The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

[Brian2]

Just a question for you -- all of us -- to think about: if the Bible and it's writers really wanted to show Jesus was God, co-equal with the Father - why doesn't it call him, God's 'brother'? That's more of an equal term. A son is always subordinate to a father, in their relationship.

Because Jesus is the Son and not the brother. It is a matter of fact, not a relationship invented to transmit a message.
The co equal actually means having the same nature. The Son has the same nature as His Father. But the Son who is perfect just as His Father is perfect, is subordinate to His Father.

Why did Jesus have a god which was also Martha's God, known in Hebrew as Yahweh? (John 20:17) Who did Jesus call his "brothers", actually?

In John 20:17 Jesus does not say "....to our God". He says "to your God and to my God". A subtle distinction.
Jesus Father is also His God because He was and is a man. He took the nature of a servant (Phil 2) and so now has a God. Jesus was and is a man and so other men are His brothers. Jesus human nature is real and not transient.

After Jesus' death....In their prayer at Acts of the Apostles 4, they addressed God as "Sovereign Lord"; were the Christians praying to Jesus? Read it, and you'll find out: No. They actually referred to Jesus as "Your (God's) Holy Servant."

The Word took the nature of a servant. He is the Holy One of Israel, the Holy Servant who was an Israelite. Actually He is our only Lord. That does not mean that the Father is not our Lord and the Father being our only God does not mean that the Son is not God. As Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and My God".
The Son who comes from His Father has the same nature as His Father, God nature.

 

[Katzpur]

But that’s what both Athanasius and the doctrine state: one God, three persons. One Person sent a different Person. Both are God.

If that's what he meant to say, why the heck didn't he just say it? I mean that's what the Bible says. Doesn't the Bible do a good enough job of explaining who God is?

See, what bugs me is that I'm always having Trinitarians tell me my beliefs are polytheistic. If I refer to the Father and the Son as distinct individuals, I get told that I'm wrong. I'm told that they are not individuals at all, but a single being, and that it's heresy to refer to them as individuals. Personally, I use the term "personage" as opposed to "person," but I don't see that as an issue worth arguing over. But if I ask a Trinitarian what kind of a person each of the three persons of their Trinity is, (i.e. human or divine), they say, "divine." Okay. So there are three divine persons. What on earth is a divine person if not a god? And then we're back to square one and I supposedly belong to a polytheistic religion and not to a Christian one. In the Bible, the Father and the Son are clearly both divine. Both are also physically distinct from each other and yet "one" in terms of their desires and hopes for mankind. Why isn't that good enough?

The Athanasian Creed states: So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God. What would be so inaccurate in saying, "The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There are, therefore, three divine persons who can either individually be referred to as "God" or collectively as "God"?

 

[Katzpur]

OK, you win. Anthanisia may have lost on the "I Am".

By the way, it's Athanasius, not Anthanasia. Drop the first 'n'. Then change the final 'a' to a 'u' and add 's'. Not trying to be rude in making this correction. Just thought you'd want to know.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe the scripture teach the Trinity but not according to the Athanasian Creed, His views were outvoted at the Council of Nicea.

The Athanasian Creed came 35 years after the Council of Nicaea. You're thinking of Arius.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because Jesus is the Son and not the brother. It is a matter of fact, not a relationship invented to transmit a message.
The co equal actually means having the same nature. The Son has the same nature as His Father. But the Son who is perfect just as His Father is perfect, is subordinate to His Father.



In John 20:17 Jesus does not say "....to our God". He says "to your God and to my God". A subtle distinction.
Jesus Father is also His God because He was and is a man. He took the nature of a servant (Phil 2) and so now has a God. Jesus was and is a man and so other men are His brothers. Jesus human nature is real and not transient.



The Word took the nature of a servant. He is the Holy One of Israel, the Holy Servant who was an Israelite. Actually He is our only Lord. That does not mean that the Father is not our Lord and the Father being our only God does not mean that the Son is not God. As Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and My God".
The Son who comes from His Father has the same nature as His Father, God nature.

The “nature” was that of being spirit. Because Jesus also was in the “nature of a servant, being made in human likeness”. That’s flesh.Philippians 2:7.
Actually, the Greek term is “morphe”, which is more accurately translated “form”.
“Nature” is a Greek philosophical term, not used in the Greek Scriptures.
Highly respected scholar and Catholic priest John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are Gk (Greek) philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(Italics and bold type are mine.) (New York, 1965), p. 899.


Now, this guy was a trinitarian...he had to be, being a Catholic priest. And very honest.

 

[Katzpur]

Because Jesus is the Son and not the brother. It is a matter of fact, not a relationship invented to transmit a message.
The co equal actually means having the same nature. The Son has the same nature as His Father. But the Son who is perfect just as His Father is perfect, is subordinate to His Father.

Then why was the word "co-equal" used? It certainly does imply that there is no subordination of the Son to the Father. I agree with you that they are both equally divine. They are both equally good, powerful, just, etc. But the do not have a "co-equal" relationship, and this is one of many reasons I cannot accept the God defined by the Athanasian Creed.

In John 20:17 Jesus does not say "....to our God". He says "to your God and to my God". A subtle distinction.

I don't see it as a distinction at all. In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus said, "Our Father." If "your God" is the same as "my God," then the meaning is "our God." I don't understand why you would think it's a distinction worth even mentioning. And on the first Easter morning, when Jesus met Mary outside the tomb, He said "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." He wasn't talking about two different Fathers or two different Gods. He was talking about an individual who was both His and Mary's Father and God. Had He said, "I ascend unto our Father and our God," it would have meant exactly the same thing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then why was the word "co-equal" used? It certainly does imply that there is no subordination of the Son to the Father. I agree with you that they are both equally divine. They are both equally good, powerful, just, etc. But the do not have a "co-equal" relationship, and this is one of many reasons I cannot accept the God defined by the Athanasian Creed.

Katzpur, do you remember what Jesus said about being good? I know you do.

Provides even more of a distinction.

Take care, my thinking cousin!

 

[Brian2]

Because Jesus just told He was over 1800 years old!

Grief!

Not a good reason to want to kill someone, not in Jewish Law and not out of Jewish Law.

Again...if the Pharisees thought Jesus was telling them that he was God, then why didn’t they ever accuse him of that at his Sanhedrin trial?!!

That Jesus said "I am" is not something you could use in a trial. Jesus is very subtle in how He spoke but we know what He meant because of the actions of those who tried to kill Him.

The Pharisees knew that Jesus claim to be the Son of God was a claim of equality with God. The Pharisees must have known from scripture that the Messiah would be the Son of God but refused to think it could mean that the Messiah would be equal to God, no He must be a son in a different way. But they knew what Jesus meant when He spoke about being the Son of God and even when Jesus seemed to be denying it, as when He said:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law,?‘I have said you are “gods" 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Jesus was quoting Psalm 82 where God is said to inherit the nations just like it says of the Son in Psalm 2.
He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. 8 Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
Jesus was not really denying to be equal to God, He was showing the Pharisees where they could find out in the scriptures where it told them that the Messiah would be the Son of God, equal in nature to His Father.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Katzpur , read the definition of divine....it simply means “of God”, or “from God.”

That would include the Bible, the faithful angels, etc. Even the stars.

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur, do you remember what Jesus said about being good? I know you do.

I suspect you're referring to where Jesus says, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." I think this verses requires us to not just interpret the word "good" at face value. After all, Job was described as "perfect." Seems to me that "perfect" is even better than just "good."

 

[Katzpur]

@Katzpur , read the definition of divine....it simply means “of God”, or “from God.”

That would include the Bible, the faithful angels, etc. Even the stars.

Well, then it would refer to virtually everything God has ever created, as everything in the world is ultimately "from God," and there are quite a number of things I don't see as "divine." I think that "godly" is a far more accurate way of understanding the term than just "from God," particularly as the word is used in a religious context.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Pharisees knew that Jesus claim to be the Son of God was a claim of equality with God.

No, that’s not accurate. Because they knew Adam to be a “son of God”.
Genesis 6:1-4 calls others “sons of God”.

The Pharisees must have known from scripture that the Messiah would be the Son of God but refused to think it could mean that the Messiah would be equal to God

What? I think you contradicted yourself.

Anyway, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 clearly distinguishes between who the “one God” is, and who Jesus is.
And this is after Jesus’ Resurrection....he wasn’t limited by any kind of nature.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Pharisees knew that Jesus claim to be the Son of God was a claim of equality with God. The Pharisees must have known from scripture that the Messiah would be the Son of God but refused to think it could mean that the Messiah would be equal to God, no He must be a son in a different way. But they knew what Jesus meant when He spoke about being the Son of God and even when Jesus seemed to be denying it, as when He said:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law,?‘I have said you are “gods" 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Jesus was quoting Psalms 82 where God is said to inherit the nations just like it says of the Son in Psalm 2.
He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. 8 Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
Jesus was not really denying to be equal to God, He was showing the Pharisees where they could find out in the scriptures where it told them that the Messiah would be the Son of God, equal in nature to His Father.

I find at John 10:36 Jesus truthfully answers when Jesus said, " I am the Son of God ".
Even the demons tell us who they think Jesus is at Luke 4:41.
Jesus clearly informs us that ' his Father is greater than ALL' at John 10:29.
'ALL' includes Jesus according to John 14:28 that Jesus' Father is greater than I (Jesus).
Yes, human judges (John 10:34; Psalms 82 ) are called ' gods ' because they were to use God's recorded judgement as to what is right or wrong.

When Jesus prayed that his followers be 'one' just as he and his Father are one, Jesus was Not praying they all be God at John 17:11; John 17:21-23.
Rather, that they all be 'one ' in unity, faith, agreement, purpose, goal, harmony just as he and his Father are one.

Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to gospel writer John at Revelation 3:12.

 

[Katzpur]

The Pharisees knew that Jesus claim to be the Son of God was a claim of equality with God.

No, that’s not accurate. Because they knew Adam to be a “son of God”.
Genesis 6:1-4 calls others “sons of God”.

We are all God's children (sons and daughters) with respect to the fact that He is the Father of our spirits. Only Jesus Christ, however, was referred to in the Bible as being God's "only begotten Son." That's where the distinction lies and it's a gargantuan one!

 

[SLPCCC]

When I try to understand the Trinity and assume that it's true, I think of Time. There is the future, the past, and the present. All three are the same. They are part of Time but they are not the same. In this way, you have God. There is the Father, the Word (the son), and the Spirit. They are the same. They are part of God, Jesus being the son (formally the Word) but Jesus not being the father nor the spirit. But all three are one. Just like the past and the future is not the present but all three are one, Time.

The other way I can accept it is by it just being a mystery. We can try to understand it but we won't fully grasp it until we are one with Jesus and the father.

Nevertheless, there should be hints of it in the scriptures.

 

[Katzpur]

When I try to understand the Trinity and assume that it's true, I think of Time. There is the future, the past, and the present. All three are the same. They are part of Time but they are not the same. In this way, you have God. There is the Father, the Word (the son), and the Spirit. They are the same. They are part of God, Jesus being the son (formally the Word) but Jesus not being the father nor the spirit. But all three are one. Just like the past and the future is not the present but all three are one, Time.

I'm confused. You said that you are able to understand the Trinity by understanding "time," Then you go on to say that the future, the past and the present are "not the same" but that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit "are the same." So how does understanding time help you understand the Trinity?

The other way I can accept it is by it just being a mystery. We can try to understand it but we won't fully grasp it until we are one with Jesus and the father.

But what, exactly, do you mean by "the same"? In what way are they the same, and are they also different in any way?

Lastly, maybe there is no need to understand "the Trinity." Maybe you can just understand what the Bible has to say about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and not get distracted by trying to figure out what the Greek philosophers had to say about God.

 

[SLPCCC]

But what, exactly, do you mean by "the same"? In what way exactly are they the same, and are they also different in any way?

They would be the same in the sense that Jesus was always the Word of God. He was never created just like the father was never created. He was the Father's Word who became flesh. He became the firstborn son (the son of man) when he came down to earth. He is the son of God the only-begotten. The only true son. but always was the Word before he came down. That's how he is different.

 

[Katzpur]

They would be the same in the sense that Jesus was always the Word of God. He was never created just like the father was never created. He became the firstborn son (the son of man) when he came down to earth. He is the son of God the only-begotten. The only true son. but always was the Word before he came down. That's how he is different.

Gotcha. Thanks. So you do make a distinction between the two? By saying they're "the same," you're not saying, "they are the same exact individual"?

 

[SLPCCC]

Gotcha. Thanks. So you do make a distinction between the two? By saying they're "the same," you're not saying, "they are the same exact individual"?

Jesus is the son and the father is the father but both are part of the same Being. I don't think anybody can fully understand it because our mental capacity in this world is limited. It's like an ant trying to understand the universe.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus is the son and the father is the father but both are part of the same Being. I don't think anybody can fully understand it because our mental capacity in this world is limited. It's like an ant trying to understand the universe.

You know, I feel like it's the terminology we use that's getting in the way of our understanding. You use the word "Being." I guess I'm uncomfortable with that term simply because to me it means, "a living creature," and I don't see God as "a living creature" comprised of three "parts." To me, God is an association of three diving beings who are, as @URAVIP2ME put it, "one in unity, faith, agreement, purpose, goal [and] harmony." They don't have to be a single "Being" in order to be "one God" if they are united in the only way that truly matters.