I Believe in One God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cavaradossi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marybeloved said:
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.
Click to expand...
St. Gregory the Theologian (recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church), in the third of his Theological Orations, speaks of the Father as being greater than the Son by virtue of the Father being the cause of the Son. This does not mean that the Son or the Holy Spirit are in some way less God. They are co-essential and co-eternal with the Father. Furthermore, they are equal in dignity. However, both the Son and the Holy Spirit originate from the Father, while the Father alone has no origin. It is in this sense-according to the Eastern (Catholic and Orthodox) tradition-that the Father is greater than the Son.
 
Marybeloved said:
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?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it does. But, then again, perhaps it means exactly what the Eastern tradition understands it to mean, viz., the Father is greater than the Son in that the Father is the origin of the Son.
 
Marybeloved said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi Mary, that is how I see it. I think its a difficult thing to explain as it is, then to turn around and say one is greater then another:shrug:

We know that All Three are truly fully God. That is what is important.

I always see it as God’s way of teaching us things in his own unique way. I personally feel it is quite foolish to argue that one is greater than another. As you said, and I agree totally all are equal, but unique in their own way.

It just goes to show us, how with God anything is possible. He has his reasons for revealing himself to us as the Son, as the Father and as the Holy Spirit.

But the main thing is, God always was, and always will be, how he chooses to reveal himself is not that important. What is important is what he is trying to teach us in each and unique way he is revealing himself.

I li ke you don’t feel the order has any bearing on anything.🤷
 
GaryTaylor said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...
My favorite is Bishop Sheen, he asked a lady if she understood it completely, she said yes, he said then you know me than I.

The Trinity is complex and I am like the Bishop, I never met anyone who can fully grasp it. I guess it will always remain a mystery until God feels otherwise.😃
 
rinnie said:
My favorite is Bishop Sheen, he asked a lady if she understood it completely, she said yes, he said then you know me than I.

The Trinity is complex and I am like the Bishop, I never met anyone who can fully grasp it. I guess it will always remain a mystery until God feels otherwise.😃
Click to expand...
Ah he had a fantastic show, I still watch the repeats on Sunday Night. He had such a great sense of humor its difficult not to like him.

Gregory of Nazianzus also rinnie.

Here’s his…

"Above all guard for me this great depost of faith for which I live and I fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures; I mean the profession of faith in the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today.
By it I am going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you and the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way.
Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, without superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down.
The infinate co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself entirely God. The Three considered together .
I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity baths me in slendor.
I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when it grasps me! "

Peace
 
Hm…I believe it means there is One God…aka absolute truth. Many religions on this earth believe in essentially the same god, but I believe some paths are closer to the truth than others (i.e. Catholicism, duh…I wouldn’t practice Catholicism if I thought something else was closer). I just really like the idea of one, the idea of something (God) being absolutely and completely correct. We all come to know Him differently, and a lot of times we get off tract, understand it wrong, etc. But His existence, His absoluteness and truth and being, are not affected by our interpretation. He still remains. He is not many different gods or many versions of God. He is ONE. (~:

~Me2nd
 
The suggestion that Christ was tempted within Himself is absoultely heretical…
…It’s one of several maggoty teachings several groups ( mostly Adventists ) promulgate.
…Adventist: Christadelphian, Jehovah’s Witnesses, SDA and WWCOG 7th day.

Contained within the New Testament are several “tests” applied to Christ that were spoken of long pior…
…In the Old Testament.

If one thinks about this one by one the tests should jump out at you…
…Such as being born of a virgin / from Bethlehem / called out of Egypt / lame walking, blind made to see, etc.
…Of course the same prophets who stated the above also stated God Himself would come and save us / wouldn’t sin, etc.

Isaiah 35,4
Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come AND save you

Zeph 3,5
The just Lord is in the midst thereof, he will NOT do iniquity

There are over 100 explicit such affirmations ( some even more plain if that’s possible ) in both the Old and New Testament…
…Therefore it shouldn’t shock anyone that just like Jesus making the lame walk & the blind see.
…We would also expect to see proof that Jesus wouldn’t sin - Because Sacred Scripture said He COULDN’T SIN!

As others have pointed out Christ was not tempted within Himself ( i.e. Christ did not yearn or lust for the evil )…
…True, Christ was tempted by or “of” the Devil no different than when any of us are tempted by other people.
…Only with us there is ALWAYS something inside of us that yearns for the sin.
…Not so with Christ who eternally did the will of the Father.
 
** Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death**.(James 1:13-15)

This is what Lactantius of the early 4th century taught regarding the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ as being a teacher of righteousness who knows what it is to be tempted as us.

But how can one practice what he teaches, unless he is like him whom he teaches? For if he be subject to no passion, a man may thus answer him who is the teacher: It is my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and weak flesh: it is this which covets, which is angry, which fears pain and death. And thus I am led on against my will; and I sin, not because it is my wish, but because I am compelled. I myself perceive that I sin; but the necessity imposed by my frailty, which I am unable to resist, impels me. What will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things? How will he refute and convict a man who shall allege the frailty of the flesh as an excuse for his faults, unless he himself also shall be clothed with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue? For obstinacy cannot be refuted except by example. For the things which you teach cannot have any weight unless you shall be the first to practice them; because the nature of men is inclined to faults, and wishes to sin not only with indulgence, but also with a reasonable plea. It is befitting that a master and teacher of virtue should most closely resemble man, that by overpowering sin he may teach man that sin may be overpowered by him. But if he is immortal, he can by no means propose an example to man. For there will stand forth some one persevering in his opinion, and will say: You indeed do not sin, because you are free from this body; you do not covet, because nothing is needed by an immortal;

newadvent.org/fathers/07014.htm
 
This is what Tertullian of the late 2nd century, early 3rd century wrote concerning the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ.:

We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, “sinful flesh,” but peccatum carnis, “sin in the flesh,”— not the material thing, but its condition; not the substance, but its flaw; and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, “He abolished sin in the flesh.” Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned, because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned—resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful. In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in man was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature!

newadvent.org/fathers/0315.htm
 
This is what Ireneaus of the 2nd Century wrote regarding the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ:

**for He, too, “was made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” Romans 8:3 to condemn sin, and to cast it, as now a condemned thing, away beyond the flesh, but that He might call man forth into His own likeness, assigning him as [His own] imitator to God, and imposing on him His Father’s law, in order that he may see God, and granting him power to receive the Father; **

newadvent.org/fathers/0103320.htm
 
mercytruth said:
** Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death**.(James 1:13-15)

This is what Lactantius of the early 4th century taught regarding the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ as being a teacher of righteousness who knows what it is to be tempted as us.

But how can one practice what he teaches, unless he is like him whom he teaches? For if he be subject to no passion, a man may thus answer him who is the teacher: It is my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and weak flesh: it is this which covets, which is angry, which fears pain and death. And thus I am led on against my will; and I sin, not because it is my wish, but because I am compelled. I myself perceive that I sin; but the necessity imposed by my frailty, which I am unable to resist, impels me. What will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things? How will he refute and convict a man who shall allege the frailty of the flesh as an excuse for his faults, unless he himself also shall be clothed with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue? For obstinacy cannot be refuted except by example. For the things which you teach cannot have any weight unless you shall be the first to practice them; because the nature of men is inclined to faults, and wishes to sin not only with indulgence, but also with a reasonable plea. It is befitting that a master and teacher of virtue should most closely resemble man, that by overpowering sin he may teach man that sin may be overpowered by him. But if he is immortal, he can by no means propose an example to man. For there will stand forth some one persevering in his opinion, and will say: You indeed do not sin, because you are free from this body; you do not covet, because nothing is needed by an immortal;

newadvent.org/fathers/07014.htm
Click to expand...
Oh Mercy truth you indeed found the scripture I knew always was there. Thank you so much. The scripture you quoted was what I was trying so so hard to say and for the life of ,me could not find the words.

When I think now the words are simple you cannot tempt goodness with evil. You just can’t. You can TRY!! ANd we alll know the devil did his best to tempt our dear Lord but failed!!

Thanks for the scripture. You said what I was trying so hard to say. but the scripture said it best!

Guess when I was in a Catholoc School all of those years I actually was paying attention:D
 
Christ’s temptations were all external, like what happened to Adam and Eve in the garden with the Serpent, before sin entered the human world. The were never internal, never out of concupiscence as if Christ experienced lust or other disorders in his flesh. To say that Christ was tempted from within is heresy.
 
Does this make Tertullian, Lactantius, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, and the writer of Hebrews heretics?

"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". (Hebrews 4:15)

If we are tempted internally (whatever that means), then in every way, so to was our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
mercytruth said:
Does this make Tertullian, Lactantius, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, and the writer of Hebrews heretics?

“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”. (Hebrews 4:15)

If we are tempted internally (whatever that means), then in every way, so to was our Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Because being tempted everyway would mean beings that Christ was Human and Divine, he was tempted everyway that a human could be tempted. Like for instance when he was tempted to turn the rock into food. Christ did not eat for 40 days, so he had the hunger just as strong as we do, but where he was divine is while he was so hungry on a human stance, he was still not tempted to betray God for a human reward.

He always put the will of his Father above any human reward.

Like look at the 3 times he was tempted.

He was told in his Human hunger to turn the rock into food, He could. We all know that he was God.

But look what St Matter and Luke teach us. All 3 temptations reflect the inner struggle over his own particular mission and at the same time address the question as to what truly matters in human life.

What is at the heart of all temptations? It is the act of pushing God aside because we preceive him as secondary if not actually superfluous and annoying in comparison with all the apparently far more urgent matters that fill our lives.

Does temptation invite us to Directly do evil. No it does not.That would make it much too obvious. It pretends to show us a better way, make the world a better place.It speaks more for true realism.

Look what is right in front of Christ Bread and power. The devil tries to make the things of God fade in unreality. Into a secondary world that no one really needs.

Look at the words of the devil IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD, command the stones to become loves of bread. Next go to the cross. IF YOU ARE THE SON OF GOD come down from the cross. Luke sees it as make bread out of stone. Matt sees it much broader.

Cont…
 
Look at the importance here.

He says to Jesus make the stone bread.

Jesus in not indifferent to Mans hunger for bread, his human side showed us that. He was HUNGRY.

Look at what Jesus did. He fed thousands with the multiplication of loaves. Why did Jesus do it then but reject it now?

Simple, when the crowds came they left everything to come and hear Gods word. They opened their heart up to God and were READY to receive the bread.

The Last supper Here Jesus BECOMES the perpetual miracle of bread. He has become the grain of wheat which died and brought forth much fruit.

Do you see the point. When the devil tempted Jesus it was not to end his human suffering, his hunger, it was not asked out of respect for God, It is asked of Christ to put God second best and satisify his human hunger.

Is that not what sin is in temptation. To put Human hunger above God, and satisfy the human sin in oneself. And then what happens, after we sin we hate ourself.

Look at a man who cheats on his wife. say he is drinking and is tempted and commits adultery. After the human hunger need is satisfied he hates himself for what he has done. Would do anything to take it back. But you can’t take it back.

That is another large point Christ is showing us. No matter how huge the temptation is we can turn away also. If we cannot trun away from God and sin, and then expect to have long lasting results with our sin. Its so short lived.

Think of then the words again. Turn the rock into bread. Man cannot live on bread alone. Bread is important but freedom is more important.

Look at the next temp. cont;;;;;;;
 
Rinnie,

It is not a sin to be tempted by sin. The temptations of our Lord Jesus Christ were not limited to his temptations by the devil while Jesus was fasting in the wilderness for forty days.

**“There is no temptation that has taken you that is not common to man, but God is faithful, He will not allow you to be tempted above that which you are able to bear. But He will provide with that temptation, provide a way of escape that you may be able to bear it.” **(1 Corinth. 10:13)

"Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul".
(1 Peter 2:11)

Temptation to sin is common to every human being, no one is immune to it. This is why we have a great High Priest whom we are able to go to in time of need. Trials of one’s faith are common to every child of God in Christ Jesus, God will provide a way of escape if we are not able to bear it.

We are to abstain from that which wars against our soul. As I understand scripture and early church fathers, Jesus Christ perfectly abstained when he was tempted by sin.
This is how Jesus is able to save us from our sins.
 
Now the evil one is going to do Sola Scripture.

He quotes Psalm 91:11 which speaks of protection God grants to the man who believes.

Oh yes the devil is quite the scholar in quoting the bible. And he is correct too, God does grant protection to the Man who believes. But look how he intending it!!

He is using it to tempt God. Now we have the devil and God in a dispute over scripture. And it it not again a dispute in every single period of history. We still do it. Its what SS is all about.

The devil is asking is the one who remained without wordly power REALLy the Son of the living God?

But God answers him quite well You SHALL NOT put the Lord your God to the test!!

Heads back to the cross again. If you are REALLY the Son come down from the cross. Does Christ not practice what he preaches. He DID NOT tempt God. He did descend into the abyss of death into the night of abandoment and into the desolation of the defensless.

To show us Gods love for Man.

Last temptation. Sorry going to go quick I know its long.

The devil says I willl give you this kingdom. Why would Christ want the kingdom of the devil? It is a world full of hate and distruction. But he had to die on the cross. Why? As he told Peter get behind me you are a hinderance to me and not on the side of God but of men.

Why? Simply because when Christ died on the cross he brought us the true Kingdom. The Kingdom of God.

Look what he tells the devil no kingdom of this world is the kingdom of God. How did he bring the New Kingdom the Kingdom of God to this world. Simple when he died on the cross and took away death and sin. It had to be done that way.

Hope this shows you how Christ was tempted beyond belief, but never was tempted to sin. He was tempted on every single human level possible. He was offered everything, Bread, the angels. the devils Kingdom on the human level he was offered the world.

Think about it to be KING without suffereing. But he said NO. NEVER.
 
mercytruth said:
Rinnie,

It is not a sin to be tempted by sin. The temptations of our Lord Jesus Christ were not limited to his temptations by the devil while Jesus was fasting in the wilderness for forty days.

**“There is no temptation that has taken you that is not common to man, but God is faithful, He will not allow you to be tempted above that which you are able to bear. But He will provide with that temptation, provide a way of escape that you may be able to bear it.” **(1 Corinth. 10:13)

"Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul".
(1 Peter 2:11)

Temptation to sin is common to every human being, no one is immune to it. This is why we have a great High Priest whom we are able to go to in time of need. Trials of one’s faith are common to every child of God in Christ Jesus, God will provide a way of escape if we are not able to bear it.

We are to abstain from that which wars against our soul. As I understand scripture and early church fathers, Jesus Christ perfectly abstained when he was tempted by sin.
This is how Jesus is able to save us from our sins.
Click to expand...
Okay I am going to try one more time. Do you see why in the beginning I said there are 2 ways to describe tempted.

It is one definition to be tempted by another human being to sin.

It is another definition to say that if you are tempted by one, you are tempted to sin.

Many say Christ was tempted by the devil to commit a sin. see what I am saying. That is why I keep saying you can take the to mean 2 different things.

Was he tempted by the devil to commit a sin. Yes the devil did TRY to tempt him. Did he tempt him? No. Christ put God ahead of every single human need.

That is why I felt the bread was the best example.

Was he Hungry, Heck yes, he was starved, thats a human level. Did he every think about putting that human hunger above God? No never. So was he temped to sin? Nope.

Look at us, we are starved. I say you know you can turn that into bread, go ahead. Your first human response would be. what would it hurt. I am starved. Then you would say No, I can’t. I won’t. But you have to admit it would cross your mind to use that power.

See Christ never did, that is why he was tempted in everyway but in SIN! He never put his hunger above God, We would!🤷😃
 
rinnie said:
Okay I am going to try one more time. Do you see why in the beginning I said there are 2 ways to describe tempted.

It is one definition to be tempted by another human being to sin.

It is another definition to say that if you are tempted by one, you are tempted to sin.

Many say Christ was tempted by the devil to commit a sin. see what I am saying. That is why I keep saying you can take the to mean 2 different things.

Was he tempted by the devil to commit a sin. Yes the devil did TRY to tempt him. Did he tempt him? No. Christ put God ahead of every single human need.

That is why I felt the bread was the best example.

Was he Hungry, Heck yes, he was starved, thats a human level. Did he every think about putting that human hunger above God? No never. So was he temped to sin? Nope.

Look at us, we are starved. I say you know you can turn that into bread, go ahead. Your first human response would be. what would it hurt. I am starved. Then you would say No, I can’t. I won’t. But you have to admit it would cross your mind to use that power.

See Christ never did, that is why he was tempted in everyway but in SIN! He never put his hunger above God, We would!🤷😃
Click to expand...
It is obvious we do not agree.

We have a difference of understanding the Hebrew scripture. He was tempted in every way as us, and as I understand, yet without sin (ing). You say, Jesus was tempted, but never tempted with sin.

The early church fathers said that Jesus Christ had passions like us.

We are tempted by the world, the flesh, and the devil, and so was Jesus as I understand the scriptures and the early church fathers.

At least twice, God provided a way of escape from the temptations that Jesus underwent. Twice God sent angels to minister to him. The first recorded time is in Mark 1:13 when Jesus was in the wilderness, the second time when He was in the garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:43)

My Savior saves me from my temptations to sin, because he can empathize with my weaknesses, because he was tempted in every way as I, yet without sinning.

A Saviour can not empathize with my temptation to sin unless he is tempted to sin and overcomes all temptations to sin.
 
mercytruth said:
It is obvious we do not agree.

We have a difference of understanding the Hebrew scripture. He was tempted in every way as us, and as I understand, yet without sin (ing). You say, Jesus was tempted, but never tempted **]with sin./**B]

The early church fathers said that Jesus Christ had passions like us.

We are tempted by the world, the flesh, and the devil, and so was Jesus as I understand the scriptures and the early church fathers.

At least twice, God provided a way of escape from the temptations that Jesus underwent. Twice God sent angels to minister to him. The first recorded time is in Mark 1:13 when Jesus was in the wilderness, the second time when He was in the garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:43)

My savior saves me from my temptations to sin, because he can empathize with my weaknesses. He was tempted in every way as I, yet without sinning.
Click to expand...
Yes sometimes we have to agree to disagree, we are beating a dead horse.

I don’t understand though how you are saying God provided a escape from the temptations Jesus underwent. It states quite clear in Mark 1:13 That he remained there for 40 days and was put to the test by satan. Where was this escape?:confused:

And in Luke I still do not see it, Jesus is teaching us to pray as humans anytime we are afraid, but more importantly do not put our will above God. Christ said if you are WILLING take this cup away from me, Neverthe less let YOUR will be done not mine.

I do not see this as Christ asking God to take this cup way, he says if YOU are willing, let it be taken away, if you are not I will obey.

But again we do see it 2 very different ways. I see this as Jesus again telling his Apostles to always pray when they are put to the test, to put Gods will above theirs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top