Can Jesus be God and have a god?

[JK8619]

The Catholic Encyclopedia may present an interesting summary here , but if you seek to understand this most profound mystery, you cannot, for the sake of intellectual honesty, omit to learn what orthodox doctrine has taught ever since - as I showed - the first century AD.

Dinner is ready May the Holy Spirit strengthen you in your blessed search for wisdom.

I know that Trinitarian doctrine was around early, along with several other Christologies. It may have been an important part of Christianity to some early church fathers, but it was not an official creed until the 4th century. Unfortunately, whatever you believe, we lost the writings of Arians because their literature was made illegal and destroyed. Whichever side a person falls on, it would be interesting knowing more about Arians from a first hand account, if for nothing else, at least for historical purposes.

I would also be interested in seeing more writings on Chistology from early Jewish Chistians. Most of the early church fathers that we quote on any issue are not very Jewish. They are often Greco-Roman or part Greco-Roman. Some came from pagan backgrounds, some from a mixed Jewish/pagan background. Although they fought many pagan beliefs, sometimes I wonder if their hellenized background made it difficult for them to fully comprehend Shema. I will admit, I could be completely wrong. It would just make me feel better if there were more writings from the Jewish Christian community. If anyone knows of such writings, I would be interested.

I also wonder why, if believing in the trinity and believing that Jesus is God was essential to salvation, why then was this never explicitly stated (at least from the writings we have) by Jesus or the apostles? On their own, these questions don’t mean a lot, but if enough of such writings existed, it would make clear once and for all whether Trinitarians or Arian/Unitarians are right.

There is another thing that I would like to clear up. It seems some people think that I do not accept the pre-existence of Jesus, but I actually do. The confusion may come from me comparing my christological beliefs to biblical Unitarians. The majority do not believe in the pre-existence, but some do. In that respect, I disagree with the majority of Biblical Unitarians.

Until a couple years ago, I actually used to argue for the pro-Trinitarian side against my Dad. Long story, but his family left the Church, unfortunately, because of issues of corruption at the local parish. He ended up growing up as a non- denominational bible reading only Christian. The reason I was Baptized into the Church as an infant was because my mom’s side of the family was still Catholic. As much as my dad and I argued about the trinity, it was not him, but it was reading the bible and other writings on my own that persuaded me to no longer accept the trinity.

I would certainly be much happier if I could agree with the Church on everything. At least it would make things easier, but I can’t help what I believe. I can only continue to search for the truth and hope that I find it beyond all doubt (whatever it happens to be). At this point, I do not see myself accepting the trinity again. If I ever do, I doubt it will be from an online forum, but I still appreciate those who reply to my questions.

Thanks to all,
JK

 

[R_C]

I also wonder why, if believing in the trinity and believing that Jesus is God was essential to salvation, why then was this never explicitly stated (at least from the writings we have) by Jesus or the apostles?

Of course they do.

The way Christ speaks of His relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit leaves no doubt that He is as God as the Father, and that the Holy Spirit is no less than Him and the Father.

He commanded us to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Not “the names”. There is only one God.

St. Paul and other apostles speak of the three in their letters.

Perhaps only in the 4th Century this was defined formally as a response to heresy, but it was well-known from at least the 2nd Century - as I have shown you.

That Jesus was God was always known by all - Our Lady, the apostles, the people who wanted Him put to death because “he made Himself equal to God”. St. Thomas after the Resurrection calls Jesus “my God” and is told: “you believe because you have seen; blessed are those who will not see, yet will believe.” On this there can be no doubt whatsoever - without even stepping into what the Old Testament says.

Reading the Bible on your own can lead to deception from the Father of Lies. He knows the Scriptures very well, and deceives those who go astray from the Church with incredibly subtle and seemingly truthful suggestions. The fact that you don’t see yourself ever admitting that you could be wrong is also evidence for this, since God always moves us to humbleness, and the adversary always moves us to pride.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi all, very interesting discussion going on here.

Hope you don’t mind if I put in my two cents’ worth.

Firstly, with regards to passages where Jesus speaks of the Father as “my God”, I don’t think the argument of deferring to his humanity works. Yes, Jesus did have a fully human nature as well as a fully divine nature, but he was not two persons, but a divine person incarnate. He therefore cannot have been speaking “as a human being” unless he were two persons or just bluffing for the audience. While Jesus may have undergone human experiences (part of his human nature), he would experience them as a whole, integrated person, not as merely a human person, while his “divine person” experienced only divinity.

Secondly, be that as it may, it is quite clear from the testimony of Christian tradition and Scripture that Jesus is both divine and human. I think the most honest thing to do when we come across such passages that seem to conflict (where Jesus is asserted as God and as man) is to accept them and try to figure out how they make sense together. As Chesterton wisely said in Orthodoxy (Chapter 2):

“The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man.”

Now, of course, I don’t mean that we should not try to understand the apparent contradictions, or paradoxes. Certainly, we should. But we shouldn’t be at all surprised if our attempts are only slightly enlightening. After all, can you expect a slug to understand the nature of man? Moreso, then, a man to understand the nature of God!

My advice is not to reject the Church and the Church’s understanding of the Trinity simply because of these paradoxical biblical passages. I’m sure there are some excellent attempts to make sense of them.

Here’s mine!

One clear aspect of the Trinity that comes from Scripture is that divinity is relational: the Father begets the Son, and they in turn the Spirit. Divine nature is not static but familial. We see also a sense of subordination in this relationship: the Son subsists in the Father and promotes His will; the Spirit subsists in the Father and Son (how many times, for example, does Jesus give the Spirit or promise to send the Spirit?). The image that is presented of the divine Trinity is one akin to a human family, or rather, it is the opposite way around: human family derives itself from the Trinity (Eph 3:14-15). If this is the case, then we can partly understand why Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” and is subordinate to him, just as an earthly son is subordinate to his earthly father. Certainly, we wouldn’t call our fathers “gods” but that is because they are not divine. It is perfectly right for Jesus to call his Father God, because technically and relationally, He is; just as it would be perfectly right for the Father to say: “My Son and God”, even though that would be more awkward because of the subsistence of the Son in the Father, and not the other way around.

Gee, have I just made it more confusing?

God bless!

Jonathan