C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I never wrote that their glory or majesty wasn’t co-eternal or equal. Being unequal according to hypostasis doesn’t mean that they are unequal according to nature. I suspect that my posts are being misunderstood.
- Status
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I fail to see how what you quoted from the CCC differs from the quote from Cavaradossi to which you were responding. Furthermore, I fail to see how what he wrote is at odds with Church teaching. The Father is indeed greater (John 14:28). But in what sense? All three are divine, all three are eternal, all three are of one essence. What the Fathers of the Church have taught us is that the Father alone is ungenerate or without cause. So it is in this sense-and this sense alone-that the Father is greater than the Son (who is begotten) and the Holy Spirit (who proceeds).
M
mercytruth
Guest
The human race is tempted by the world, the flesh and the devil, and is powerless to perfectily resist these temptations which lead us into sin.
For this reason, God sent his angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary to announce that the Son of God who was to be born of her was to be named Jesus, 'for he shall save his people from their sins.'
How could Jesus save us from our sins unless he defeated the world, the devil, and the
flesh which are the sources of our temptation to sin? How could Jesus Christ defeat the world, the flesh, and the devil unless he was tempted himself? He would never be a savior unless he was tempted as we are tempted, and fought our battle for us. He would never be able to give us his Spirit of victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil unless he himself was tempted, and perfectly overcame these sources of temptation that lead to sin.
Thus, the apostle Paul explains, “God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh” How could the Son of God condemn sin in the flesh unless he had become like us, and overcame the weaknesses of our flesh nature?
This scripture is quoted by many of the early church fathers. Lactantius and Tertullian clearly explain that Jesus Christ was tempted as we are yet without sin.
This is re-emphasized by the author of the letter to the Hebrews:“We have a High Priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities” What ‘infirmities’ is our High Priest able to empathize? Sickness? Maybe.
But God gives us the answer with the remainder of this scripture. "We have a High Priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for he was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin."
These are not my own thoughts, they are the thoughts of scripture, of Lactantius, of Tertullian and of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus. Our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ has won the battle for us over sin, and has poured out his Spirit within us, in order **that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit **(of Christ).
God’s peace be with you.
For this reason, God sent his angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary to announce that the Son of God who was to be born of her was to be named Jesus, 'for he shall save his people from their sins.'
How could Jesus save us from our sins unless he defeated the world, the devil, and the
flesh which are the sources of our temptation to sin? How could Jesus Christ defeat the world, the flesh, and the devil unless he was tempted himself? He would never be a savior unless he was tempted as we are tempted, and fought our battle for us. He would never be able to give us his Spirit of victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil unless he himself was tempted, and perfectly overcame these sources of temptation that lead to sin.
Thus, the apostle Paul explains, “God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh” How could the Son of God condemn sin in the flesh unless he had become like us, and overcame the weaknesses of our flesh nature?
This scripture is quoted by many of the early church fathers. Lactantius and Tertullian clearly explain that Jesus Christ was tempted as we are yet without sin.
This is re-emphasized by the author of the letter to the Hebrews:“We have a High Priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities” What ‘infirmities’ is our High Priest able to empathize? Sickness? Maybe.
But God gives us the answer with the remainder of this scripture. "We have a High Priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for he was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin."
These are not my own thoughts, they are the thoughts of scripture, of Lactantius, of Tertullian and of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus. Our Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ has won the battle for us over sin, and has poured out his Spirit within us, in order **that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit **(of Christ).
God’s peace be with you.
G
grandfather
Guest
Meltzerboy,
Sorry this thread got away from me.
If you believe God is love, love is an infinite perfection of God, you can get a glimpse of the Trinity.
What we know about love is that it is directed. God loves you. You are the object of divine love. God is the lover and you the beloved. But true love is always returned or requited. That makes you the lover and God the beloved. So you both are both lovers and beloved. The lover and the beloved exchange love. There is a trinity, the lover, the beloved and the love. It is all the same.
But you have a beginning. You are made by God, His creature. Before you were given existance for the purpose of loving and being loved, God is. Before He made anything He is, and He is love and love always requires the beloved.
The Father loves the Son eternally. They give themselves one to the other, the lover, beloved and the love. Love can not exist alone.
G
grandfather
Guest
It took centuries to sort it all out. Not to be irreverant, but think of it this way if you are old enough to remenber the Lone Ranger tv shows. The town is in trouble. The LR rides into town and saves the day and leaves. The townspeople sit in awe and say, “Who was that masked man”?
Jesus came and mainly did two things. He taught and worked miracles. The miracles were evidence of the supernatural power He had. He commanded nature, broke its laws, or overruled them. He was put to the scandalous death of a slave not a king and He rose from the grave witnessed by many. He ascended into heaven and the people left behind said who was that man?
There were fierce theological disputes over centuries before the matter was settled. Was Jesus a creature like us? Was He God, but not man, but just appeared as a man. The heresies that came and went in that time are called Christological heresies, because they are pertaining to the person of Christ.
The historical debate and the surrounding drama is fascinating for anyone interested.
This is the word formula that defines the Trinity. It is very simple, but took a lot of agony to arrive at.
God is three divine persons with one nature. In order to understand this you need to differentiate between person and nature. Then apply all the Jewish understanding of God, His attributes or perfections.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The “yet without sin” is important. Jesus is exempt from sin, but not from experiencing the external temptations of sin.
He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Mt. 16:23
God lowered Himself and became man. This includes allowing Himself to be tempted.
“Jesus knew that he was sent by the Father to establish God’s kingdom in the world of humanity. On the one hand, for this purpose he accepted being tempted in order to take his proper place among sinners. He had already done this at the Jordan, in order to serve as a model for all (cf. St. Augustine, De Trinitate 4:13). But on the other hand, by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s anointing, he reached into the very roots of sin and defeated the one who is the “father of lies” (Jn 8:44). Thus he willingly went to face the temptations at the start of his ministry, complying with the Holy Spirit’s impulse (cf. St. Augustine, De Trinitate 13:13).” – The Spirit Led Jesus Into The Desert" Pope John Paul II
R
rinnie
Guest
Because what I see the difference is as you quoted which sums it up exactly. Jesus was tempted as we are yet WITHOUT sin.
That is where the difference comes. We are never tempted without sin. Because when we are tempted there is something in the temptation that is a weakness in ourself to think about the sin.
As I stated earlier say I was addicted to something, drinking lets say. I know that it is a weakness of mine, so beings that I cannot control drinking it becomes my sin.
So today I am having a really bad day, how can I be tempted to drink if I don’t want to drink? So if I am tempted to take that drink am I not tempted to sin?
That is where Christ is opposite from us, while he was tempted by the devil to sin, he never even gave it a second thought.
When we are tempted we give it quite a bit of thought, and although its wrong we WANT to sin, because if we did not want to sin we would not be tempted to do so.
How could Christ be tempted to sin, and yet be without sin. The devil TRIED everything in his power to tempt Christ to sin, but failed. If Christ thought about sinning how could he be tempted as we are yet without sin? Christ never gave into one temptation and shot the devil down at every angle.
Was the temptation any easier on Christ then on us? Absolutely no. He was human as us, but he showed us that when you empty yourself and only have the will of God and God only on your mind, you do not have the will to sin or as I stated the temptation to sin.
But we do, Rather we give into temptation or not, we have the sin of being tempted, as in part of us wanting something out of that sin. Christ never did.
R
rinnie
Guest
Because in Catholic theology greater then does not mean one is essencially different from another.
In that scripture Jesus was emphasizing here and previous verses his (name removed by moderator)ending death and resurrection and departure from the Apostles.
This applies to his humanity most.
Thus the Son Jesus who can say I and the Father are one in John, can also say the Father is greater then I in John as man.
W
Wisely
Guest
Nope, the ECF are very clear on this. It applies to both His humanity and personhood. The Father is greater that the Son because the Son is human and also because He is caused.
This is related to the doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father.
R
rinnie
Guest
What I was trying to get you to say, was greater does not mean different.
The reason I was trying to get you to say that is because many people really struggle with the Trinity.
When we use the word greater in our world it automatically lights up in our mind above, better. etc.
When we say the Father is greater then the Son as humans we think, better. above. not in anyway the same. That is why I was hoping you would come back and say greater does not mean different in anyway.
Then it gets confusing because how can greater mean the same? See what I am saying. Again I was hoping you would explain it a little clearer and you would have said it that way.
You did, don’t get me wrong, when you said as we both agree Equal. But to say the Father is greater then the Son but equal, its like Huh?
That is what I was pulling for you to say
But I failed!
R
RyanBlack
Guest
Who is saying that the Son is essentially different from the Father? I am not, and neither is Cavaradossi. However, it is the case that the Church teaches that the Father alone is without cause (ungenerate), while the Son and the Holy Spirit, though being co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, both are caused by the Father (the Son by way of generation and the Holy Spirit by way of procession). It is in this sense that the Father is greater than both the Son and the Holy Spirit.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Latin teaching holds unequivocally the equality of the Divine persons of God. I really don’t see how it can be correct from our understanding to speak of ANY person in the Trinity, even the Father, as being “greater” than another. Each person is absolutely God, not partly so, so to us it just makes zero sense to tell us that the persons are greater than each other- because the persons are EACH GOD. The persons are only distinct from each other but never GREATER than each other. They are not only all three, the ONE God, but they are EACH absolutely GOD. God is not greater than God, God has none greater than him, God is just God- fully so, so neither Divine person is greater than the other. Latin teaching regarding this equality is what is expressed in the Athanasian creed.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sounds kinda… Catholic:shrug:
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Yes, but you also have St.Paul saying that Our Lord did not cling to his equality with God. Why can’t that verse you quoted simply refer to Christ’s humbled human state wherein he emptied himself and assumed the form of a slave, as St. Paul says?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Or if you follow this back to the Incarnation then your back to the first priniciple of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.
Exacty why I like the Athanasian creed, its true that the longer you discuss this your bound to fall into heresy.
You have to view this pre-NT. I’m pretty positive about 95%.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Hi Gary, I always appreciate your posts.But I have to confess to being a bit slow in understandng this one- mind saying that again with different words?Or if you follow this back to the Incarnation then your back to the first priniciple of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.
Exacty why I like the Athanasian creed, its true that the longer you discuss this your bound to fall into heresy.
You have to view this pre-NT. I’m pretty positive about 95%.
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Hi Gary, I always appreciate your posts.But I have to confess to being a bit slow in understanding this one- mind saying that again with different words?Or if you follow this back to the Incarnation then your back to the first priniciple of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.
Exacty why I like the Athanasian creed, its true that the longer you discuss this your bound to fall into heresy.
You have to view this pre-NT. I’m pretty positive about 95%.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I like to stick to the Athanasian creed in discussions on the Trinity. In everything I have read on this, I believe its a fair and a great explanation especially considering how old it is.Hi Gary, I always appreciate your posts.But I have to confess to being a bit slow in understanding this one- mind saying that again with different words?
Once we begin dissecting the Trinity it very difficult not to make an error, Truth is we are talking about a mystery in which case, how certain can we be in the function of the Trinity?
The Trinity existed for sure before the NT. How do we define it from OT? If we view the Father as the first principle, then the Son is given eternal communion as a gift thus equality. No?
Now as to how the Holy Spirit proceeds, who in truth knows this? Sure we can say the CC states this or the EO states this and OO states that. Don’t ya think at that point we are just over our heads in Gods mystery?
M
Marybeloved
Guest
Gotcha!
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
If I am not mistaken, that is how Pope Leo interpreted that verse (that greater refers to the Father being greater than the Son humbled as a servant). That being said, I think the Eastern tradition has always been more comfortable with a “relational subordination” (I realize how dangerous the word “subordination” is in a Trinitarian context) of the Son to the Father such that the Father is greater than the Son relationally, being the Son’s source.
- Status