Divinity and Sonship

Hi Katz

I read this entirely differently, and in so doing I don't have the same problem.

Jesus came from God and became Man, borne of Mary.
When Jesus was on earth he was entirely man. Like us he prayed to God, The micracles he did were from God. His teaching was inspired by God.
After he died and returned to God He became one with God again.
For me he is now an aspect of God. who will one day come again in Glory,
For me this means he will come again, not as man but in the glory of God.

So for me Jesus has been Both part of God and wholely Man.
Also for me the Holy spirit is also an aspect of God, In an intangable form but able to interact with man.
All three are one God, but they are the names we give to the various forms of God we perceive.

Terry
__________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

Terrywoodenpic said:

Hi Katz

I read this entirely differently, and in so doing I don't have the same problem.

Jesus came from God and became Man, borne of Mary.
When Jesus was on earth he was entirely man. Like us he prayed to God, The micracles he did were from God. His teaching was inspired by God.
After he died and returned to God He became one with God again.
For me he is now an aspect of God. who will one day come again in Glory,
For me this means he will come again, not as man but in the glory of God.

So for me Jesus has been Both part of God and wholely Man.
Also for me the Holy spirit is also an aspect of God, In an intangable form but able to interact with man.
All three are one God, but they are the names we give to the various forms of God we perceive.

Terry
__________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

Click to expand...

Good post Terry - I think what you have said pretty well encapsulates how I see it.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Hi Katz

I read this entirely differently, and in so doing I don't have the same problem.

Jesus came from God and became Man, borne of Mary.
When Jesus was on earth he was entirely man. Like us he prayed to God, The micracles he did were from God. His teaching was inspired by God.
After he died and returned to God He became one with God again.
For me he is now an aspect of God. who will one day come again in Glory,
For me this means he will come again, not as man but in the glory of God.

So for me Jesus has been Both part of God and wholely Man.
Also for me the Holy spirit is also an aspect of God, In an intangable form but able to interact with man.
All three are one God, but they are the names we give to the various forms of God we perceive.

Terry
__________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

Click to expand...

I assume you're not a Trinitarian then. What you describe sounds like a weird mix of Sabellianism and a kind of 'anti-Adoptionalism'. Never heard anyone describe the nature of God in anything approaching this way before.

By the way, and a bit more on topic, there are two ways in Orthodox (and indeed orthodox) Triadology in which God the Son is subordinate to the Father. One is that He voluntarily subordinates Himself to the Father's will, in particular this is true of the Incarnation. The second way is that the source of the Godhead is the Father: He begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit neither beget nor proceed any other Hypostasis (the Roman Catholic - and many Protestants also hold to this - dual procession doctrine summed up in the filioque is not consistent with the beliefs of the early Ecumenical Councils).

James

I'm not sure,that's something to look into though.I'm sure the Bible says I just don't know where to find it.

James,

You confuse me (quite easily done); I thought Terry's description was one that did encompass the idea of the trinity. Where am I going wrong?

JamesThePersian said:

I assume you're not a Trinitarian then. What you describe sounds like a weird mix of Sabellianism and a kind of 'anti-Adoptionalism'. Never heard anyone describe the nature of God in anything approaching this way before.

By the way, and a bit more on topic, there are two ways in Orthodox (and indeed orthodox) Triadology in which God the Son is subordinate to the Father. One is that He voluntarily subordinates Himself to the Father's will, in particular this is true of the Incarnation. The second way is that the source of the Godhead is the Father: He begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit neither beget nor proceed any other Hypostasis (the Roman Catholic - and many Protestants also hold to this - dual procession doctrine summed up in the filioque is not consistent with the beliefs of the early Ecumenical Councils).

James

Click to expand...

Yes I do believe in the Trinity.
But in a rather simpler way than the academic complications of learned church men.
The traditional teachings are too close to mumbojumbo for me, like some one trying to explain their way out of a problem by digging a deeper hole. It might make a lot of sense in the light of their previous decisions, but little in the real world.
I just like to keep it simple.


Terry
__________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

Bennettresearch said:

Hi Katz,

I think that it is clear in the Gospels that Jesus was representing a hierarchical order. The rush to make Him divine created an over-reaching of sorts. The concept of melding God, Jesus, and the Holy spirit into one being cancels out the importance of each of these. I just popped in here so I don't have time to quote anything, but I think it is actually pretty clear that Jesus speaks of these things as being separate. There is God, there is the Holy Spirit, and there is Jesus. Jesus was humble in the presence of God and the Holy Spirit. And so, Jesus represents Himself as having the word of God within Him, not being God.

Click to expand...

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 Terry.

I was hoping to see you respond.

Jesus came from God and became Man, borne of Mary.
When Jesus was on earth he was entirely man. Like us he prayed to God, The micracles he did were from God. His teaching was inspired by God.
After he died and returned to God He became one with God again.

Click to expand...

But He said, even during His lifetime, that He was "one" with God. So before we go any further, we really need to understand what exactly He meant by the word "one."

For me he is now an aspect of God. who will one day come again in Glory,
For me this means he will come again, not as man but in the glory of God.

Click to expand...

But Stephen saw "Jesus standing on the right hand of God." How would that be possible if there were not two distinct beings, each occupying physical space? I know, you'll probably say that this another one of those verses we're not supposed to take literally. But see, I don't understand why we're not supposed to take it literally! It makes sense from a literal standpoint, but it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.

So for me Jesus has been Both part of God and wholely Man.

Click to expand...

But I'm sure you'd agree that even when He was "wholely man," He was also "wholely God."

Also for me the Holy spirit is also an aspect of God, In an intangable form but able to interact with man.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you mentioned the Holy Spirit. You say He is an intangible form. How does this make Him any different from God the Father in your understanding? To me, if God the Father were also an intangible form, there would be little purpose in referring to the Holy Spirit by that title. There would actually be little need for a third person in the Godhead at all if both the Holy Spirit and the Father were intangible.

All three are one God, but they are the names we give to the various forms of God we perceive.

Click to expand...

I agree to the extent that their unity so far exceeds our understanding of unity that it is entirely correct to refer to them as "one God." I just don't see them as all being a part of the same substance or -- as I have explained in this thread -- as being "co-equal."

Kathryn

Terry
__________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God[/QUOTE]

JamesThePersian said:

By the way, and a bit more on topic, there are two ways in Orthodox (and indeed orthodox) Triadology in which God the Son is subordinate to the Father. One is that He voluntarily subordinates Himself to the Father's will, in particular this is true of the Incarnation. The second way is that the source of the Godhead is the Father: He begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Wow! I'm learning something new here! Are you saying that the Orthodox Church teaches that the Son is subordinate to the Father at least in part because the Father is the source of His divinity? Or am I misunderstanding you? I find this very interesting because in previous discussions with Trinitarians, I've always been inclined to ask: If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal (i.e. the Son is not subordinate to the Father), why is it not correct to say that the Son begat the Father that the Son proceeded from the Holy Ghost? The way you have explained this implies that you do see a heirarchy of some kind. If I'm right in my understanding, is this what the filioque is all about?

Katzpur said:

Wow! I'm learning something new here! Are you saying that the Orthodox Church teaches that the Son is subordinate to the Father at least in part because the Father is the source of His divinity? Or am I misunderstanding you? I find this very interesting because in previous discussions with Trinitarians, I've always been inclined to ask: If the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal (i.e. the Son is not subordinate to the Father), why is it not correct to say that the Son begat the Father that the Son proceeded from the Holy Ghost? The way you have explained this implies that you do see a heirarchy of some kind. If I'm right in my understanding, is this what the filioque is all about?

Click to expand...

Well, you've maybe stated this slightly off (I'd have said that the Father is the source of the Son's Hypostasis - they are both equally divine as they share the one divine nature) but you are about right, I think. And yes, this is what the filioque is all about. In our view the three Hypostases are equal in their divinity but there is a kind of subordination in that the Father begets and proceeds, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeded. In effect, what is unique to the Father is that He is unbegotten, the Son is uniquely begotten from the Father and the Spirit uniquely proceeds from the Father. The dual procession doctrine encapsulated in the filioque distorts this, making the Holy Spirit ontologically subordinate to both the Father and the Son. Our Trinity would look something like this:


The filioquist's like this:


Hope that helps (and sorry for the amateurish diagrams).

James

P.S.
I can't get these diagrams to keep their formatting when I post. The first should look like an inverted V with the Father at the top, the second like an inverted triangle with the Holy Spirit at the bottom. I hope you can see what I intended.

Hi Kathryn.

I think that considering God is a bit like considering Infinity.
If you were to divide off lumps of infinite space, what would be left would still be infinite space.
The same applies to God, when he sent Jesus to us, God became no less, and Jesus was subordinate only in the sense that he came from God and so a precedence was established. The same applies to the Holy Spirit.

But He said, even during His lifetime, that He was "one" with God. So before we go any further, we really need to understand what exactly He meant by the word "one."

Click to expand...

Jesus knew better than we ever will, his relationship with God. in english, saying you are one with some one can have various meanings, none in this context very helpful.
I would say he knew his Godhead but also knew he had come as a servant with self imposed limitations.

But Stephen saw "Jesus standing on the right hand of God." How would that be possible if there were not two distinct beings, each occupying physical space?

Click to expand...

I do not find that a problem. We can only see God at all, if he wills it. If he shows him self as God in Majesty with Jesus and the Angelic Host....Amen

But I'm sure you'd agree that even when He was "wholely man," He was also "wholely God."

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

I'm glad you mentioned the Holy Spirit. You say He is an intangible form. How does this make Him any different from God the Father in your understanding? To me, if God the Father were also an intangible form, there would be little purpose in referring to the Holy Spirit by that title. There would actually be little need for a third person in the Godhead at all if both the Holy Spirit and the Father were intangible.

Click to expand...

It would have been difficult for us to understand the message Of jesus unless he had come as a man. Though God could have come as Himself, we would have gained a quite different message.
Likewise the Holy Spirit is distinct, in the same way we see Jesus as distinct, and for the same reason. I see the Spirit as a messenger of God who does a quite different job to Jesus, who brings to us as individuals, the love and Grace of God.

I agree to the extent that their unity so far exceeds our understanding of unity that it is entirely correct to refer to them as "one God." I just don't see them as all being a part of the same substance or -- as I have explained in this thread -- as being "co-equal."

Click to expand...

For us to know the Triniy as three entities is for our benefit, not God's. I think in Jesus time it was easier for people to understand it that way.
To day, I am not so sure, I think seeing God as three distinct beings complicates matters, and involves a degree of mental gymnastics that is counter productive.
After all the only reason we do so, is to reconcile our beliefs with the Bible.
The three persons are no less real, however we describe them.

This is why I have used the word Aspect, it is not the usual way to describe the Christian Trinity. But more understandable.

Terry
________________________________
Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

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

JamesThePersian said:

I assume you're not a Trinitarian then. What you describe sounds like a weird mix of Sabellianism and a kind of 'anti-Adoptionalism'. Never heard anyone describe the nature of God in anything approaching this way before.

By the way, and a bit more on topic, there are two ways in Orthodox (and indeed orthodox) Triadology in which God the Son is subordinate to the Father. One is that He voluntarily subordinates Himself to the Father's will, in particular this is true of the Incarnation. The second way is that the source of the Godhead is the Father: He begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit neither beget nor proceed any other Hypostasis (the Roman Catholic - and many Protestants also hold to this - dual procession doctrine summed up in the filioque is not consistent with the beliefs of the early Ecumenical Councils).

James

Click to expand...

James
I have taken a while to reply because I have had to read up on what you were talking about. The trinity is something accepted in the church of England, but rarely discussed.
The view I expess are entirely my own, though obviously not unique.
Reading About Sabellianism, Adoptionalism and Modalistic Monarchianism shows me that the early church was still establishing a solid view on the matter of the trinity. and together with the gnostic tradition was designating those with the least support as being heretical.
I have alway been quite happy to take a heretical position, If it provides a more believable explanation. This may appear weird to someone who accepts the thoughts and decisions of ancient thinkers, on these matters, to be the final position.
I have always been of the opinion That Christianity is a Living religion with still a very long way to go, before every thing is revealed.

After reading up on the Trinity I am still standing by my view of the Trinity until such time as a clearer understanding is shown to me.

Terry_________________________________

Blessed are the pure of heart, they shall behold their God.

blueman said:

Jesus, the Son is on equal par with His Father and The Holy Spirit, wITH each sharing the same attributes (omnisicience,omnipresence,omnipotence,eternality and immutability). Now, as part of God's purpose of redeeming mankind, Jesus, as part of His incarnation, did empty himself of some of the attributes applicable to His deity when he was made flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-3). Paul speaks to this emptying of Himself in Phillipians 2. Jesus, as part of His incarnation, was more dependent on the Father as a result of being in His fleshly state. When He resurrected, He had all power in His hand and all of His attributes fully restored leading up to His ascension into heaven.

"God gives us free will and we all have a choice".

WWW.LIFE-CHOICE.NET

Click to expand...

So, you believe Jesus is A God?

nutshell said:

There is only one God and that is God the Father. It is He who we worship. Jesus Christ is our savior, to whom we are eternally indebted to.

Christ is equal to the father in that he is an heir to all his father has. In this way, we too can be joint heirs with Christ (see Romans 8:16-18). Does this make us equal? Absolutely not. We must always worship the Father.

Click to expand...

the point of being an the heir to anything, is to inherit it. There is not a lot of point to being an heir to someone who is eternal. You will never inherit anything!

The Truth said:

So, are you saying that Jesus is equal to God but he is not a god.

another thing, what is the different between Jesus as a "son" and the other sons in the bible?

Click to expand...

Good question

Terrywoodenpic said:

Hi Katz

I read this entirely differently, and in so doing I don't have the same problem.

Jesus came from God and became Man, borne of Mary.
When Jesus was on earth he was entirely man. Like us he prayed to God, The micracles he did were from God. His teaching was inspired by God.
After he died and returned to God He became one with God again.
For me he is now an aspect of God. who will one day come again in Glory,
For me this means he will come again, not as man but in the glory of God.

So for me Jesus has been Both part of God and wholely Man.
Also for me the Holy spirit is also an aspect of God, In an intangable form but able to interact with man.
All three are one God, but they are the names we give to the various forms of God we perceive.

Terry
__________________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

Click to expand...

good answer

JamesThePersian said:

I assume you're not a Trinitarian then. What you describe sounds like a weird mix of Sabellianism and a kind of 'anti-Adoptionalism'. Never heard anyone describe the nature of God in anything approaching this way before.

By the way, and a bit more on topic, there are two ways in Orthodox (and indeed orthodox) Triadology in which God the Son is subordinate to the Father. One is that He voluntarily subordinates Himself to the Father's will, in particular this is true of the Incarnation. The second way is that the source of the Godhead is the Father: He begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit. The Son and the Holy Spirit neither beget nor proceed any other Hypostasis (the Roman Catholic - and many Protestants also hold to this - dual procession doctrine summed up in the filioque is not consistent with the beliefs of the early Ecumenical Councils).

James

Click to expand...

Typical verbal gobbledygook. To me, completely meaningless

Katzpur said:

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

Click to expand...

Are you telling is that Mormons are not a monotheistic sect

Merlin said:

Are you telling is that Mormons are not a monotheistic sect

Click to expand...

Well, I guess that all depends on how you interpret the word "monotheism." We definitely do consider ourselves to be monotheistic, but we've been accused of polytheism more times than I can count. Most Muslims would tell all Christians that they are polytheistic, so I guess it's how you look at it.

We reject the doctrine of the Trinity, if that's what what you mean. But, we do believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one." We just don't believe that they are "one in substance." We see them being perfectly unified in will, purpose, mind and heart. There is an absolute spiritual unity in all that they do, and no contention of any kind. Their "oneness" is so complete that Jesus explained it by saying that the Father was in Him and He was in the Father. I don't think we even have a word to express the degree of unity there is within the Godhead. We just don't see them as being part of a single invisible essence which fills the universe. We see them as three physically distint divine beings.