Divinity and Sonship (Jesus Christ, Earth, incarnation, bible, Biblical)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

James,

Thanks! Your diagram was entirely understandable. I appreciate the explanation since it's something I've always wondered about. Am I right that this was the single most significant factor in the split between the Eastern and Western Churches?

Kathryn

The most significant theological factor, certainly, though there was also the ecclesiological factor of the Pope's claim to supremacy over the Church. The latter claims had, however, been made for some time prior to the Schism and were largely ignored by the other Patriarchates. I'd certainly say that Rome's acceptance of the filioque is what tipped the balance from a somewhat uncomfortable communion into a complete Schism.

Merlin,

If you don't understand what I was saying, why not ask rather than making flippant comments? Clearly what I wrote was not gobbledygook for several other posters here and I can assure you that it is of great importance to a large number of living Christians - the filioque being still the major factor preventing a reconciliation between Rome and the East.

James

[Bennettresearch]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Hi, Ben (for lack of a better nickname).

You say you are a Christian, but you don't mention your denomination, if you have one. If you do, would you mind sharing it? It would help me understand where you are coming from.

There is, in my mind, no doubt whatsoever, that Jesus Christ was divine -- both during His mortal life and prior to His incarnation. I believe He was "God," but I don't believe He and His Father were both part of the same "substance." I believe their unity was of another sort entirely. In other words, I think it's absurd to describe them in such a way that the Father and the Son are somehow one and the same, or merely different "aspects" of a single essence. They had a father-son relationship, and such a relationship not only requires two distict individuals but a heirarchal relationship between them.

On the other hand, John 10:18 is clear in describing the extent of Jesus own power over life and death. It says, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."

Note: He did not say that He would trust in His Father to raise Him from the dead. He said that He had the power to do that on His own! Whenever I hear someone question His divinity, that particular scripture comes to mind. How could anyone other than a divine being have such all-encompasing power?

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn,

I am non denominational and no sectarian. This came about from my coming into Chritianity on my own with practically no teaching or influence. A blank slate so to speak. My objective and analytical approach has been to examine as much as possible from all sides on the issue.

I am not objecting to Jesus being divine. Where the question is, is whether Jesus and God are one. This viewpoint is a puzzle. Jesus can be divine and have a separate identity from both the Holy Spirit and God. I'll go out on a limb here and relate it personally. The Spirit came upon me from nowhere. Years later, when I was getting a grip so to speak, I could see Jesus as a totally separate entity than the Spirit. And while both are from God, they are not the same as God. I haven't related this to anyone because I don't like straight jackets.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Hi Kathryn,

I am non denominational and no sectarian. This came about from my coming into Chritianity on my own with practically no teaching or influence. A blank slate so to speak. My objective and analytical approach has been to examine as much as possible from all sides on the issue.

I am not objecting to Jesus being divine. Where the question is, is whether Jesus and God are one. This viewpoint is a puzzle. Jesus can be divine and have a separate identity from both the Holy Spirit and God. I'll go out on a limb here and relate it personally. The Spirit came upon me from nowhere. Years later, when I was getting a grip so to speak, I could see Jesus as a totally separate entity than the Spirit. And while both are from God, they are not the same as God. I haven't related this to anyone because I don't like straight jackets.

Still leaves us with the old question debated in the 'Trinity' thread. If Jesus is God (or A god) does that mean you are no longer monotheistic?

This was the whole problem which was tackled in 325 AD. How could Jesus be divine, but at the same time we claim there is only one God? The semantic solution they devised was this concept that they are both separate and the same, three in one and one in three. It has been the source of debate for 1700 years.

Would you be prepared to tell us how you deal with the problem of having more than one God if both God the Father and Jesus Christ are both separate gods, and that ignores the Holy Ghost.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Thanks! Your diagram was entirely understandable. I appreciate the explanation since it's something I've always wondered about. Am I right that this was the single most significant factor in the split between the Eastern and Western Churches?
Kathryn

To get both sides of the story.... James is exactly right, the Petrine Primacy and the filioque are the most important factors in our Schism.... but I want to make it clear that the objection to the addition of the filioque (in my opinion) is more political/historical than anything. James states:

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The dual procession doctrine encapsulated in the filioque distorts this, making the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to both the Father and the Son.

.... but the Roman Catholic Church has made it quite clear that we do not view the Holy Spirit as ontologically subordinate at all. The Catechism describes it this way:
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", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", 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. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
The last sentence clearly shows that the addition of the filioque is not intended to subordinate the Holy Spirit at all... the objection to it is still something I am confused about.

Hope that helps,
Scott

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Hi Kathryn,

I am non denominational and no sectarian. This came about from my coming into Chritianity on my own with practically no teaching or influence. A blank slate so to speak. My objective and analytical approach has been to examine as much as possible from all sides on the issue.

I am not objecting to Jesus being divine. Where the question is, is whether Jesus and God are one. This viewpoint is a puzzle. Jesus can be divine and have a separate identity from both the Holy Spirit and God. I'll go out on a limb here and relate it personally. The Spirit came upon me from nowhere. Years later, when I was getting a grip so to speak, I could see Jesus as a totally separate entity than the Spirit. And while both are from God, they are not the same as God. I haven't related this to anyone because I don't like straight jackets.

Well, I hope I don't disappoint you by saying this, but your conclusions are almost a mirror image of LDS doctrine.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Scott1

The last sentence clearly shows that the addition of the filioque is not intended to subordinate the Holy Spirit at all... the objection to it is still something I am confused about.

Scott,

I have absolutely no doubt that the filioque is not intended to subordinate the Holy Spirit, but in our opinion it does. It was actually originally intended to fight the Arian heresy, but I absolutely fail to see how it does this at all - it seems completely unnecessary. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as of one principle clearly leads to the logical conclusion that He is a lesser Hypostasis, regardless of whether or not this is the intention, which is why we will simply never accept the filioque. You are correct that there is a hsitorical/political aspect to this as part of the objection revolves around the unilateral addition of the filioque in direct contravention of the canons of previous Councils, but I feel that the theological objection is far stronger. This becomes even more apparent when we hear some RCs using Augustinian language to justify the filioque by referring to the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son - which would appear to make Him not just a lesser Person but no person at all.

James