How can Jesus be "at the right Hand of God" and be God at the same time?

[MH84]

Can these be explained philosophically?

1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

2 "Jesus took His seat at the right hand of God"

How can Jesus be with God and be God at the same time?

How can Jesus be at the right hand of God and be God at the same time

Or was “God” the title for “God the Father”? That opens up another issue…

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[bogeydogg]

The Council of Nicea confirmed that Jesus was fully God because he shared the same essence as God. Nothing which is created can share the eternal essence of God. Nothing can ascend to the same essence as God. Only God can have and share in the true essence of what it is to be God. That is why the Church teaches that God while being triune (three in person) is still One (on in essence). It is for this reason that Jesus can be God and still be seated at the hand of the Father.

 

[deb1]

We are human and limited by human understanding. This makes the concept of the Trinity difficult to understand. I think this is why it is considered a mystery.

 

[drafdog]

The bible is the product of a nation of story tellers and poets. What you are looking at is an example of poetic license.
Words are analogies for real things; words about God are analogies of real things used as analogies for transcendent things.
See how hard it is to talk about God? We can’t say anything without saying it wrong. We can only come close.

Matthew

 

[jgmes2001]

And the physical body of Jesus is not the only form of God, so it would be conceivable that Jesus’ body, which is human, to seat at the right side of God, in His true form, which shares the same essence as the Son…

This gets quite confusing…

 

[joeybaggz]

How can a man be a father, a son, and a brother and still be the same man?

How can water be steam, ice, and Perrier and still be water?

Sorry if those answers seem facetious, but they are a (granted elementary) example of the concept of the Trinity. It’s a beginning.

Falling back on what I accepted when I was in third grade. It’s a mystery.
Hopefully when you and I are in Theology 101 in two or three hundred years from now in the University of the Great Beyond, we’ll start to figure it out.

One thought though. Christ was speaking to people two thousand years ago in a society that understood the concept of royalty and hierarchy. To be at the right hand of the king was to be exalted, and to have power. Might his figure of speech be understood more personally for a people for whom hierarchal exaltation was something to be sought and admired?

My two cents.

 

[Hastrman]

We are human and limited by human understanding. This makes the concept of the Trinity difficult to understand. I think this is why it is considered a mystery.

It’s actually harder to understand, the more you understand it. Trust me, I’m a Thomist. At first our idea seems simple, even oversimplified: the Son is the intellect of God, while the Spirit is the Will.

Ah, but…God’s nature is such that His soul, and its two powers of intellect and will, are three individual persons while maintaining one being. Imagine if your mind was actually a different person from your soul, and your will a third, yet you were all one being.

Yeehaw.

 

[MH84]

The bible is the product of a nation of story tellers and poets. What you are looking at is an example of poetic license.
Words are analogies for real things; words about God are analogies of real things used as analogies for transcendent things.
See how hard it is to talk about God? We can’t say anything without saying it wrong. We can only come close.

Matthew

I appreciate this post. Thanks. I want to ask about the bolded text though.

I don’t know how many times I have started a thread about God or the nature of God, and people have responded by saying something like, “Its too hard to comprehend”, “Its a mystery” etc.

Fair enough. But what I don’t understand is how come the Church was able to make doctrines about the complicated philosophical issues relating to God? How come they defined certain issues relating to God that the human mind cannot comprehend? An example is how the Church says that each Person of the Blessed Trinity fully possessthe nature of God, and not share it. I don’t know if there is anyone out there who knows if this is mathematically possible here on earth.

Now, what I want to know is if the Trinity is uncomprehensible to the human mind, which it is, how come those at the councils felt that they could declare certain “Truths” even though they couldnt have possibly understood how?

Also, how come the Church was able to make decisions, probably like in a court room where a decision needed to be made, and declare that assertion to be Truth in the name of God? Particularly when there was undoubtedly different opinion held by members of the Council.

 

[ERose]

Can these be explained philosophically?

1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

2 "Jesus took His seat at the right hand of God"

How can Jesus be with God and be God at the same time?

How can Jesus be at the right hand of God and be God at the same time

Or was “God” the title for “God the Father”? That opens up another issue…

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

You are correct in one of your assertions above. In the New Testament the term “God” usually related to God the Father. The term “Lord” usually related to God the Son. Even though in other passages They share these titles.

In terms of essence Jesus and the Father are God. As Persons They are distinct. So Jesus as Person is with God (the Father) and in essence is One with the Father.

 

[MH84]

In terms of essence Jesus and the Father are God. As Persons They are distinct. So Jesus as Person is with God (the Father) and in essence is One with the Father.

But why was God the Father called “God”, why did they think He should be called “God”, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit? I can’t see that “Lord” in itself means that they were addressing Him as “God the Son”.

See Acts 2:36
St. Peter says that God made Jesus to be “Lord”. I seem to read this as saying that “Lord” was a title created for Jesus, and that Jesus wasnt always “Lord” until He was made so.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

In terms of essence Jesus and the Father are God. As Persons They are distinct. So Jesus as Person is with God (the Father) and in essence is One with the Father.

Elegantly expressed!

 

[ERose]

I don’t know how many times I have started a thread about God or the nature of God, and people have responded by saying something like, “Its too hard to comprehend”, “Its a mystery” etc.

Fair enough. But what I don’t understand is how come the Church was able to make doctrines about the complicated philosophical issues relating to God? How come they defined certain issues relating to God that the human mind cannot comprehend? An example is how the Church says that each Person of the Blessed Trinity fully possessthe nature of God, and not share it. I don’t know if there is anyone out there who knows if this is mathematically possible here on earth.

I think that we must understand that there is no limit to God. So if there is no limit then it is ultimately impossible for us to completely know Him. But heck, there are still some arguments floating around on the nature of humanity; the mind-body relationship; etc. If there are some concepts concerning our own nature is still a mystery then how are we to perceive God’s nature? That being said, there are things that we can and do know about our nature there are also things that we can and do know about God’s nature for He has revealed them to us and has given us reason to help us comprehend what we can.

Now, what I want to know is if the Trinity is uncomprehensible to the human mind, which it is, how come those at the councils felt that they could declare certain “Truths” even though they couldnt have possibly understood how?

Like I said above there are certain truths that have been revealed to us through the Apostles and from these truths we can use our reason to help understand what is possible to understand.

 

[MH84]

One thought though. Christ was speaking to people two thousand years ago in a society that understood the concept of royalty and hierarchy. To be at the right hand of the king was to be exalted, and to have power. Might his figure of speech be understood more personally for a people for whom hierarchal exaltation was something to be sought and admired?

My two cents.

You could be right here. But to argue this point: why would Jesus feel He had to “dumb down” the Truth? Many times he told the people parables and they didnt understand Him, so I don’t think He was concerned if those who didnt believe in Him, didnt understand Him.

Also, why “Son of God”, then? Why didnt He say He was “God the Son”? That doesnt seem more complicated. I don’t think that everyone knew what “Son of God” means anyway.

Even now we don’t! Some say it means God (some mainstram Christians), some say that that He was still a man, some say He was adopted as the Son of God.

 

[ERose]

But why was God the Father called “God”, why did they think He should be called “God”, but not the Son or the Holy Spirit? I can’t see that “Lord” in itself means that they were addressing Him as “God the Son”.

All that I can say to you on this one is read the gospels (especially John) and evaluate how Jesus wished His divinity to be Revealed. If He came out proclaiming His divinity, who would have believed Him? He proved it by his works and actions. He wanted people to come to their own conclusion who He was. There was one passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus proclaimed himself God openly (“I AM Who I AM”)

See Acts 2:36
St. Peter says that God made Jesus to be “Lord”. I seem to read this as saying that “Lord” was a title created for Jesus, and that Jesus wasnt always “Lord” until He was made so.

I know that the term Lord is used in nearly all English translations of the Bible in the Old Testament for God. But it seems that the authors of the New Testament used the terms “God” and “Lord” as a means of distinguishing between the Father and the Son.

 

[MH84]

I think that we must understand that there is no limit to God. So if there is no limit then it is ultimately impossible for us to completely know Him. But heck, there are still some arguments floating around on the nature of humanity; the mind-body relationship; etc. If there are some concepts concerning our own nature is still a mystery then how are we to perceive God’s nature? That being said, there are things that we can and do know about our nature there are also things that we can and do know about God’s nature for He has revealed them to us and has given us reason to help us comprehend what we can.

But thats what Ive been saying. That God is not understandable, but the Church took it upon itself to define concepts that the human mind cannot understand.

Like I said above there are certain truths that have been revealed to us through the Apostles and from these truths we can use our reason to help understand what is possible to understand.

Surely you don’t think that the Apostles knew that the Father fully possessed the nature of God, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit did too? And that they passed this on to the ECF’s? I don’t think they would have known that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine either. How could fishermen from Capernaum have understood this? Also, is there even a time when the Apostles worshipped the Holy Spirit as God?

What Im saying is that some of the doctrines are surely not Apostolic eg. that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each fully possess the nature of God, not share it. Especially, if by “apostolic” we mean “from the scriptures”.

The Church must have used complex philosophical ideas from the Greeks or Romans or whoever.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This discussion has strayed into apologetics rather than sticking to philosophy. Please take any apologetical discussion to the Apologetics forum. Thank you.

 

[MH84]

All that I can say to you on this one is read the gospels (especially John) and evaluate how Jesus wished His divinity to be Revealed. If He came out proclaiming His divinity, who would have believed Him? He proved it by his works and actions. He wanted people to come to their own conclusion who He was. There was one passage in the Gospel of John where Jesus proclaimed himself God openly (“I AM Who I AM”)

But the thing is, I have heard from people that they say people knew that Jesus was God during His public ministry. I cannot believe that they would have ever imagined Jesus was God in the flesh. Thats also why I don’t think even the Apostles knew this, at least until after the Resurrection.

 

[ERose]

But thats what Ive been saying. That God is not understandable, but the Church took it upon itself to define concepts that the human mind cannot understand.

But that is not what I am saying completely. God is understandable to a degree the same way that anything else is understandable to a degree. I have been married to my wife for 16 years and I still do not fully understand her but I do love her and know her as a person.

That is one of the reasons why God came in the flesh is to give us an opportunity to know Him more deeply than before and which gives us the ability to learn to love Him.

You can see this in any evaluation of some thing or someone. I do not think that we can possibly know everything about some thing but we can know something about some thing and the more we study some thing the more we get an opportunity to know something more about some thing.

So we may not be able to comprehend God completely but we can know something about God although incompletely. So the Church can make authorative decisions about what it knows of God. For if we cannot know anything about God then how can we worship him? But as the Scriptures show that this God we believe in wants a relationship with us and as such revealed Himself to us.

Surely you don’t think that the Apostles knew that the Father fully possessed the nature of God, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit did too? And that they passed this on to the ECF’s? I don’t think they would have known that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine either. How could fishermen from Capernaum have understood this? Also, is there even a time when the Apostles worshipped the Holy Spirit as God?

What Im saying is that some of the doctrines are surely not Apostolic eg. that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each fully possess the nature of God, not share it. Especially, if by “apostolic” we mean “from the scriptures”.

The Church must have used complex philosophical ideas from the Greeks or Romans or whoever.

I agree with you on some of your points here. There were truths that God revealed to the Apostles for example: The Apostles knew that Jesus is a man born of a woman. They also knew that this Jesus is God and the Son of God. They knew that Jesus had a Father who was God and that the Spirit that can upon them at Pentecost was God but not the Father or the Son even though He was the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. these are revealed truths. Later on through the need to defend their Faith against the Jews, Pagans and even factions within their communities the Church had to explain what these truths mean and how they relate to each other.

this is what Jesus meant when He said that the Spirit will come to lead us into all truth. Remember that this church of ours is a living Church with a living Spirit and our knowledge of God is still growing.