Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Orthodox

Christianity Simplified

Recommended Posts

Yes, The 3 have exactly the same nature ... in that ...

They are all spirit beings ... and ... They are all God (part of the "Godhead").

 

Traditional Christianity (since the Nicean Creed) teaches both "fully God" and "fully man".

 

Personally, I see many verses which indicate that He was NOT "fully God".

Some verses seem to say that He indeed was:

"The Word (God) became flesh", Immanuel means "God (is) with us", etc.

Perhaps the Second Person of the Triune God was just within (inside)

the man called "Jesus", and thus was "with" thousands of us for 33 years.

 

I see "Jesus" as being a completely different Person in Heaven compared to on earth.

E.g. Was he ever called "Jesus" before He came to earth? No, of course not.

 

Personally, I see Jesus as NOT being "fully man" since he did NOT have our inherited

sin nature ... because His biological Father was none other than the Holy Spirit.

 

Father God was greater than "Jesus" ... "Jesus" was greatly hampered by being a human body.

If Jesus was "fully God", He certainly did NOT have any divine attributes.

He obtained all of His information, wisdom, discernment, etc. from Father God through prayer.

He obtained all of His displayed spiritual power from the Holy Spirit.

 

beg your pardon if i sound somewhat insolent. bear with me, me only wanna understand how you understand trinity belief. spiritual revelation and blind faith is not my cup of tea. me wanna go only by logic or miracle. thats it. if i fail to use logic, i put it as miracle for instance jesus' birth. (to me trinity is not a miracle neither its logical).

 

i believe you agree with wiki definition that trinity means EXACTLY same nature. if father is omnipotent, son jesus and holy spirit should be omnipotent as well. that should be the case if you wanna have 3 persons in ONE GOD stick. should equally be the case if you wanna have father = son jesus = holy spirit = ONE GOD stick. that is to say 1 (father) = 1 (son jesus) = 1 (holy spirit) = ONE GOD. right? butt your god is TRIUNE ONE GOD not ONE GOD per se as shema adovates.

 

butt early christians after nicean creed believe jesus is FULLY MAN and FULLY GOD. this is tricky. if jesus is FULLY MAN and FULLY GOD, then father and holy spirit should be FULLY MAN and FULLY GOD as well. butt they arent. father and holy spirit is/are never FULLY MAN and FULLY GOD. as such trinity is null and void. jesus and holy spirit being ONE GOD like father is null and void. (i use the word 'null and void' instead of 'deceptive').

 

i believe you agree that jesus is NOT FULLY MAN neither hes FULLY GOD. quoting you, hes NOT FULLY MAN coz of his miraculous birth via blessed virgin mary and hes NOT FULLY GOD either since 'father is greater' than him. you put it that jesus is FULLY GOD ONLY when hes in heaven. right?

 

when jesus is NOT FULLY MAN and NOT FULLY GOD, you cant say father and holy spirit is/are NOT FULLY MAN and NOT FULLY GOD either. as such equality among the three goes down the drain. jesus being NOT FULLY MAN/NOT FULLY GOD couldnt be EQUAL to father who's FULLY GOD and holy spirit who's FULLY GOD (?). as such 3 persons in ONE GOD gonna be somewhat lopsided that is son jesus (NOT FULLY GOD/NOT FULLY GOD) is NOT = father (FULLY GOD) = holy spirit (FULLY GOD?) = TRIUNE ONE GOD(?).

 

what say you? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

tom you side stepped my Question :sl: ?

 

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."-Matt 24:36 (New International Version (©1984))

 

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."-Mark 13:32 (New International Version (©1984))

 

"He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority."-Acts 1:7 (New International Version (©1984)

 

IF they are one , then why does only the father know , dont they share the same knowledge ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey tom , can you explain this to me please .

 

IF these three are one as in literal person , why dont they have the same knowledge ?

 

i guess mr AMEER7 has explained that 3 persons in 1 god trinity concept is not exactly as it is preached. jesus is not omnipotent neither is holy spirit. only father is omnipotent. hence jesus in trinity concept dont have the same knowledge as god the father. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF they dont have the same Knowledge then only one can be God , and it means Christians have made one hell of a big mistake :sl:

 

it looks like trinitarians have made a blunder. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what the two main Bodies in Christianity preach Tom ? Catholics and Protestants ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that what the two main Bodies in Christianity preach Tom ? Catholics and Protestants ?

 

both believe in trinity. perhaps trinitaians can explain better. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 revelation, 1 explanation, and 1 question ...

 

Jesus was “fully Godâ€

â€â€¦ the Word (Jesus) was God. … And the Word became flesh …†(John 1:1,14).

â€God was manifested in the flesh …†(1 Timothy 3:16).

But, there are several verses saying Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to be able to succeed

in His ministry (esp. to perform miracles), e.g. Luke 4:18, Luke 5:17, Hebrews 10:38.

These verses certainly seem to stand against Jesus being “fully Godâ€.

However, Jesus had to depend on the Holy Spirit because:

The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.

God the Father never performs any miracles.

God the Son never performs any miracles.

God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.

The Father and the Son have different functions.

 

Jesus was “fully manâ€

Since Jesus was “fully Godâ€, He could NOT possibly have had a sin nature.

Romans 3:8 indicates that Jesus looked like a normal (sinful) person:

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,

God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin:

He condemned sin in the flesh …†(Romans 8:3).

Many commentaries affirm that this verse is NOT saying that Jesus had a sin nature.

Jesus had NO sin nature because of the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth.

The Holy Spirit miraculously performed the function of being Jesus’ Father

(Matthew 1:20-25, Luke 1:26-35).

 

But, one question remains

How can Jesus be considered “fully manâ€, if He did not have man’s sin nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the two main Bodies in Christianity preach?

The main bodies of Christianity are:

 

Scripture + man's doctrines

Roman Catholicism (focus on the crucifixion)

Eastern Orthodox (focus on the resurrection)

Old Protestantism

 

Scripture only

Evangelical Protestantism

 

Scripture only + the Holy Spirit baptism (in Scripture)

Pentecostal and Charismatic

 

They all preach that Jesus on earth was "fully God and fully man".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I am sorry about the random order and the copy paste use but it would of been a obserd amount of typing. I hope this helps clear up the Holy Trinity a little for you. Yes I know it is not Biblical quotation but I think it can clear stuff up some.

 

both believe in trinity. perhaps trinitaians can explain better. :sl:

 

Tom, Below is copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia on The Dogma of the Trinity. I hope this is helpful on its explanation.

 

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

 

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

 

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

 

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

 

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

Edited by workingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, also this is from The Catechism of the Catholic Church on The Dogma of the Trinity.

 

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

 

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

 

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

 

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

 

256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called "the Theologian", entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:

 

 

Above all guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down. . . the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God. . . the three considered together. . . I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me. . .92

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on the Trinity from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

II. THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY

 

The Father revealed by the Son

 

238 Many religions invoke God as "Father". The deity is often considered the "father of gods and of men". In israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to israel, "his first-born son".60 God is also called the Father of the king of israel. Most especially he is "the Father of the poor", of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61

 

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.

 

 

240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."64

 

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature".65

 

242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him.66 The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".67

 

The Father and the Son revealed by the Spirit

 

243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth".68 The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.

 

244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.69 The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification70 reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

 

245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father."71 By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity".72 But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son."73 The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."74

 

246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."75

 

247 The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.

 

 

248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Trinity.

 

III. THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE TEACHING OF THE FAITH

 

The formation of the Trinitarian dogma

 

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

 

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people's sense of the faith.

 

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".82

 

252 The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does Jesus not have knowledge of the Hour ? Day of Judgment ? Ameer ?

 

Care to explain that please .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."-Matt 24:36 (New International Version (©1984))

 

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."-Mark 13:32 (New International Version (©1984))

 

"He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority."-Acts 1:7 (New International Version (©1984)

 

IF they are one , then why does only the father know , dont they share the same knowledge ?

Appreciate your question.

I have realized for many years (but at age 70 temporarily forgot) that the Three have different functions,

something like: Father = CEO; Son = Administrator; Holy Spirit = Work-horse.

So, it's very reasonable that the CEO has some knowledge that He has not passed on to the other Two.

Of course, there are better sources of information about this than me.

Please check the Bible commentaries ... e.g. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_bible.cc/mark/13-32.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_bible.cc/mark/13-32.htm[/url]

Edited by Ameer7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute .

 

Now i think , you yourself are not convinced with what you just said .

 

You said the "OTHER TWO" so are they really one like certain verses in the bible are deduced from by Christians ?

 

For there are 3 that bear record in heaven - Father - Son - and Holy Ghost - and these 3 are 1 period .

 

Is that what the verse says ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait a minute .

Now i think , you yourself are not convinced with what you just said .

You said the "OTHER TWO" so are they really one like certain verses in the bible

are deduced from by Christians ?

For there are 3 that bear record in heaven - Father - Son - and Holy Ghost - and these 3 are 1 period .

Is that what the verse says ?

The Three "Persons" of "the Godhead" have different functions, something like:

Father = CEO; Son = Administrator; Holy Spirit = Work-horse.

But, these Three are totally and completely ONE ... in UNITY of purpose and in everything else.

I.e. if the CEO presented His plan, the other Two would accept it without reservation.

Since it would be perfect, what's to be found fault with?

 

Note: the above are the understandings of an extremely fallible human being

... this is not in Scripture, as far as I know.

 

Note: Although God seemed to have failed in portions of the OT, everyone should realize that

... everything had to do with God's proving critical truths re: the extremely fallen human race.

 

Warm greetings to Redeem ... I trust she is well.

Edited by Ameer7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all have a great excuse for not understanding the things of God.

Please note ...

 

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,

nor are your ways My waysâ€, says the Lord.

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are My ways higher than your ways,

and My thoughts (higher) than your thoughts.†(Isaiah 55:8-9)

 

This is why we cannot understand spiritual things using our intellect, education, logic, reasoning, etc.

Spiritual understanding (of God’s Truth) only comes through spiritual revelation by God’s Spirit.

It does not come from reading someone's black words written on white paper.

 

Please notice God’s warning to everyone …

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.â€

(Proverbs 14:12 and repeated in 16:25)

 

Good Luck to everyone in receiving God’s Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the below teaches very well on Jesus Christ. His dual nature ect....

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

IV. The Mystery of the Word Made Flesh

 

October 1995

 

As we ended our last session, we cited the text of the Exultet which is sung on Holy Saturday evening. It spoke of the fault/sin of Adam which was the reason for our redemption in Christ. We now turn to the second major section of the creed--that which speaks of Jesus Christ, and the redemption wrought through him.

 

What we Know About Jesus

 

That our God loves us so much that he is willing to send his very own Son to make right the wrong of Adam truly is Good News. In the person of Jesus of Nazareth, God enters into a definitive period of human history. Jesus was born of a Jewish mother at Bethlehem in the days of Herod the Great, king of israel, during the imperial reign of Caesar Augustus. That places his birth toward the end of the first century before the Common Era.

 

The Gospels tell us that Jesus was a carpenter, that is a builder or a wood-worker by trade. According to John Meier in his book A Marginal Jew this trade would demand a fair level of technical skill which involved no little sweat and muscle power.(1) John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (New York: Doubleday, 1991), pg. 281. He says "The airy weakling often presented to us in pious paintings and Hollywood movies would hardly have survived the rigors of being Nazareth's tekton from his youth to his early thirties. His death also is chronicled in terms of history. It takes place during the reign of the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate and the Roman Emperor, Tiberius Caesar.

 

The Catechism points out that it is precisely this historical person, Jesus Christ who is at the heart of all Catechesis (Religious education). Catechesis is the revelation of the person of Christ in order that through Jesus we might be able to discern God's love for us, and find the way to the Father. Therefore, those called to religious education must first learn about Christ. From that thirst for knowledge, there springs a desire to proclaim Jesus in order to lead others to faith in Jesus.

 

Jesus Christ, Son of God and Lord

 

Jesus

 

The catechism continues its discussion of Jesus Christ by taking a close look at each component of his name. Jesus is an Anglicization of the Hebrew xU$hy Jehoshuah which means "God saves." God's salvation for his people becomes possible through Jesus. In Matthew's infancy narrative the angel announces to Joseph that he is to call his child's name Jesus because "He will save his people from their sins." (Matt 1:21).

 

Christ

 

To the name Jesus the title Christ is added. This title is in Greek xri/stoj which is a translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah, h$m. Both the Greek and Hebrew titles mean "anointed." This was a title that was given to the kings in ancient israel. Priests and some prophets were also anointed in ancient israel. Thus the title Christ is connected with the notion of the kingdom. Jesus as Messiah, Christ inaugurates the Kingdom of God in the world.

 

The opening of the Gospel of Mark points this out plainly. "The kingdom of God is at hand...." are the first words Jesus speaks in that Gospel. Matthew's infancy narrative shows how Jesus can be conceived by the Holy Spirit; yet still share in the inheritance of the Davidic line through Joseph. Matthew tells us that in naming his son Joseph adopts him.

 

Yet Jesus understanding of his messiahship was not the same as those to whom he preached. Many first century Jews were expecting a messiah who would establish a political kingdom in opposition to the oppressive Roman rule. This was not Jesus' intent. His messiahship is not ruling in regal splendor, rather it is service to humanity. "The son of man has come not to be served, but to serve, to give his life in ransom for the many."(Mark 10:45) . This is the essence of Jesus messiahship.

 

Son of God

 

Another title that is applied to Jesus in the Gospels is Son of God. This was a title that was given to the kings in israel, the children of israel, or even the chosen people. This title thus does not have a sense of divinity in it. ON the day of anointing the Kings in israel, each king was seen as adopted as God's son. Hence he could accept the title, Son of God.

 

Lord

 

The title ascribed to Jesus that carries a stronger sense of divinity is "Lord." It was a translation of the Old Testament name for God. Hence it is the more common way of expressing the nature of israel's God. When it is used of Jesus, it thus allows one to recognize Jesus as God himself.

 

The Incarnation

 

To understand how exactly Jesus Christ brought about the salvation of humanity, it is necessary to look a little further into who Jesus is. The Gospel of John tell us that the Word, which was God, became flesh (John 1:14). In other words, God, in Jesus, chose to become human. We refer to this as the mystery of the incarnation from the Latin word for flesh, carnis.

 

The catechism tells us that the word became flesh in order that we might know God's love, in order that he might be our model in holiness, and in order that we might be able to become partakers in the divine nature. In this mystery of the Incarnation we discover that Jesus, the word made flesh, is then true God and true man.

 

The exact meaning of this mystery has been, and remains in some circles, a source of great debate. The Incarnation, the catechism tells us, does not mean that Jesus is part God and part man, nor is Jesus a confused mixture of the divine and the human. Throughout the discussion of the meaning of this mystery, many heresies emerged stressing either the divine or the human in Jesus. We need to look at a few of these.

 

Christological Heresies

 

Gnostic Docetism

 

This heresy derives from the Greek verb doke/w which means to "seem." It teaches that in Jesus Christ there was a semblance of a human being. He was not really human, it only seemed that way. The reason for this was that Gnostics did not like the flesh. It was seen as a prison of the divine spark. Hence, to say that God became entrapped in the flesh was an impossibility.

 

Adoptionism

 

This heresy claimed that, like the kings of israel, Jesus was adopted as son of God. Most would say that occurred at the Baptism when the voice from the heavens says, "This is my son, my beloved, in whom I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11). The reality is that Jesus was son of God by nature, not adoption, being "conceived by the Holy Spirit."

 

Nestorianism

 

This Heresy is named from its founder, Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople. He taught that Christ was a human person who was joined to the divine person of God's Son. Hence Mary was mother of the human person, but was not the mother of God (qeoto/koj). What Nestorius does is set up a distinction in the person of Jesus. This position was countered in the Ecumenical council of Ephesus, "the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."(2) Council of Ephesus (431) DS 250. Thus Mary is truly the "mother of God." This does not mean that the Word had a beginning being born of Mary; but rather the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.

 

Monophysitism

 

This heresy was taught by the Eutyches who has been described as an "aged and muddle-headed archimandrite."(3) J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), pg. 331. It takes its name from the Greek words for "one (mo/noj) and nature (fu/sij)." It affirms that the human nature had ceased to exist in Christ when the divine person of God's son assumed it. Hence in Jesus there was only one nature. This heresy was combated by Pope Leo I in his Tomus Flavianus.

 

The Council of Chalcedon

 

The final statement came from the fourth general Council of the Church held at Chalcedon in 451.

 

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, 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; "like us in all things but sin," He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

 

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (proswpon) and one hypostasis.(4) Council of Ephesus (431) DS 250.

 

So according to Church teaching, there are two natures (human and divine) in the one person Jesus Christ. These are unconfused, undivided, and unseparated. This explained how Jesus can be true God and true Man; yet some questions still remain.

 

The Communication of Idioms

 

In later discussions the unity of person was affirmed. Thus all in Jesus' human nature is to attributed to his divine person as proper subject. Thus not only his miracles; but also his suffering and death. This allows us to say that "Son of God suffered on the cross" or that "Jesus is the one through whom the world was created." This interchanging of attributes is known in theology as the communicatio idiomatum. It allows properties of both natures to be predicated to the One Person.

 

This total assumption of humanity was necessary according to the early Father of the Church, Irenaeus of Lyons. He stated that what was not assumed was not redeemed. Thus Christ has to be totally God in order to effect salvation; and he had to be totally human in order for all that is human to be redeemed.

 

Jesus' Knowledge

 

Many interesting questions emerge concerning the knowledge and will of Jesus as incarnate God/man. Did he know everything as God since he was God. Could he do anything? Since he was God? How does that fit with the limitations of humanity?

 

Having assumed a human nature, Jesus is limited by that human nature. Hence the Gospel of Luke tells us that Jesus increased in wisdom, age and grace. Thus as a human being Jesus grew and learned as did any other human being. But the question still is asked, "what did Jesus know of himself? What did Jesus know of his mission? What knowledge did Jesus have of God?"

 

Thomas Aquinas points out that knowledge is came through nature, and Jesus had two natures--human and divine. Human beings and God know in two different ways. God's knowledge is immediate and non conceptual; human knowledge is normally through abstraction and conceptual. Thus divine knowledge is not transferable to a human mind. There is therefore a necessity of knowledge other than divine knowledge in Christ. Divine knowledge cannot be an act in the human soul of Christ, it belongs to another nature.(5) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 3, q.9. a. 1. ad, 1

 

Nevertheless, Jesus does exhibit super human knowledge. Aquinas attributes this to the fact that, as a human being, Jesus had the beatific vision (that vision of God that comes to humans only after death) and Jesus had knowledge infused by God. It should be noted that many statements of the Church have implied that Jesus had unlimited infused knowledge yet none of these statements are defined doctrine of the church. The catechism states that the human nature of God's son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.

 

This takes three particular forms. Jesus had intimate and immediate knowledge of God the Father. Second, Jesus had a divine penetration into the secret thoughts of the human heart. And finally, Jesus enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.

 

Further Implications of the Incarnation

 

Being divine and human, Jesus also had two wills. This was opposed to those who taught that he had only one will, the mono thelites (again from Greek for "one will"). These two wills are not in opposition but the cooperate. Christ's human will submits freely to the divine and almighty will.(6) Council of Constantinople III (681) DS 556

 

On final point, the body of Jesus was truly human, that is it was limited, finite. Thus the face of Jesus can be portrayed. And images of Jesus can be made since when prays before an image of Jesus, they venerate not the image but rather the one it depicts, Jesus.

 

I would like to close with two reflections on the mystery of the Incarnation from our tradition. In the Letter to the Galatians, Paul tells his readers that Jesus the Son of God Loved Me....and gave himself for me. Jesus' great acts of super heroic love are not for some great cause; rather they are directed to each and every one of those who will put their faith in him individually. Jesus loves and died for each of us.

 

Yet the motivation of this love of Jesus for us is the love of God which Jesus makes manifest. The First Preface of Christmas in the Roman Missal makes this clear, In Jesus, it says, we "see our God made visible and so are caught up in the love of the God we cannot see."

 

 

Source (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetillinoisknights(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/mary/programs/Catechism/sart/54.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetillinoisknights(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/mary/progra...ism/sart/54.htm[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets see what nachmanides have to say - :sl:

 

from simpletoremember(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

 

' . . . . . there was no basis in judaism for believing in the divinity of the messiah or, indeed, of any man. to nachmanides, it seemed most strange "that the creator of heaven and earth resorted to the womb of a certain jewess and grew there for 9 months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, . . . . . the mind of a jew, or any other person, cannot tolerate this". nachmanides told the spanish monarch, "you have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine (trinity), and it has settled with you because of that accustomed habit." had king james heard these ideas propounded for the first time when he was already an adult, nachmanides implied, he would never have accepted them.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets see what nachmanides have to say -

. . . there was no basis in judaism for believing in the divinity of the messiah or, indeed, of any man. to nachmanides, it seemed most strange "that the creator of heaven and earth resorted to the womb of a certain jewess and grew there for 9 months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, . . . . . the mind of a jew, or any other person, cannot tolerate this". nachmanides told the spanish monarch, "you have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine (trinity), and it has settled with you because of that accustomed habit." had king james heard these ideas propounded for the first time when he was already an adult, nachmanides implied, he would never have accepted them.'

Is nachmanides a plurality of some sort, such as the Triune God?

I believe I have already several times given the O.T. references of what God said about the Jews:

-- they were spiritually blind and spiritually deaf

-- He would NOT heal them of this critical problem (and you know the reasons why)

So, why would anyone listen to anything the Jews have to say?

But, the bigger problem is ... most people (esp. the Jews) refuse to believe what God said about them.

And then we have people like you. I refer you to post #123.

You know, like in kindergarten ... 1, 2, 3.

 

A favorite P.S. repeated: The Trinity is NOT included in the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yo guys

 

me wanna ignore the issue but couldnt. lets continue. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 revelation, 1 explanation, and 1 question ...

 

Jesus was “fully Godâ€

â€â€¦ the Word (Jesus) was God. … And the Word became flesh …†(John 1:1,14).

â€God was manifested in the flesh …†(1 Timothy 3:16).

But, there are several verses saying Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to be able to succeed

in His ministry (esp. to perform miracles), e.g. Luke 4:18, Luke 5:17, Hebrews 10:38.

These verses certainly seem to stand against Jesus being “fully Godâ€.

However, Jesus had to depend on the Holy Spirit because:

The function of the Holy Spirit is to be the Work-Horse.

God the Father never performs any miracles.

God the Son never performs any miracles.

God the Holy Spirit is the only One who performs miracles.

The Father and the Son have different functions.

 

Jesus was “fully manâ€

Since Jesus was “fully Godâ€, He could NOT possibly have had a sin nature.

Romans 3:8 indicates that Jesus looked like a normal (sinful) person:

“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,

God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin:

He condemned sin in the flesh …†(Romans 8:3).

Many commentaries affirm that this verse is NOT saying that Jesus had a sin nature.

Jesus had NO sin nature because of the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth.

The Holy Spirit miraculously performed the function of being Jesus’ Father

(Matthew 1:20-25, Luke 1:26-35).

 

But, one question remains

How can Jesus be considered “fully manâ€, if He did not have man’s sin nature?

 

if jesus is fully god and fully man, god the father and god the holy spirit should equally be fully god and fully man right? remember trinity supposedly means EXACTLY same nature (quoting wiki) right?

 

butt god the father is never fully god and fully man. hes fully god. so which trinity version which is the truth? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom, I am sorry about the random order and the copy paste use but it would of been a obserd amount of typing. I hope this helps clear up the Holy Trinity a little for you. Yes I know it is not Biblical quotation but I think it can clear stuff up some.

Tom, Below is copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia on The Dogma of the Trinity. I hope this is helpful on its explanation.

 

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

 

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

 

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

 

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

 

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.

 

i know i've asked trinitarians to explain whats trinity all about following a question from mr AL FAQEER. and you've come up with 4 posts on the issue. it looks like the bible DONT teach trinity, its the church which elaborates on it. butt the elaboration is somewhat ####eyed (excuse me).

 

the church (athanasian creed) says father is god, son (jesus) is god, and holy spirit is god yet 3 persons (not gods) in 1 god. they're coequal and omnipotent. perhaps the church uses the word 'trias' in theophilus of antioch to somewhat empowers trinity.

 

butt the question remains unanswered - if jesus is omnipotent, why didnt he know when's day of judgement? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Appreciate your question.

I have realized for many years (but at age 70 temporarily forgot) that the Three have different functions,

something like: Father = CEO; Son = Administrator; Holy Spirit = Work-horse.

So, it's very reasonable that the CEO has some knowledge that He has not passed on to the other Two.

Of course, there are better sources of information about this than me.

Please check the Bible commentaries ... e.g. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_bible.cc/mark/13-32.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_bible.cc/mark/13-32.htm[/url]

 

dont matter whethere god the father is ceo, god the son jesus - administrator and holy spirit - workhorse. the church preaches that the three are ONE god, coequal and omnipotent. hence when god the son jesus couldnt say when's day of judgement, thats gonna mean he's not omnipotent. right? and that makes trinity sound somewhat hollow. right? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Three "Persons" of "the Godhead" have different functions, something like:

Father = CEO; Son = Administrator; Holy Spirit = Work-horse.

But, these Three are totally and completely ONE ... in UNITY of purpose and in everything else.

I.e. if the CEO presented His plan, the other Two would accept it without reservation.

Since it would be perfect, what's to be found fault with?

 

Note: the above are the understandings of an extremely fallible human being

... this is not in Scripture, as far as I know.

 

Note: Although God seemed to have failed in portions of the OT, everyone should realize that

... everything had to do with God's PROVING critical truths re: the extremely fallen human race.

 

Warm greetings to Redeem ... I trust she is well.

 

not good enough dude. when the church preaches jesus is god and that he's omnipotent, he should know when's day of judgement. you couldnt and shouldnt give 'extremently fallible human being' lame excuse. if there's NO critical TRINITY truth in the bible, so be it. you couldnt and shouldnt push it to god to prove something which is not there. that's what you wanna say with your statement which i highlighted. right? :sl:

Edited by tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×