The Son of the Holy Trinity

[Kenny]

I sometimes get the feeling that arguing with Christians is akin to cats yowling at each other.

Your scripture capitalises on Greek philosophies, (logos, divine cannibalism, human deity), was written to Greeks, is a polemic against Jews, written in Greek.

There is nothing Jewish about your John.

LOL... I get the same feeling from non-Christians. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Earthling]

You are a great person!

Nah, I'm just trying to figure things out.

 

[blü 2]

How do you understand the role of the Son of the Holy Trinity? What is its purpose?

That's a tricky question. Trinity theory says that there is one God made up of three distinct persons, Father, Son and Ghost.

It follows that the Son of God has one father, God, but three persons who are his father, namely Father, Ghost and himself.

Therefore the Father is only one of three persons who are equally father to the Son. It's accordingly unclear why the Father is called the Father, or since the Son is his own Father, why he's called the Son.

However, Jesus in the NT wasn't a Trinitarian: he repeatedly declares that he's not God, and that only the Father is God: there's no Son in the Godhead because the Godhead is the same thing as the Father. There's no Trinity.

So in Jesus' view the question in the OP never arises.

 

[metis]

However, Jesus in the NT wasn't a Trinitarian: he repeatedly declares that he's not God, and that only the Father is God: there's no Son in the Godhead because the Godhead is the same thing as the Father. There's no Trinity.

But the Trinitarian concept does not posit Jesus or the HS as actually being God as the Nicene Creed does show the difference between them. But, since that creed was based on a compromise agreement in order to especially bring the Arians in, it is quite vague, thus "the Mystery of the Trinity", which supposedly people will not be able to understand until they reach heaven-- which leaves me out.

 

[blü 2]

But the Trinitarian concept does not posit Jesus or the HS as actually being God as the Nicene Creed does show the difference between them. But, since that creed was based on a compromise agreement in order to especially bring the Arians in, it is quite vague, thus "the Mystery of the Trinity", which supposedly people will not be able to understand until they reach heaven-- which leaves me out.

Perhaps this quote from the 'Trinity' entry in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church may help:

TRINITY, Doctrine of the. The central dogma of Christian theology, viz. that the One God exists in Three Persons and One Substance.
​

Of course, the doctrine doesn't exist before the 4th century ─ when it was devised as a way of promoting Jesus to god status while resisting criticism that like the pagans, Christians were polytheists ─ and even now JWs, Christian Scientists, Christadelphians, Mormons and more reject it; but the Christian denominations with the big numbers teach it ─ RCC., Orthodoxy, Anglo/Pisco, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist &c.

This doctrine is held to be a mystery in the strict sense, in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.
​

That is, there's no important difference between 'a mystery in the strict sense' and 'a nonsense'.

On the other hand, it is maintained that, although the mystery is above reason, it is not contrary to it, for it is not incompatible with the principles of rational thought.
​

That, of course, is also nonsense. There's no such place in logic as 'above reason', and the problems are real. Each of the three Persons is 100% of God ie not one third of God, not members of a corporate God, not directors of a separate entity called God.

So we do the maths and find that 100% + 100% + 100% = 300% = three gods. No, says the doctrine, only one God.

What about 33.3% + 33.3% + 33.3% = 100%. Nope. The Trinity doctrine requires a distinct 100% + another distinct 100% + another distinct 100% to be 100%.

To which the 'principles of rational thought' reply, Phooey!

And here, to complete the picture, are some of the quotes from the NT where Jesus (in words attributed to him in direct speech) says he is NOT God (there being none where he says, 'I am God' ─

Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”

John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

John 10:29 “My Father [...] is greater than all”.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”
​

With which Paul incidentally agrees eg

Corinthian 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Philippians 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
​

So were I a Christian, I wouldn't be a Trinitarian.

 

[Shadow Link]

How do you understand the role of the Son of the Holy Trinity? What is its purpose?

I think the Son's role in the trinity concept can be viewed, based, or attributed out primarily upon the recording of Jesus own words where he states that he is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father(perfect wisdom?) except through him(Jesus). So in essence Jesus represents "the way" I think most would see as "love", "the truth" fundamental toward a holiness that has been examined and benefits humanity as a whole, and "the life" the source or frame of consciousness promoting us toward a more balanced perpetual existence.

 

[metis]

So were I a Christian, I wouldn't be a Trinitarian.

I am not a Christian thus I'm also not a Trinitarian.

But what I am saying is that there is an argument that can be made that this could be a valid belief. We know that the 1st century church generally believed that Jesus was more than a prophet and a messiah, and that he was of God. However, exactly what constituted "of" was neither clear nor likely agreed upon.

The Trinitarian concept clearly is not polytheistic because it still deals with only one deity, but that which is believed to be manifest in three forms. That's not the same as polytheism.

 

[blü 2]

there is an argument that can be made that this could be a valid belief.

Can belief in an incoherent doctrine be 'valid'?

We know that the 1st century church generally believed that Jesus was more than a prophet and a messiah, and that he was of God. However, exactly what constituted "of" was neither clear nor likely agreed upon.

Well, if one takes the bible seriously, all those denials attributed to Jesus in direct speech that he's God ought to be worth something. Of course, if one doesn't, no problem. Or rather, only the incoherence problem.

The Trinitarian concept clearly is not polytheistic because it still deals with only one deity, but that which is believed to be manifest in three forms. That's not the same as polytheism.

The Trinity doctrine is an attempt to solve a political problem, how to promote Jesus to God without appearing polytheistic. It says ─ it insists ─ each of the Persons of the Trinity is not, and has never been, either of the others, but totally distinct, and each is 100% of God, meaning that the concept of God is incoherent under this doctrine in a way neither monotheism nor polytheism is.

 

[metis]

Can belief in an incoherent doctrine be 'valid'?

You are the one saying it is "incoherent". To a great many others, they use the word "mystery" versus "incoherent".

Well, if one takes the bible seriously, all those denials attributed to Jesus in direct speech that he's God ought to be worth something.

He isn't "God the Father", and that is the belief one needs to draw that distinction. See below.

The Trinity doctrine is an attempt to solve a political problem, how to promote Jesus to God without appearing polytheistic.

The first part of the sentence above we know is correct, but the latter part isn't as we there are records of the various exchanges that led to the Nicene Creed.

Persons of the Trinity is not, and has never been, either of the others, but totally distinct, and each is 100% of God, meaning that the concept of God is incoherent under this doctrine in a way neither monotheism nor polytheism is.

Only if one ignores the Greek concept of "essence", which as used by Aristotle and Plato. That approach was heavily used in the early church even as early as Paul but even earlier within Jewish circles, especially in the north and coastal towns in eretz Israel. That same approach is also used in conjunction with the Eucharist.

Using that approach, Jesus and the HS become the "essence" of God the Father-- iow, both being of the Father.

 

[blü 2]

You are the one saying it is "incoherent". To a great many others, they use the word "mystery" versus "incoherent".

No, I'm simply confirming what the church says. 'Mystery in the strict sense' means

it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed.​

That's from the Oxford Dict of the Christian Church, but if you check the Catholic Encyclopedia online (under 'Trinity' and 'mystery in the strict sense', you'll find they too agree.

Read the definition above carefully: 'mystery in the strict sense' is the same thing as incoherence.

And as I've mentioned, the incoherence is manifest, not subtle: 1+1+1 ≠ 1. When you pray to 'God', who answers the phone? Each of Father, Son and Ghost being 100% of God and totally distinct from each other and resulting in only one God is, as the need to invent a title such as 'mystery in the strict sense' shows, incoherent.

He isn't "God the Father", and that is the belief one needs to draw that distinction. See below.

But if Jesus is to believed, God the Father is 'the only true god' ─ to take one example from many:

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God [τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
​

(and there are more such quotes from Jesus). And Paul agrees eg

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father [εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ], from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ [εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός], through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

Only if one ignores the Greek concept of "essence", which as used by Aristotle and Plato. That approach was heavily used in the early church even as early as Paul but even earlier within Jewish circles, especially in the north and coastal towns in eretz Israel. That same approach is also used in conjunction with the Eucharist.

But let them all be of the one essence, be it mass-energy, or ectoplasm, or 'divinity' ─ they remain three distinct persons and the fact that they share such a quality doesn't alter the result: we can imagine three individuals each totally composed of mass-energy, or of ectoplasm, or of 'divinity': it does NOT follow that each individual is 100% of mass-energy or 100% of ectoplasm or 100% of 'divinity': there are still three of them, all wholly discrete.

And that's before we get to the fact that Aristotelian essences are a corner of history, not a fact about reality.

Using that approach, Jesus and the HS become the "essence" of God the Father-- iow, both being of the Father.

But only one of them is the one true God, and that, says Jesus, is the Father.

 

[MonkeyFire]

God the father, Jesus the son, and Michael the holy spirit.

 

[ASPls]

Well, what interests me the most is the fact that Jesus was claimed to be the one and only "Son of God", but at the same time, Jesus says anyone who follows Him and obey the Father will also be called "sons of God".

In which case, does this means being the son of God is not an exclusive thing, that any human has the potential to be one, but Jesus was the first (and maybe the only) one that fulfilled that potential to the 100%?

Or perhaps, Jesus is God Himself who came down in the form of human in order to show and "lead by example" what it means to be one, because regular humans just can't fulfil this 100% potential?

 

[syo]

Jesus is God Himself who came down in the form of human in order to show and "lead by example"

This. He is God the Son (not the Father) of the Holy Trinity.

 

[ASPls]

This. He is God the Son (not the Father) of the Holy Trinity.

In this case, why are Christians, then are called the "sons of God", if Jesus knows that He is the only one that can be so?

 

[metis]

Read the definition above carefully: 'mystery in the strict sense' is the same thing as incoherence.

I thought you were using "incoherent" in a different context, namely that calling it a "mystery" is incoherent thus not a definition of "mystery".

And that's before we get to the fact that Aristotelian essences are a corner of history, not a fact about reality...
But only one of them is the one true God, and that, says Jesus, is the Father.

Again, the concept of "essence" solves this problem whether we agree with that "solution" or not.

To repeat, we do know that the early church believed that Jesus was of God, but concept of what that of exactly was varied and, frankly, didn't seem to be of any great concern until much later. Yes, the belief is that there was only one God (the Father) but what Jesus' relationship specifically was became quite contentious over time, especially during the 4th century.

Also, when we quote scripture, which I also do a lot, we have to remember that we are not reading objectively-derived history. Both testaments are highly subjective and, frankly, very biased.

About 25 years ago, I went to a Lubavitch ("ultra-orthodox") seminar on the creation accounts, and one of the things they mentioned is that it is a mistake to just use literalism when dealing with these and other narratives. Instead, they believed that one needed to seek out "the meaning behind the words". IOW, what is the author really trying to convey.

When reading the many references in the NT about Jesus vis-a-vis God, literalism may lead us to bark up the wrong tree if we use a literalistic approach. However, knowing what the author meant to say is hardly a precise art, therefore differences of interpretation logically are a byproduct of this approach, and that's true both then and now.

The earliest Christians seemed content to just believe Jesus was of God-- period, and this even shows up in the earliest known liturgical prayers that are almost exclusively just to God. However, "almost" in not "entirely".

So, imo, the best approach is to take a step back from the words of the Nicene Creed and just realize that what it is is a political compromise, which Catholic historians agree that it was, and not get too hung up on the words in any kind of literalistic manner. To me, reading that Creed reminds me of "double-speak", and it was formulated and left that way for a purpose.

So, what Jesus' specific relationship is to God I have not a clue, nor is it of any great concern to me. The belief that he was of God is seems to better reflect the diversity of opinions historically. IOW, I don't lose any sleep over this.

 

[syo]

In this case, why are Christians, then are called the "sons of God", if Jesus knows that He is the only one that can be so?

sons of God means we are his creations. the Orthodox don't mix sons of God with Son of God.

 

[metis]

In this case, why are Christians, then are called the "sons of God", if Jesus knows that He is the only one that can be so?

"Sons of God" are what Jews did and do call themselves as it's a common expression.

You might take a look back at @blu 2" and my discussion on this.

BTW, welcome to RF.

 

[blü 2]

the concept of "essence" solves this problem whether we agree with that "solution" or not.

Please talk me through it ─ if that's right then clearly I've missed something.

Also, when we quote scripture, which I also do a lot, we have to remember that we are not reading objectively-derived history. Both testaments are highly subjective and, frankly, very biased.

Indeed. But if a religion declares that the bible is holy writ, not least the claim that all its statements are infallible, then it seems fair to remind them of their own dogma. And I have a generic annoyance to see false meanings attributed to ancient documents: if one says Jesus said he's not God, then it says Jesus said he's not God: it seems appropriate to invite adherents of that document to adjust their own views accordingly.

they believed that one needed to seek out "the meaning behind the words". IOW, what is the author really trying to convey.

Also known as "Let the games begin!"

When reading the many references in the NT about Jesus vis-a-vis God, literalism may lead us to bark up the wrong tree if we use a literalistic approach.

It may be that an author intended what [he] wrote to convey some other meaning than the superficial one, as with a parable or a symbol like the fig tree. BUT in the absence of clear evidence that the author intended some other meaning than the one [he] wrote, the author meant what [he] wrote, surely?

The earliest Christians seemed content to just believe Jesus was of God-- period, and this even shows up in the earliest known liturgical prayers that are almost exclusively just to God. However, "almost" in not "entirely".

But on this question, Paul and the gospel writers agree: that the Father is God and (as Paul put it) Jesus is, by contrast, Lord, the agent of God on earth.

So, imo, the best approach is to take a step back from the words of the Nicene Creed and just realize that what it is is a political compromise

More a political device, since it owes its incoherence to the two needs mentioned, first to get Jesus to be God, and second to avoid the charge of paganism via polytheism.

IOW, I don't lose any sleep over this.

But many forums of RF are for religious debate. Not only is it enjoyable to debate, but ─ who knows? ─ I might learn something.

 

[ASPls]

So in this view that Jesus is a separate entity from God, would that affect who a Christian should worship or pray to? Surely it is a lot better to pray solely and directly to God the Father, because even Jesus Himself prays to the Father and not to Himself?

 

[metis]

So in this view that Jesus is a separate entity from God, would that affect who a Christian should worship or pray to? Surely it is a lot better to pray solely and directly to God the Father, because even Jesus Himself prays to the Father and not to Himself?

If one were to have doubt, then just pray directly to
God. The other approach would be to pray through Jesus to God as using "the communion of saints".