A Roman Catholic on the Trinity

[74x12]

But thats true regardless if he is god (as defined in the OP) or not?

Yeah

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah

Shrugs...thats my point.

 

[Riders]

The Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart, in his book, To Know and Follow Jesus, commented on a couple of verses in Hebrews.

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him (Jesus) to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
​

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest (Jesus) which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.​

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present, and future … He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with."
​

Indeed, had Jesus known He was God he would not have been at all like the rest of us.

Thats interesting so you say Jesus did not know he was God father son and Holy Ghost. I don't agree with the Trinity but would like to read this thread . The Trinity confuses me.
Thanks for putting up a smart thread sense so many of us are confused by the Trinity. I have read too many un smart Christian threads of late but this one is smart Thanks!!

 

[Niblo]

The Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart, in his book, To Know and Follow Jesus, commented on a couple of verses in Hebrews.

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him (Jesus) to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
​

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest (Jesus) which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.​

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present, and future … He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with."
​

Indeed, had Jesus known He was God he would not have been at all like the rest of us.

Good day.

I think you will agree that the word ‘nature’ refers to what is fundamental, or essential, about a being. It is that which makes a being – any being – what it is.

I agree with Thomas Hart; the passages quoted from Hebrews show – quiet clearly – that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was merely human. Unfortunately, other passages can be – and are – interpreted otherwise.

Notions concerning the nature of Yeshua are derived from selected interpretations of scripture, augmented by the opinion of sympathetic scholars. The process is simple enough: Read……interpret……discuss......reach a decision……formulate a notion……make a declaration……claim sole possession of the ‘truth’……and declare as ‘heresy’ all opposing notions. Thank you very much, and have a nice day!

According to the Nestorians Yeshua is one person, two hypostases and two natures. According to Trinitarians he is one person, one hypostasis and two natures. Monophysites, on the other hand, hold that he is one person, one hypostasis, and one nature. For Unitarians – and the rest of us folk – he is just a man: one person; one nature; no hypostasis.

Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes: ‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’).

You write:

‘I think the topic is difficult once Jesus is made to be God. If he is understood as the son of God and not God the son all the difficulty goes away. Few Christians are willing to even consider that Jesus is not God, so orthodox Christianity has indeed complicated things.’

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that orthodox Christianity has created an absurdity.

Very best regards.

 

[Niblo]

Thats interesting so you say Jesus did not know he was God father son and Holy Ghost. I don't agree with the Trinity but would like to read this thread . The Trinity confuses me.
Thanks for putting up a smart thread sense so many of us are confused by the Trinity. I have read too many un smart Christian threads of late but this one is smart Thanks!!

Good day.

There is broad agreement among New Testament scholars (and has been for decades) that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) did not consider himself to be God.

Consider, by way of example, the following quotations:

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.' (The Rev. C.F.D Moule: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

‘There (is) no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly he called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn: ‘Christology in the Making - a New Testament inquiry into the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship' and that it is impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (The Rev. David Brown: ‘The Divine Trinity’)

‘The historical Jesus of Nazareth did not teach or apparently believe that he was God, or God the Son, Second Person of a Holy Trinity, incarnate, or the son of God in a unique sense.’ (John Hick: ‘Believable Christianity’. See also his ‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age’.

Very best regards.

 

[rrobs]

Some people cannot tell the difference between incarnation and source. Others can. I agree with @74x12 In post #8. Does it matter?

I hope I haven't misunderstood your post. I understand you to be asking if belief in the trinity or not really matters. If I'm right, read on. If I'm wrong, kindly disregard.

Does it matter? Does worshiping false Gods matter? If Jesus is not God, then making him God means he is a false God, which isn't a good thing.

There is only one God.

Deut 6:4,

Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;
​

Exod 20:3,

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
​

Now I realize some hold that God and Jesus (and the Holy Ghost) are not 3 people but really one. Honestly, there is no argument I know of that can refute that illogical belief, other than it defies all rules of language and human understanding. People either see that or they don't.

Having said that, if you check early church history your will find there is no mention of the trinity whatsoever in the first 200 years or so of church. It was an idea that came later as the corrupted church leaders* wanted to increase their coffers by letting in the Greek and Romans who had been worshiping their own brand of trinitarianism for several hundred years prior to the Christian church being established in the first century. In short, they compromised for more money.

*Gal 1:6-7, 2 Cor 11:4, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:1, et. al.

 

[rrobs]

I could be tempted and know I will not fail. That it is just a matter of faith. If God told me before hand that I would not fail and I would pass the test;

God has actually already told you that you do in fact fail. Your or my personal belief does not nullify the scriptures.

Rom 3:23,

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
​

Rom 5:12,

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

that would make the test easier as long as I had faith in the promise. But it would not necessarily make the test easy. Easier is not necessarily easy. So, of course Jesus was severely tempted and had to live by faith as we. That is He had to trust the promises of God. I am sure Jesus knew the veiled meaning of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 69 among many other scriptures. Which predicted His crucifixion and triumph. So it was not hidden to Jesus that He would succeed. As long as Jesus understood the correct interpretation of the prophecies concerning Himself; then He had to know. But the test was continuing to believe the promises of God. As we know this was satan's temptation "If thou be the Son of God ..." So satan just wanted Him to doubt that He was who God had already said that He was.

My point is that we see that 1 Peter 1:19-20 indicates His actual blood was foreknown from the foundation of the world. So it was apparent to God that Christ would succeed.

Yes, Jesus was foreknown, but that verse doesn't say success was guaranteed. Jesus' success wasn't assured until he said, "it is finished" and hung his head and died. Until that point he could have sinned just like the first Adam. As Hebrews clearly states, He was just like his brethren, which means he had free will which means he could have sinned. That's how we are and that's he must be or Hebrews contains lies.

Sorry but I must disagree. The fact Jesus is the only Messiah is apparent from the things He claimed. Read John 10:1-15 This makes it clear that the Father knows Jesus as the "Good Shepherd" that gives His life for the Sheep and the Father knows Jesus as the Door of the sheepfold. All that came before were "thieves and liars". So they never were the true Messiah. Jesus is the only option. The only Chosen One. The only possible Savior.

I did not mean to say Jesus was not the Messiah. He absolutely was the Messiah that God promised would arise from the tribe of Judah. He just wasn't God. He was God's only begotten son born by God's overshadowing the virgin Mary. But he was certainly a special man.

God miraculously implanted seed into Mary's womb. All other people shared in the corrupted blood Adam got by sinning. Adam started with innocent blood, but it became corrupted. Jesus was the second person ever who was born with innocent blood. Like Adam, Jesus could have lost it by sinning, but fortunately for us, he, by his own free will, obeyed to the end. So he is a man, but a very special man in that he was born with innocent blood, thus qualifying him to be the lamb without blemish as long as he obeyed every jot and tittle. But again, just like any other man, including Adam, Jesus could have sinned had he so chosen.

 

[rrobs]

Thats interesting so you say Jesus did not know he was God father son and Holy Ghost. I don't agree with the Trinity but would like to read this thread . The Trinity confuses me.
Thanks for putting up a smart thread sense so many of us are confused by the Trinity. I have read too many un smart Christian threads of late but this one is smart Thanks!!

You are a rare bird indeed, in that you actually employ logic and common sense in your thinking. The trinity absolutely should confuse you. Anybody that says otherwise is not being honest. Three people in one is way outside the realm of human comprehension. It does not compute!

For the life of me I don't understand why 99% of Christians hold to the idea of three people in one. On the other hand, I suppose I do understand why they hold to the idea; tradition replaces the scriptures (thus making the scriptures useless - Matt 15:6). I don't mean to criticize or judge them. After all, for a good part of church history you had to believe Jesus was God or die, a pretty strong motivation to go along with the crowd! I think that many otherwise loving Christians would gladly burn me at the stake if it were still fashionable. The hate speech non-trinitarians get from their trinitarian brothers and sisters is way off any scale of decency whatsoever. I forgive them, and hold nothing against them. But that's another story.

Jesus was the son son of God and if language and common sense means anything at all, he is therefor not his own father. Saying God is three people in one defies all logic and human comprehension.

Jesus is most certainly our savior, or Lord, and our life. He endured the worse torture and death imaginable only because he loved us, unworthy folks whom he never even knew. That wouldn't be such a big deal for God, but for a man with like passions as the rest of us it is truly the love story of all times.

God and Jesus are the two main characters in the story of redemption. Like any story, if the two main characters are misunderstood the story wouldn't make sense. Keeping Jesus and God in their right place enables us to actually comprehend the story without resorting to "blind faith" which is what three people in one demands. The Bible story suddenly makes sense and opens up in a way not possible when the reader believes Jesus and God are one and the same.

Here is one of the best websites I've seen on the subject:

BiblicalUnitarian.com | A website about God and His son, Jesus Christ

They have a vast amount of information, both scriptural and historical, as well as an extensive list of outside material on the subject of Jesus. God bless.

 

[rrobs]

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that orthodox Christianity has created an absurdity.

In all honesty, yes, they have created what can only be described as an absurdity. I often wonder how many intelligent people reject Christianity because of the absurdness of the trinity. Can't blame 'em one bit!

One of the main arguments for adherence to the trinity is tradition.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.​

As usual, the scriptures speak for themselves.

Take care and thanks for your post.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I hope I haven't misunderstood your post. I understand you to be asking if belief in the trinity or not really matters. If I'm right, read on. If I'm wrong, kindly disregard.

Does it matter? Does worshiping false Gods matter? If Jesus is not God, then making him God means he is a false God, which isn't a good thing.

There is only one God.

Deut 6:4,

Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;
​

Exod 20:3,

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
​

Now I realize some hold that God and Jesus (and the Holy Ghost) are not 3 people but really one. Honestly, there is no argument I know of that can refute that illogical belief, other than it defies all rules of language and human understanding. People either see that or they don't.

Having said that, if you check early church history your will find there is no mention of the trinity whatsoever in the first 200 years or so of church. It was an idea that came later as the corrupted church leaders* wanted to increase their coffers by letting in the Greek and Romans who had been worshiping their own brand of trinitarianism for several hundred years prior to the Christian church being established in the first century. In short, they compromised for more money.

*Gal 1:6-7, 2 Cor 11:4, Jude 1:4, 2 Pet 2:1, et. al.

My question is, are you going by what trinitarians say, their theology? Or are you challenging what they actually believe?

Coming from trinitarian and nontrinitarian views, they both makes sense. People challenge the theology until the cows come home but regardless both sides worship god.

What in a trinitarians theology that you Know they are worshiping Jesus or worshiping his father in his name?


Saying jesus is god means nothing. Understanding the reasoning on a personal level means a lot. But, I see no difference. In what manner are they worshiping a false god just because they Say they worship jesus even thou ...

In other words, trini- worship god in jesus name. They cannot tell the difference between father and son. They are not worshiping a false god. Their language does not invalidate who they worship in the name of christ.

Goes beyond theology.

 

[rrobs]

My question is, are you going by what trinitarians say, their theology? Or are you challenging what they actually believe?

Coming from trinitarian and nontrinitarian views, they both makes sense. People challenge the theology until the cows come home but regardless both sides worship god.

What in a trinitarians theology that you Know they are worshiping Jesus or worshiping his father in his name?

Saying jesus is god means nothing. Understanding the reasoning on a personal level means a lot. But, I see no difference. In what manner are they worshiping a false god just because they Say they worship jesus even thou ...

In other words, trini- worship god in jesus name. They cannot tell the difference between father and son. They are not worshiping a false god. Their language does not invalidate who they worship in the name of christ.

Goes beyond theology.

Well, I don't think anybody actually believes that God is three people in one. A person can only believe in things with which they are familiar. There can be no real comprehension, let alone familiarity, with three people being somehow one person. It just doesn't compute, so while many say they believe it, they really can't. I'm not really challenging anything.

People communicate via words, words which we all agree on as to their meaning. We all know what the words, "there," "is," "one," and "god" mean. Those are the words God used in the scriptures. To say Jesus, the son, and God, the father, are both God does not conform to those four simple words. A son and a father are clearly "two" people.

I'm not sure were the scriptures themselves say we worship God in the name of Jesus.

Are you suggesting there are people who don't know the difference between a father and a son? I've not met one yet, not to say there isn't anybody like that, but they must get awfully confused on Father's Day.

Saying Jesus is God means nothing only if Jesus really is God or if God doesn't care that we worship multiple Gods. I don't see the scriptures supporting either case. So yes, it is important who we worship. That is made crystal clear throughout the Old Testament. Just read what happened when Israel worshiped false Gods.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not sure were the scriptures themselves say we worship God in the name of Jesus.

Huh?

I was reading and has to stop at this. This is the whole NT. Everything is in the name of gods son.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think the topic is difficult once Jesus is made to be God. If he is understood as the son of God and not God the son all the difficulty goes away. Few Christians are willing to even consider that Jesus is not God, so orthodox Christianity has indeed complicated things.

I find at John 10:36 Jesus answered and did Not consider himself as his own God but as God's Son.

 

[rrobs]

Huh?

I was reading and has to stop at this. This is the whole NT. Everything is in the name of gods son.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but can you give me one verse that specifically says we worship God in the name of Jesus?

Anyway, I'm not sure what that would have to do with what Hart said about those two verses in Hebrews. I was wondering how Jesus could be just like us if he were God. I don't know about you, but I certainly have no consciousness of being God. So if Jesus knew he was God and I don't, then Jesus is nothing at all like me and the two verses in Hebrews are patently false.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, I don't think anybody actually believes that God is three people in one. A person can only believe in things with which they are familiar. There can be no real comprehension, let alone familiarity, with three people being somehow one person. It just doesn't compute, so while many say they believe it, they really can't. I'm not really challenging anything.

Usually, people believe jesus is the incarnation of god by experience rather than knowledge. They worship god. Saved by jesus. Live by gods spirit.

People communicate via words, words which we all agree on as to their meaning. We all know what the words, "there," "is," "one," and "god" mean. Those are the words God used in the scriptures. To say Jesus, the son, and God, the father, are both God does not conform to those four simple words. A son and a father are clearly "two" people.

But words are not experiences. So, to understand the nature of the trinity is beyond challenging their theology. Thats why there is backlash. Youre saying that god's son is not affiliated with his father at all.

Like I said. Trinitarians do not and cannot differienate between father and son (hence the relationship). Relationship makes two things one.

Non-trinitarians dont see the relationship in that matter. They still see two separate individuals. I guess the word relationship is defined differently. I dont know.

I'm not sure were the scriptures themselves say we worship God in the name of Jesus.

Huh? Thats the whole NT.

Are you suggesting there are people who don't know the difference between a father and a son?

I've not met one yet, not to say there isn't anybody like that, but they must get awfully confused on Father's Da

Yes. They call jesus god because they cannot tell the difference between a father and son. Its spiritual not verbatum. The use of As One and Jesus is God just shows relationship.

If they could tell the difference, jesus would not be god. Just human.

I live with christians. I found out in The Church Catholics recognize that there is a father and a son. However, they do not make difference between the two since the son is an incarnation of the father not a separate entity in himself. Its metaphysical.

Saying Jesus is God means nothing only if Jesus really is God or if God doesn't care that we worship multiple Gods. I don't see the scriptures supporting either case. So yes, it is important who we worship. That is made crystal clear throughout the Old Testament. Just read what happened when Israel worshiped false Gods.

Wait. if Jesus is god, there is only one god, there are not multiple gods. That makes no sense.

Trinitarians worship god in the name of jesus
They see jesus as an incarnation of his father
Since father and son have a shared relationship, trinitarians rightfully interpret that relation-ship as two being one
Therefore, they conclude father and son are the same
Hence father and son are one
Jesus is god

Took me awhile until I actally went to Mass. Its better explained in Mass than protestant evangelical churches.

 

[rrobs]

I find at John 10:36 Jesus answered and did Not consider himself as his own God but as God's Son.

Yes, just like my father's son and therefore not my father. One father and one son make two people, not one.

Heb 1:9,

Thou (Jesus) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy (Jesus') God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
​

If words mean anything at all, Jesus has a God. That is easy to understand, but if he were God it gets awfully complicated. God isn't in the business of confusing His children. He makes things pretty simple to understand. It's easy to understand that Jesus and God are two different people. It all makes sense. Otherwise, we have to bring in a lot of double talk, which is what the official Orthodox church is forced to use to "prove" the trinity.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but can you give me one verse that specifically says we worship God in the name of Jesus?

Anyway, I'm not sure what that would have to do with what Hart said about those two verses in Hebrews. I was wondering how Jesus could be just like us if he were God. I don't know about you, but I certainly have no consciousness of being God. So if Jesus knew he was God and I don't, then Jesus is nothing at all like me and the two verses in Hebrews are patently false.

Verbatum?? Word for word??

The english language doesnt convey concepts/messages just by word for word. There are a LOT of metaphors and analogies in the english language to convey the relationship between concepts and ideas. English is highly dependent on idioms. That, and context helps not isolated verses.

I cant list the whole NT.

You want verbatum...cause saying jesus died on the cross for your sins makes no sense word for word and literal context.

I mean even if you were in person and watched jesus get killed, he didnt save you. You werent in threat to where he jumped in front of you to save your life. Its totally spiritual.

Jesus as god is the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was wondering how Jesus could be just like us if he were God.

Cant remember where I answered the OP. I commented on harts point of view.

Incarnation/flesh is the only way he is like a human. Its the exterior thats like humans. The spirit isnt.

It highly depends on how you define what a human is?

Is human just mean in the flesh? If so, jesus is like a human

Is human just mean his spirit? If so, jesus is not like us.


Nothing is verbatum.

 

[rrobs]

Usually, people believe jesus is the incarnation of god by experience rather than knowledge. They worship god. Saved by jesus. Live by gods spirit.



But words are not experiences. So, to understand the nature of the trinity is beyond challenging their theology. Thats why there is backlash. Youre saying that god's son is not affiliated with his father at all.

Like I said. Trinitarians do not and cannot differienate between father and son (hence the relationship). Relationship makes two things one.

Non-trinitarians dont see the relationship in that matter. They still see two separate individuals. I guess the word relationship is defined differently. I dont know.



Huh? Thats the whole NT.



Yes. They call jesus god because they cannot tell the difference between a father and son. Its spiritual not verbatum. The use of As One and Jesus is God just shows relationship.

If they could tell the difference, jesus would not be god. Just human.

I live with christians. I found out in The Church Catholics recognize that there is a father and a son. However, they do not make difference between the two since the son is an incarnation of the father not a separate entity in himself. Its metaphysical.



Wait. if Jesus is god, there is only one god, there are not multiple gods. That makes no sense.

Trinitarians worship god in the name of jesus
They see jesus as an incarnation of his father
Since father and son have a shared relationship, trinitarians rightfully interpret that relation-ship as two being one
Therefore, they conclude father and son are the same
Hence father and son are one
Jesus is god

Took me awhile until I actally went to Mass. Its better explained in Mass than protestant evangelical churches.

If experience is our guide to truth, then for sure there is no trinity. There is not a person who ever lived that has experienced being their own father.

If you are comfortable with the trinity, then by all means stick with it. It is not my intention to make anybody uncomfortable. On the other side of the coin, I will say without reservation that nobody will ever convince me that Jesus is God. I did believe that one time (at least, being Catholic, I said I did) but once I looked at the scriptures themselves I understood him to be God's son and therefore not God which would make him his own father. I can't image how they explain that at mass, but like I said, if it works for you I'm happy for you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If experience is our guide to truth, then for sure there is no trinity. There is not a person who ever lived that has experienced being their own father.

I assume that is your personal experience. People who have experience brought them to the trinity: in other words.

Personal experience brought them to god through his son via a accepted and lived relationship in the father, son, and holy spirit.

Everyones experience is different. Not wrong. Not degraded. Just different.

If you are comfortable with the trinity, then by all means stick with it. It is not my intention to make anybody uncomfortable. On the other side of the coin, I will say without reservation that nobody will ever convince me that Jesus is God

Is someone making you???

I did believe that one time (at least, being Catholic, I said I did) but once I looked at the scriptures themselves I understood him to be God's son and therefore not God which would make him his own father. I can't image how they explain that at mass, but like I said, if it works for you I'm happy for you.

I learned from The Church that trinity, by definition, means relationship between three as one. If you look at the Church, many have the Eucharist/jesus. Above the Eucharist, you have the dove, the holy spirit. The Priest literally leads god to bless the congregation through jesus name via the eucharist.

You can hear the separation all throughout Mass. But I was a convert, so it was more objective for me.

A human father and son are related becauset hey have the same blood. So when you talk to the son, you basically talking to the father: like father like son. The father and son are one.

Same as father and christ. I mean, being religious doesnt invalidate the definitions of son, father, trinity, and relationship.

Just depends on a persons personal experience not how versed he is in scripture.