The Nature of Christ

[Unveiled Artist]

Gee, you two are long-winded!

I found a twin

 

[Shiranui117]

Human sacrifice and human being god were the few two things that tripped me up when I really started practicing at an intimate level. The trinity, and I guess like many christians in general, have their take and funny we all can use the bible to prove totally different views from the same source. Hence where that sola scriptura argument comes in. My friend gave me a copy of brief excerpts of what the Church fathers spoke of. I'll probably have a look see.

Feel free to do so and get back to me with any further points you have. I've been going and reading more of the Fathers as we have this talk, and over the last 48 hours I've found some things that are basically making me have to start from the ground up in terms of how I think about the Trinity. I won't inflict any of those links on you unless you want them (because I believe in always being able to accurately source my ideas whenever asked for any reason). They hurt, lol.

Also, consider that it isn't "human being god", but "god being human". It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.

Yeah. It was weird. For example, one person, say John, on RF was conflicted whether he should be christian or not. When he wasn't christian, the talk was like you and I right now. Soon as he had a god-experience, his language completely switched to godlish kind of using the bible with English mixed. I never heard Catholics do this, to tell you honestly. Only bible-sola folk. Then John decided christianity wasn't for him, and his language changed.

Interesting.

Yah! -Does her happy dance!!- he got it. Wouldn't the relationship itself be deep already? Does there need to be "one Is another" for the relationship to be deeper than three parties relating to each other in a very divine sorta fashion?

Maybe I'm misreading you, but I think you lie much closer to the point I'm trying to make than you realize. The relationship between the three Persons is incredibly deep, and you're right that this doesn't make the three Persons blend together. They're not One God because they blend together in their relationship. They're One God because the Father is the One True God, and the Son and the Spirit are caused by Him. They have the same Divine Nature as the Father, and by virtue of their shared nature and united action (they don't act separately, everything they do is one united action) and mutual indwelling, they are together One God in three Persons.

Yes. This makes sense and all scriptural. Which goes back to my point, all of this doesn't make each other god. It's still deep, divine, and scriptural. What about "jesus is not god" vs "jesus is god" make what you say above true or not true?

If Jesus doesn't share the Divine Nature, then He cannot possibly be God. It is literally impossible for Jesus to have the Divine Nature and not be God in any way, shape or form.

I mean, when I read it, I see relationship between father and humanity through his son created and the creator's words incarnated as christ.

Right on, and this is central. The reason we have communion with the Father is because Jesus shares both the Father's Divine Nature and our human nature. Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.

Maybe I have blinders on, but I honestly can't figure any other way to see christ other than a human intermediary to god.

I think a couple points might help.

1: Jesus Christ is the Logos, and He always was the Logos. As per Proverbs 8:22, Wisdom was always with God.

2: As per John 1:1, Jesus was in the beginning with the Father, i.e. He was always with the Father. There was never a time when He was not. He is also divine just as the Father is divine.

Putting those two points together, do you see how Jesus is more than just a human in Christian thought? Had Jesus not been called "Logos" or "God" in the Bible, you would absolutely be right.

I still see them separate and related. I do describe god as the breathe of life. Let me ask, why is "being given the breathe" and "being the breathe" (which I side with the latter) much stronger?

Do you mean with reference to humanity, i.e. what is the difference between us being given the breath and being the breath?

Haha. How is it heresy, though? The holy spirit is the love and grace between father and son; that unique relationship bestowed by the father upon his son thereby the same is bestowed to humanity by this connection (the relationship). I paraphrased it.

It's problematic for a couple reasons:

1: It assumes that the Father and the Son need to have something between them to bind them together, other than their both possessing the Divine Nature and being God.

2: It assumes that the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Father and the Son to exist, which would mean that the Spirit is caused by two Persons of the Trinity.

3: Because of 2, that would then mean that the Father is not the source of the Trinity, but only of the Son. This throws the Trinity out of whack entirely, because it blurs together the Father and the Son.

4: Elaborating on 3, there is no quality that is possessed by only two Persons of the Trinity. Anything we say about the Trinity is applicable to either all three Persons or only one, but never two. This is because said quality would either define a way in which the Trinity is One God, or define a way in which one Person of the Trinity is a distinct Person with reference to the other Two.

If I thought of it in a picture, it would be the creator standing to the left. In the middle is his human incarnated son. The right. He sent a spirit (spirit sending a spirit?) upon his son (probably the dove and "this is my son" part in the gospels) thereby, when christ physically died (human flesh can't live on the cross if it's being crucified; it's a bloody sight), the spirit god gave christ became the spirit of those who were baptized in christ.

Christianity is getting weirder and weirder.

Believe me, I just figured out today that I have to unlearn and relearn the Trinity, because apparently a couple things which I mentioned earlier were a bit off.

A force doesn't have to be impersonal.

By impersonal, I mean "not being a person". And we see that the Holy Spirit is intelligent, and He is called "Lord", that He can speak to other people, and also intercede for us to the Father.

It's the love and grace that connects the father to his son thereby christians to christ.

Except literally nobody in the Christian world ever taught this (outside of maybe Augustine but he got a lot of things wrong about the Trinity and Christinaity in general; remember the whole original sin thing?

WOAH You lost me. Not a carbon copy? How is he the father if he isn't at the very closest a carbon copy?

If Jesus isn't a carbon copy of the Father, then that means they're different Persons, which is exactly what the Trinity is. So the Father is uncaused and unbegotten, whereas the Son is caused and begotten. This is how we can distinguish the two as two Persons. If there was no distinguishing characteristic between the Father and the Son, then they wouldn't be two different Persons.

I agree he shares the same attributes as the father (keyword share between two people; can't share with yourself) but if you're not saying jesus is a copy of his father, how would you translate "image of"?

Jesus is the image of the Father in that He shares all His attributes (aside from the ones that distinguish them as Persons). He is also the image of the Father in that He is God made visible for mankind (in that He became incarnate as Jesus Christ).

Aah. I see. Okay, that makes sense why you would believe that? I'd think it wouldn't devalue christ's example. Wouldn't it be just a good example if he didn't rise in body, so christians would know they won't "carry their sin" anymore eternally because that would be the final "repentance" and eternal penance?

If all we needed was a good example, then the Logos wouldn't have had to become man.

I'll have to get back to the last two comments but the trinity is a whole topic in itself. There was something I read years back of the Arian Heresy. I think Arian was describing the divinity of christ that did not place jesus as god but subordinate to him or something similar. I remember agreeing with him but I googled it and it kept popping up with bias information and bad things about the "heresy" from the Church. If you find an objective source, it's a good read.

I've read about Arianism before. I might read about it again, but the reality of history is that Arianism evolved at a particular point in time centuries after the Apostles. I believe in the Trinity because I can trace its teaching back to the Bible and to the students of the Apostles. As you said, we can find Arianism in the Bible if we look at it in a certain way, but the litmus test for me is to see if I can find an unbroken line of Arian teaching from Arius back to the Apostles and those they handpicked to succeed them. And last I checked, Arius' teacher Lucian or Lucian's teacher Paul of Samosata (it was definitely one of the two) was a Sabellian, i.e. a person who teaches that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are all one God wearing different masks. So Arius taught the exact opposite of what his teacher or grandteacher taught.

Now, maybe someone misunderstood Lucian or Paul of Samosata, and I'll have to do some digging to find out that answer. If Arianism can go in an unbroken line back to the Apostles, then it suddenly becomes credible.

 

[metis]

I've been going and reading more of the Fathers as we have this talk,

Just a quick note that I did much the same going back around 40 years ago as I was conflicted with which positions on several issues, the Protestant or Catholic, were more believed in by the early church, using the writing of the patriarchs and scholars from the 2nd century especially.