the divine nature and the human nature. It was glorified. Not made unhuman.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Sure it does. Christ was crucified but rose again from the tomb. The risen Lord is the same Lord as was crucified, and His body was the same body, but His body was manifestly different in that it was able to appear and disappear, and eventually rise into heaven. What happened to His body?
Originally posted by k-mann:
You cannot alter a things nature. It just doesn't work like that.
quote:The Logos is a person, not a nature. The Logos was made flesh (ie. human nature). That doesn't mean that the divine nature was altered. Or that the human nature was altered.
Originally posted by Freddy:
What does "the Word made flesh" mean to you?
quote:That's right. "Glorified" means that it was made divine - at least that's what it means to me. It doesn't mean that it was no longer human. But I think that it could be human and divine at the same time, and called "the divine human."
Originally posted by k-mann:
He still had the divine nature and the human nature. It was glorified. Not made unhuman.
quote:The point is that the Logos was not flesh before the Incarnation. The Logos was not changed, it merely became visible and tangible.
Originally posted by k-mann:
The Logos is a person, not a nature. The Logos was made flesh (ie. human nature). That doesn't mean that the divine nature was altered. Or that the human nature was altered.
quote:I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You cannot alter a things nature.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:That's right. "Glorified" means that it was made divine - at least that's what it means to me. It doesn't mean that it was no longer human. But I think that it could be human and divine at the same time, and called "the divine human."
Originally posted by k-mann:
He still had the divine nature and the human nature. It was glorified. Not made unhuman.
quote:Sure you can. Its called Grace. Its how our human nature is transformed.
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. You cannot alter a things nature.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:That's right. "Glorified" means that it was made divine - at least that's what it means to me. It doesn't mean that it was no longer human. But I think that it could be human and divine at the same time, and called "the divine human."
Originally posted by k-mann:
He still had the divine nature and the human nature. It was glorified. Not made unhuman.
quote:I don't completely disagree.
Originally posted by Evensong:
But it can't go from human to God. Because that would imply two different natures. And that doesn't make sense.
quote:The word "glorify" is common in the New Testament and normally just means "praise," as in "they glorified God for what they had seen."
John 7:39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 12:16 His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that they had done these things to Him.
John 12:23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified.
John 13:31 Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him.
John 13:32 If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself, and glorify Him immediately.
John 17:1 “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 17:10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.
quote:Here is how I understand it.
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes He was changed. His nature wasn't.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Does this have any meaning? Is a person separate from his nature? (for the shake of the argument I assume that it is meaningful to speak of natures in the first place. Boy, those Romans are crazy! They are discussing fervently about ancient philosophical concepts nobody accepts anymore as if they are real!)
Originally posted by k-mann:
Yes He was changed. His nature wasn't.
quote:Please, tell me you are kidding. You didn't just resolve thousands of years of philosophical debate with one sentence, right?
Originally posted by Freddy:
Here is how I understand it.
There are two parts to being human. Every person has a human "will" and a human "understanding." These two things are the core make-up of any individual.
quote:By 'nobody' I assume you mean yourself.
Originally posted by El Greco:
Boy, those Romans are crazy! They are discussing fervently about ancient philosophical concepts nobody accepts anymore as if they are real!)
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You didn't just resolve thousands of years of philosophical debate with one sentence, right?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
I wasn't thinking of it that way, but now that you mention it I have to say I feel pretty good about it!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You didn't just resolve thousands of years of philosophical debate with one sentence, right?
quote:I mean the average person on the street. People no longer use nature as anything more than a descriptor; they don't think in ontological terms as far as nature goes. In fact, the only time I have observed this ancient philosophical framework being resurrected is in obscure theological discussions by some Christians who have read books that speak about that sort of things.
Originally posted by k-mann:
By 'nobody' I assume you mean yourself.
quote:Freddy, you are very gracious, as always.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
However, what would your explanation be? I'm curious.
Explanation of what? quote:Of why you don't revise what you said, since it can't be as simple as that...
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:Of why you don't revise what you said, since it can't be as simple as that...
Originally posted by Freddy:
Sure. Nothing so fundamental is ever as simple as that. But maybe a different thread would be a place to go into it.
quote:1. That is simply not true. I know a lof of people who hold to it. You aren't the center of the world, you know.
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:I mean the average person on the street. People no longer use nature as anything more than a descriptor; they don't think in ontological terms as far as nature goes.
Originally posted by k-mann:
By 'nobody' I assume you mean yourself.
quote:Thank you for the verses and I can see the way you interpret them I think. However, I'd suggest that as you seem to, jesus is actually underlining his unity of heart and purpose with the Father. In other places he prays to the Father and that is clearly to an entity outside of himself.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Here are some:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Quote me a verse, please, that suggests the Father was ever 'within' Christ.
quote:Note that Jesus prays that He will be with us, or "in" us, in a similar way.
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
John 14:20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
John 17:21 You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; ..22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me;
quote:From answers.com:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Please tell me what 'exinanition' is also. (If you don't mind, that is.)
quote:The idea is that Christ went through exalted states and also states of suffering and humiliation.
[L. exinanitio.] An emptying; an enfeebling; exhaustion; humiliation.
