If Jesus is God, why did he say that only the Father is God?

[nationof_maple]

Here is my personal understanding:
This is an invitation to know who God is on a deeper level. At this point in the relationship with Christ, one should have firmly established that the LORD is God, and the LORD God is God, and God is God, just as the Holy Spirit is God, the Son is God, and the Father is God. With this prayer, we are invited into the relationship of the Holy Trinity, in which we learn the distinct relationships of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, I have learned to find great enjoyment of discovering various means by which one person can be three distinct persons.

Here are some examples:
One possibility to have multiple persons from one person is cloning, which I find to be consistent with the Church knowledge of Jesus being the only-begotten Son who is eternally generated with the same exact image as the Father. However, cloning would only yield two distinct persons, even if there were multiple clones.
Another means to have multiple persons from one person is through the concept “you are what you eat.” According to this concept, if a person consumes God, then the person is God, which is what the Holy Spirit makes actual in the Mass.
If you combine these two examples, there are three distinct persons: God, eternally generated God who becomes human, and eternally spirated God who through God become human becomes God.

Thanks for sharing the enjoyable food for thought!

I like what you wrote because I matched your analogy to scripture.

Cloning matches with: John 17:10 “10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.” The only difference between the followers and their Master Jesus is the Crucifixion, and his strength to do the task came in Mt. Transfiguration, called the Deity of Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience, Adam many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The Trinity as 3 persons as one person is the hardest part because followers are not included in that of coarse, but there are narcissist human behaviors out there, not understanding that all have come short, and the remarkable thing is that the Hail Mary, brings you in check. The prayer used to be so, so, so not understood by myself, “Protestant stopped” because we don’t see ourselves as sinners any more, "Pray for US sinners…"we just don’t pray that. But we should. Rom. 5:20 " 20The law was brought in,so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, [keep ourselves in check of the law because it is a sin of many fold, and what grace to be forgiven of my sin.]

Anyway. Back to “is Jesus God?” I had struggled with this too, just on this thread of discussion, the right thing was said, and so…

John 3:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

He is “cloned” in us but, separate from the followers, is the condition “that they may…”

But, he does not say that conditional clause, but says affirmatively, “As we are one.”

The Trinity is not in a variable state, one day up and the next day down. They are constant and one, going in and out of each other as…

the protons and electrons move around each other to finish the work…, the next verse of dispute: Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4) I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work…" And it may seem sometimes that Jesus says of himself, “I’m not God… " 3) Now the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent…”

and then the next “proton and neutron exchange” he says “The Father and I are one.”

 

[Robyn_p]

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

In light of the above verse, I find it hard to understand how one could possibly believe that Jesus is God. It seems pretty clear that Jesus is excluding himself as God in this statement. There are only two explanations I can think of that would still leave the possibility of Jesus being God.

First, it would still it would still be possible that Jesus is God if John misquoted him. This seems rather unlikely though because John was one of the twelve disciples and was very close to Jesus. It is hard for me to believe that he would have made a mistake of that magnitude.

The only other explanation I can think of that would still leave the possibility that Jesus is God, is if Jesus was being intentionally deceptive. This also seems unlikely because I can think of no reason why Jesus would want to mislead his disciples in such a way. Another problem with this line of thinking is that God cannot lie.

It seems to me that the only way to take this verse is at face value, that only the Father is God. If anyone has another explanation, I would love to hear it.

Thanks,
JK

This verse is perfectly compatible with Trinitarianism. First, notice, Jesus does not actually say only the Father is God, as you claim. He says the Father* is the only God*. That’s a huge difference.

The Father IS the only true God. And so is the Son. And so is the Holy Spirit. There is only one God, who exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All possess the one and the same divine nature, and thus all can properly be called the only true God, because they are.

Second, Jesus making a distinction between himself and the Father doesn’t mean he was excluding himself or denying his divinity. He made a distinction because there is a distinction. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. But to say from this that Jesus is denying his divinity is going beyond the text.

The only way we can come to that conclusion is if we take this one verse out of context and ignore the rest of John’s gospel. And that’s not good exegesis. We have to take ALL the Scriptures into account.

When we consider texts like John 8:58, and John 10:30, or even John 14:9. (not to mention the dozens and dozens of verses throughout the rest of the New Testament that speak of Christ’s divinity.) it becomes plain that Christ did claim to be God. And also that John clearly believed him to be God. (Jn 1:1-3) No creature can make the kind of statements he did. Which is exactly why the Jews tried to stone him several times. They recognized what he was saying. He was “making himself equal to God”. (Jn 5:18)

God has no equal, so the Jews were right to be upset. For a human being to do that IS blasphemous. But only if he really were just a creature.

 

[JK8619]

Because of family issues and limited internet access, I have not had a chance to get back to post. If anyone is still following this thread I will try to address a few of the responses here.

 

[JK8619]

Jesus Christ does provide a relationship between himself and the Father in this statement in John 17. Knowing is eternal life. It must be remembered that at this point in time, Jesus Christ had transitioned in humility to body blood soul as well as his divinity. Don’t you know me, anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. So how can one say “show us the Father”.

I could be wrong, but I think that this is a reference to Jesus working on behalf of the Father. According to orthodox trinitarian theology the Father is God and the Son is God, but the Son is not the Father. If one was to see the Son and therefore literally see the Father, it seems that would be modalism.

JK

 

[JK8619]

John 17:1-5
"When Jesus had said this, he raised his eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your son, just as you gave him authority over all the people, so that he may give eternal life to all you gave him. Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. I glorified you on earth by accomplishing the work that you gave me to do. Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began.”

If Jesus is not God, do you believe He was created by God before God created the earth? That would make Him a creature not God. What creation of God would ask God to glorify him with the same glory he and God shared before the world began?

I don’t follow your logic.

I think he was/is a human and therefore a creation. I think he was referring to the glory God had planned from the beginning. I think that knowing God’s will as he did, Jesus could ask for this.

JK

 

[JK8619]

You’re probably going about this the right way. Some individuals form a bias and belief first, then try to convince themselves this bias is true due to the lack of information they themselves really do not understand. Many(I’m not saying you) who reject Catholicism and Her teachings go about it in this manner. Faith, reason, logic and prayer all have to come together.

The Trinity is the most important dogma of the Catholic faith, it’s also one of the most difficult beliefs to understand. If it can unite Catholics and Protestants, you can probably be sure there’s a lot of truth in how it’s understood by Christians.

One in purpose as you alluded to could have been assumed by some if all you had was that one verse:

John 10:30 - The Father and I are one

However that assumption would go against other verses and facts we know in that Gospel. Like many other things we study in Scripture, we cannot ignore the context that surrounds important verses like John 10:30, or John 1:1 So lets add the context to John 10:30 and expand it to John 10:31-33

31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?”
33 The Jews answered him, “We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God.”

If it was just by purpose alone, and not claims for being God that Jesus wanted to do the work and mission of the Father, his life would not have been threatened. The Jews answer that question for us.
If your read John 6 this is another very important chapter to Catholics, our understanding of the Eucharist comes from the words of our Lord. In a similar way, it isn’t just single verses, but the context in it’s entirety. The reactions of those who hear Jesus’ words can help us reasonably arrive at what was actually being put in question(if we questioned it).

It would be problematic to side with arguments against the divinity of Jesus, if you just based it on Scripture alone. Perhaps that’s why our protestant friends are comfortable with how Catholics have always understood and have taught the Trinity. The main reason being that you would have contradictions that would be hard to reconcile, and that would certainly make the arguments that Jesus was just a prophet, just a messiah and not God a very weak argument, even from a logical perspective. Sacred Tradition is not even included as proof of the belief, but that would further give weight to the Catholic teaching on this doctrine.

With regards to 17:3 I’m not sure how that would prove to be a contradiction. Especially if from above the Scriptural context has shown otherwise. It may appear to be a contradiction if you leave out another very important Catholic teaching and dogma, the Incarnation. A person trying to understand the Trinity needs all the pieces and has to be comfortable that every step along the way in the understanding and investigation, that how it’s taught and explained by the Catholic Church is not just logically and reasonably sound, but in faith, entirely true. The beauty of the Catholic Church and Faith is not just its teaching, but how it’s teaching stays true to God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I still have trouble with John chapter ten because when it is said by some that Jesus makes himself God, Jesus makes reference to others being called gods and asks how he is blaspheming by calling himself the “Son of God” (John 10:35-36). I don’t understand why he would say something like this that would lead one away from the idea that he is God if he actually was God.

 

[JK8619]

The way words are used in the New Testament is often somewhat different from how we use them today. The name “God” in the NT is mostly used to refer to the Father and “Lord” to refer to Jesus Christ.

Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:4).
​

You are definitely mistaken here. Kyrios/Kurios is a title with a wide rage of meanings. It can be use as Lord (LORD God), but it can also be used of a human lord, master, or sir. In Greek translations David and Abraham are referred to as Kyrios/Kurios.

Even the words for God/god such as EL/ELOHIM are used in reference to humans like Moses and the Judges. I can’t remember where exactly, but awhile back I read about a pagan king being referred to as EL (along with a negative description) in the Old Testament. Without terms like “almighty” or “most high” or “LORD/YHVH,” god can be used in reference to someone who is powerful or someone who speaks or acts on behalf of the one true God.

JK​

 

[Gorgias]

Even the words for God/god such as EL/ELOHIM are used in reference to humans like Moses and the Judges. I can’t remember where exactly, but awhile back I read about a pagan king being referred to as EL (along with a negative description) in the Old Testament. Without terms like “almighty” or “most high” or “LORD/YHVH,” god can be used in reference to someone who is powerful or someone who speaks or acts on behalf of the one true God.

JK,

Hmm… can you provide a citation for this claim? I realize you say that you don’t exactly remember where you came across it, but it doesn’t seem correct to me; I’d love to read the claim in its entirety, and see how its author grounds it and what citations he gives to back it up!

Thanks!
G.

 

[JK8619]

This verse is perfectly compatible with Trinitarianism. First, notice, Jesus does not actually say only the Father is God, as you claim. He says the Father* is the only God*. That’s a huge difference.

You are right that I made a bit of a mistake there in the title. I still think that it is significant that Jesus refers to the Father as the “only true God,” while leaving himself outside of this designation. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul says “yet for us there is one God, the Father…”.

 

[Ignatius]

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

In light of the above verse, I find it hard to understand how one could possibly believe that Jesus is God. It seems pretty clear that Jesus is excluding himself as God in this statement. There are only two explanations I can think of that would still leave the possibility of Jesus being God.

First, it would still it would still be possible that Jesus is God if John misquoted him. This seems rather unlikely though because John was one of the twelve disciples and was very close to Jesus. It is hard for me to believe that he would have made a mistake of that magnitude.

The only other explanation I can think of that would still leave the possibility that Jesus is God, is if Jesus was being intentionally deceptive. This also seems unlikely because I can think of no reason why Jesus would want to mislead his disciples in such a way. Another problem with this line of thinking is that God cannot lie.

It seems to me that the only way to take this verse is at face value, that only the Father is God. If anyone has another explanation, I would love to hear it.

Thanks,
JK

The explanation is a few chapters prior, taking verses out of context only produces error.
The text taken out of context produces only a pretext!

 

[JK8619]

JK,

Hmm… can you provide a citation for this claim? I realize you say that you don’t exactly remember where you came across it, but it doesn’t seem correct to me; I’d love to read the claim in its entirety, and see how its author grounds it and what citations he gives to back it up!

Thanks!
G.

I’m still looking for it. It was an article I read a month or two back and I don’t even remember what the main topic was, so I’m having a difficult time finding it. I think the particular part of the article i was talking about was about a Moabite king, maybe? According to the article he was referred to as “el” in the original hebrew along with an adjective. The article said English translations normally say something like “powerful ruler.” I’ll keep looking and if I find it in the next couple days I’ll post a link.

JK

 

[JK8619]

Still haven’t found the original article I was referring to, but I found one that makes a similar point. I think it is referring to the same verse that I couldn’t think of earlier (Ezekiel 31:11). The verse is speaking of a Babylonian king, with the term “el” used of him, according to this article. Just so you know, this is coming from a Biblical unitarian site. I haven’t been able to confirm yet that the original Hebrew uses “el” in this verse, but I have fact checked other articles on this site in the past and have found no such mistakes. I would be surprised if they made such a large mistake on the original hebrew, but feel free to check on it yourself if don’t trust it.

biblicalunitarian.com/videos/isaiah-9-6 (full article w/ video is here)

The relevant part of the article is below:

"2. The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.

1. A clear example that the word translated “God” in Isaiah 9:6 can be used of powerful earthly rulers is Ezekiel 31:11, referring to the Babylonian king. The Trinitarian bias of most translators can be clearly seen by comparing Isaiah 9:6 (el = “God”) with Ezekiel 31:11 (el = “ruler”). If calling the Messiah el made him God, then the Babylonian king would be God also. Isaiah is speaking of God’s Messiah and calling him a mighty ruler, which of course he will be."

 

[Richard_White]

Also, this, from Philippians:

"Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,

Who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Rather, he emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

coming in human likeness;

and found human in appearance,

he humbled himself,

becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

Because of this, God greatly exalted him

and bestowed on him the name

that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus

every knee should bend,

of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue confess that

Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father."

(Philippians 2:5-11)

 

[NotAllHere]

John 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

In context of the gospels, Jesus is merely saying he is not God the Father, he is not denying that he himself is NOT God which is consistent with our understanding of the Trinity. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, not the first person and yet by nature he is God.

 

[InNomineDomini]

As has been pointed out, Jesus did not say ONLY the Father is God; He said the Father is the **only true **God.

The Son is also the only true God.

The Holy Spirit is also the only true God.

Catholics don’t believe in two or three separate Gods, but rather in one God who exists as three persons that are distinct in relationship to one another yet one in essence.

To be concerned that Jesus didn’t make all of this clear in this sentence, is to expect that Jesus intended this uttering of His to be an exhaustive revelation of the nature of God, and how He (Christ) relates to God beyond simply being sent.

This expectation is unreasonable and unfounded in the text. We must presume such a thing, and then draw conclusions based on this presumption. We also know this limitation cannot be, because it would imply that we are never to know what Christ was: whether merely human, whether a spiritual being, whether a lesser deity or angel, or whatever else we could invent. Such agnosticism contradicts the rest of John – who went to great pains to show many things about Christ, such as He “came down from heaven” or that He “created all things” – as well as the rest of Scripture, whether we discuss the Old Testament or the New.

I’d recommend spending an hour or two listening to some of these lectures: hebrewcatholic.net/06-themes-of-the-incarnation/

I’d especially recommend Christ’s Claim to Divinity as well as Modernist Attacks on the Divinity of Christ.

I’d also recommend an article by Tim Staples: timstaples.com/wordpress/the-man-god-jesus-christ/

There he goes through several verses that are brought up in these sorts of discussions, as well as some positive ones which Catholics (and other orthodox Christians) believe demonstrate beyond question that Christ’s divinity is taught in the NT.

 

[Robyn_p]

You are right that I made a bit of a mistake there in the title. I still think that it is significant that Jesus refers to the Father as the “only true God,” while leaving himself outside of this designation. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul says “yet for us there is one God, the Father…”.

Sorry for the delayed response. Was out of town.

I still don’t think this verse proves quite as much as you seem to think. Rather than excluding himself as the one true God, we could just as easily say Jesus was simply outlining the necessary ingredients for salvation, and not denying or affirming anything else here. Since Christ actually WAS talking about what eternal life consists of in this passage, I think this interpretation makes more sense contextually.

IOW, what Jesus is saying is it’s not enough just to believe in the Father, we have to believe in his Son also. This explains why Jesus added the clause “and Jesus Christ.” Since the Father and Son are two distinct persons, this also explains why Jesus makes a distinction between the two of them. None of this necessitates a denial of divinity.

But bottom line, by itself, this verse doesn’t really demonstrate anything one way or the other, except that the Father is the only true God. Which we all agree on here. That to me proves this verse isn’t quite as problematic for the Trinitarian view as you first claimed.

He COULD be denying his divinity here, sure. But since there’s other ways to read this that don’t contradict other passages of scripture that affirm his divinity, not to mention thousands of years of Christian belief, it just doesn’t make sense to interpret it your way.

As far as 1 Cor 8:6 goes, I’m glad you brought that one up. Because it again actually supports the Trinitarian view, when you read the entire passage.

You are right in pointing out, in a different post, that the word “kyrios” in Greek and even “el” in Hebrew aren’t always used in Scripture exclusively for the one true God. St. Paul even refers to this right before the verse you quoted when he says:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” - 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.* (1 Cor 8:5-6)

Two things to point out here: 1) Both the Father and Jesus are described as being the source of all existence. It’s by the Father through the Son that all things exist. That’s exactly what we say in the Nicene creed. If Jesus were a created being, this could not be said of him. Because that would make him a “thing”, and St. Paul just said all things were created through him. It’s impossible to create one’s self. Therefore, Jesus must of necessity not be a created being. According to this passage (and others like it) he must be God.

1. Notice, after mentioning the fact that there are many “gods” and “lords”, St. Paul says “for us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Now St. Paul is not using kyrios in the generic sense here, because he is contrasting those terms with the Lordship of Christ. Jesus is the one and only Lord, according to Paul here.

Why is this significant? Because as the Shema says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deut 6:4) For the Jewish people, of which Paul was, there only was one Lord, and that was God. To call Jesus THE “one Lord” like Paul does here would be incredibly blasphemous, since that title was reserved for God. Unless Jesus was in fact the one Lord, God.

 

[JK8619]

Why is this significant? Because as the Shema says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deut 6:4) For the Jewish people, of which Paul was, there only was one Lord, and that was God. To call Jesus THE “one Lord” like Paul does here would be incredibly blasphemous, since that title was reserved for God. Unless Jesus was in fact the one Lord, God.

I think the shema actually brings out more problems for the trinitarian side.

In Hebrew: Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
In English: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The words lord in english and kyrios in greek are a bit more ambiguous than the words for lord in Hebrew. Adonai=YHVH/God. Adoni, which is what is used of the messiah in the OT, is strictly used for non-God entities.

It would probably be more appropriate to render the shema in english as "Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God is one or YHVH our God is one lord.

No matter what translation you go with, it still says that God is one, not three or three in one. If you accept both Jesus and the Father as the Lord YHVH, then you now have two Lord YHVHs. This simply does not fit with the creed of Israel, which Jesus fully endorsed.

It seems to me that when Jesus identifies the Father as the one true God, he is referring to the one true god of the shema.

NT Wright has suggested that Paul “split the shema” in 1 Corinthians (which seems to me to be what you are suggesting), but I don’t see any evidence for this. I would suggest checking out Dr. Anthony Buzzard’s 5 min. video on the topic of whether Paul split the shema here: youtube.com/watch?v=cbfDL5ApxZw.

JK

 

[JK8619]

As far as 1 Cor 8:6 goes, I’m glad you brought that one up. Because it again actually supports the Trinitarian view, when you read the entire passage.

You are right in pointing out, in a different post, that the word “kyrios” in Greek and even “el” in Hebrew aren’t always used in Scripture exclusively for the one true God. St. Paul even refers to this right before the verse you quoted when he says:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth - as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” - 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. (1 Cor 8:5-6)

Two things to point out here: 1) Both the Father and Jesus are described as being the source of all existence. It’s by the Father through the Son that all things exist. That’s exactly what we say in the Nicene creed. If Jesus were a created being, this could not be said of him. Because that would make him a “thing”, and St. Paul just said all things were created through him. It’s impossible to create one’s self. Therefore, Jesus must of necessity not be a created being. According to this passage (and others like it) he must be God.

1. Notice, after mentioning the fact that there are many “gods” and “lords”, St. Paul says “for us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Now St. Paul is not using kyrios in the generic sense here, because he is contrasting those terms with the Lordship of Christ. Jesus is the one and only Lord, according to Paul here.

Why is this significant? Because as the Shema says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deut 6:4) For the Jewish people, of which Paul was, there only was one Lord, and that was God. To call Jesus THE “one Lord” like Paul does here would be incredibly blasphemous, since that title was reserved for God. Unless Jesus was in fact the one Lord, God.

I know that we are not going to agree on the interpretation of this verse, so instead of writing out a long, detailed explanation of how I understand it, I will just provide a link to a site that explains a position that is similar to mine just incase you care to know.

biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-corinthians-8-6

JK

 

[Auntie_A]

I think the shema actually brings out more problems for the trinitarian side.

In Hebrew: Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
In English: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The words lord in english and kyrios in greek are a bit more ambiguous than the words for lord in Hebrew. Adonai=YHVH/God. Adoni, which is what is used of the messiah in the OT, is strictly used for non-God entities.

It would probably be more appropriate to render the shema in english as "Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God is one or YHVH our God is one lord.

No matter what translation you go with, it still says that God is one, not three or three in one. If you accept both Jesus and the Father as the Lord YHVH, then you now have two Lord YHVHs. This simply does not fit with the creed of Israel, which Jesus fully endorsed.

It seems to me that when Jesus identifies the Father as the one true God, he is referring to the one true god of the shema.

NT Wright has suggested that Paul “split the shema” in 1 Corinthians (which seems to me to be what you are suggesting), but I don’t see any evidence for this. I would suggest checking out Dr. Anthony Buzzard’s 5 min. video on the topic of whether Paul split the shema here: youtube.com/watch?v=cbfDL5ApxZw.

JK

God created the world. If he wants to send us a Messiah, he does not come himself; that would be too mighty, perhaps too incomprehensible for us humans. He sends Jesus, Himself in human form.

And how are we to understand who He is in this form? Easy. The way we understand from our own lives: as His Son. Who He sent to show us the way. As we often send our children to others, God sent His Son.

And when the human form of Jesus, returned to God, God sent the Holy Spirit to connect from our human form to The Great Spirit.

I still find it quite simple to understand if we see Heaven (great Spirit, eternity, God) and the Earth (human, body, Jesus) and the connection between the worlds after Jesus returned to God ( Holy Spirit) as three types of matter, all reflecting God’s creation.

 

[Robyn_p]

I think the shema actually brings out more problems for the trinitarian side.

In Hebrew: Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
In English: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

The words lord in english and kyrios in greek are a bit more ambiguous than the words for lord in Hebrew. Adonai=YHVH/God. Adoni, which is what is used of the messiah in the OT, is strictly used for non-God entities.

It would probably be more appropriate to render the shema in english as "Hear, O Israel, YHVH our God is one or YHVH our God is one lord.

I’m aware of that. But while interesting, I’m not quite sure how this changes anything about what St. Paul said. Could you elaborate perhaps? The fact that Hebrew had a separate word distinguishing the two types of lords doesn’t seem all that relevant, but maybe I’m missing something.

Since Paul was speaking Greek, and the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures uses ‘‘kyrios’’ there in Deut 6:4 in reference to the one true God, I think we should focus more on how ‘‘kyrios’’ is being used here instead.

It’s true, neither Greek nor English have a specific word for YHVH/God like Hebrew did with Adonai. But that’s exactly my point. Kyrios could refer to an earthly lord or the One Lord God, depending on context. And the context of 1 Cor 8 suggests Paul was referring to the Divine Lordship of Christ, and not using it in a generic sense.

Paul appears to be calling Jesus THE “one Lord”, which, as far as I’m aware, is a title reserved only for the one true God in Scripture. I can’t recall anywhere that speaks of ''the one Lord" that’s not in reference to God. If you could show me where “the one Lord” doesn’t refer to God almighty in Scripture, I would retract my argument.

No matter what translation you go with, it still says that God is one, not three or three in one.

The doctrine of the trinity depends on God’s oneness, so again this is no issue. Monotheism - which is what the shema is affirming here - is at the very heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. ***There absolutely is only one God. ***

The fact that it doesn’t say everything there is to say about the nature of God in one statement, or give a detailed exposition of the Trinity, doesn’t prove or disprove anything. What it says is true. God IS One, there are no others, and that was the truth God was trying to emphasize to the Israelites at that time.

It helps to remember the Old Testament was one of progressive revelation, so we can’t expect it to say everything. God took a race of people soaked in the pagan culture of the time, and chose them to be the ones he would use to bring about the salvation of the entire human race. He had to slowly reveal himself to them. He first had to get the Israelites to firmly embrace monotheism before He could reveal the Trinity to them. Or else they would be tempted to worship three gods, which would be wrong and would undo everything he was trying to teach them.

If you accept both Jesus and the Father as the Lord YHVH, then you now have two Lord YHVHs. This simply does not fit with the creed of Israel, which Jesus fully endorsed.

No, JK. If The Father and Son were separate beings then you would be right. But that’s not what we believe. The Son is con-substantial with the Father, He is one in being with Him. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the One Lord YHVH. They are all one being.

This is where it helps to distinguish between being and person, which may be why you think this statement on God’s oneness poses a problem for us when it doesn’t in reality. We believe there is One Being - God, YHVH, and He exists from all eternity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This of course gets to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity - how One God can be perfectly one and yet exist as three co-equal, co-eternal persons. I can’t really do it justice in a forum post, but I would highly recommend the book Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed for you. That has one of the clearest explanations of the Trinity I’ve ever read. Even if you still don’t believe it, you’ll at least have a better grasp of what we believe and don’t believe about it. I hope you check it out.

It seems to me that when Jesus identifies the Father as the one true God, he is referring to the one true god of the shema.

Of course he was. That’s a given. There is only one true God. Again though, that doesn’t exclude Christ from being the one true God as well. But we’ve already explained that enough I think.

NT Wright has suggested that Paul “split the shema” in 1 Corinthians (which seems to me to be what you are suggesting), but I don’t see any evidence for this. I would suggest checking out Dr. Anthony Buzzard’s 5 min. video on the topic of whether Paul split the shema here: youtube.com/watch?v=cbfDL5ApxZw.

JK

I watched it. Honestly, I had a hard time following what his argument was. He brought up the Adonai/adoni distinction again like you did, but I’m still not seeing the significance of that. I’ve never heard of NT Wright’s argument before, so that’s not what I was getting at. (though maybe he said the same thing as me, I don’t know.) My only point, as I said above, was that Paul applies to Jesus a title that, as far as I know, is only used in reference to the God of Israel.

But what did you think of my first point, where Paul says that through Christ all things exist? I can’t see how we can possibly say that, if Christ was indeed created. (as unitarianism teaches) There’s no way to reconcile that in my mind. But I’m interested to hear your thoughts on that.