The dilemma of Jesus as God

[Bahman]

Yes, everything happens according to plan, at least in the broad outlines. His plan takes into account our free actions.

Linus2nd

This is something that I don’t understand since a broad plan negates omniscience unless we change the definition of omniscience.

 

[tonyrey]

So you agree that there is a problem we both cannot understand. That is a good progress. We however could understand that far. Doesn’t this mean that the concept of God as it is constructed is wrong.

Anyone who claims to understand the nature of God fully is being presumptuous but we do know that love is more important than everything else. Please refer to my last two posts.

 

[meltzerboy]

Anyone who claims to fully understand the nature of God is being presumptuous but we do know that love is more important than everything else. Nor is it complicated! It is the source of the greatest joy and fulfilment we can imagine. God’s nature is not determined by a need for simplicity and false economy. A multitude of gods would certainly be complicated but a solitary God would be the apotheosis of egoism.

We don’t have to struggle to understand the concept of a divine family. In our violent, shattered world we can all grasp the importance of peace and harmony. The truth is not to be found in extremes but in the simplicity of co-existence - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit eternally united by perfect love:

John 14:25-26

John 17 20-26

I am not debating the existence of the Holy Trinity, particularly on a Catholic Forum! It is the absolute dogma, the bedrock of Christianity. And I have heard the argument you propose based on love between the Father and the Son. However, if it were not difficult to grasp, there would not have been so many heresies deemed by the Church regarding the nature of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit. Nor would there have been so many books and articles written attempting to explain the meaning of the Trinity in comprehensible human terms. It is, after all, a most difficult and almost impossible concept for us humans to understand this side of heaven, and even more so as the Second Person of Jesus is believed to be both fully human and fully divine. You also mention the “simplicity of co-existence,” but I would note the Trinity is not merely the co-existence of Persons (the use of the term co-existence itself possibly lapsing into heresy) but rather coequal co-eternity. Finally, I suppose you are differentiating between a solitary G-d and One G-d, which you too believe in. I do not see where the belief in a solitary G-d is necessarily a reflection of egoism, because of the fact that G-d interacts with His Creation, which He created out of love. Besides, according to Jewish belief, His solitariness is what makes G-d absolutely unique.

 

[Bahman]

Anyone who claims to fully understand the nature of God is being presumptuous but we do know that love is more important than everything else. Nor is it complicated! It is the source of the greatest joy and fulfilment we can imagine. God’s nature is not determined by a need for simplicity and false economy. A multitude of gods would certainly be complicated but a solitary God would be the apotheosis of egoism.

We don’t have to struggle to understand the concept of a divine family. In our violent, shattered world we can all grasp the importance of peace and harmony. The truth is not to be found in extremes but in the simplicity of co-existence - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit eternally united by perfect love:

“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

John 14:25-26

** “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” **

John 17 20-26

Have you ever experienced this way. That someone is in you? I experience all of them but I am not special.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am not debating the existence of the Holy Trinity, particularly on a Catholic Forum! It is the absolute dogma, the bedrock of Christianity. And I have heard the argument you propose based on love between the Father and the Son. However, if it were not difficult to grasp, there would not have been so many heresies deemed by the Church regarding the nature of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit. Nor would there have been so many books and articles written attempting to explain the meaning of the Trinity in comprehensible human terms. It is, after all, a most difficult and almost impossible concept for us humans to understand this side of heaven, and even more so as the Second Person of Jesus is believed to be both fully human and fully divine. You also mention the “simplicity of co-existence,” but I would note the Trinity is not merely the co-existence of Persons (the use of the term co-existence itself possibly lapsing into heresy) but rather coequal co-eternity. Finally, I suppose you are differentiating between a solitary G-d and One G-d, which you too believe in. I do not see where the belief in a solitary G-d is necessarily a reflection of egoism, because of the fact that G-d interacts with His Creation, which He created out of love. Besides, according to Jewish belief, His solitariness is what makes G-d absolutely unique.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a great Prophet and the Saviour, but they do not believe in His Divinity. They interpret some Scriptural passages differently from Catholics.

 

[meltzerboy]

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a great Prophet and the Saviour, but they do not believe in His Divinity. They interpret some Scriptural passages differently from Catholics.

Thanks for the information. What do J-hovah’s Witnesses say about the Holy Spirit?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Each Person in the Holy Trinity has His own will, but because They love Each Other infinitely, Their wills coincide.

I would be the first to say that I do not understand the Trinity and I would say that anyone who would say that they “understood” the Trinity, doesn’t know what they are talking about, however, I would say that God’s Will is God’s Will whether it be the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.

God Is a Trinity yet One and this is why I say that God’s Will Is God’s Will.

Jesus was God-Incarnate, therefore Jesus had a human will and I would say that it was Jesus’s human will that is being referred to in the statement, “Not My Will but Thy Will…”.

 

[Tomdstone]

I would be the first to say that I do not understand the Trinity and I would say that anyone who would say that they “understood” the Trinity, doesn’t know what they are talking about, however, I would say that God’s Will is God’s Will whether it be the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit.

God Is a Trinity yet One and this is why I say that God’s Will Is God’s Will.

Jesus was God-Incarnate, therefore Jesus had a human will and I would say that it was Jesus’s human will that is being referred to in the statement, “Not My Will but Thy Will…”.

Did Jesus have two wills or one will? If He had two wills, could His human will differ from His Divine will in the sense that what He willed as a human was different from what He willed as Divine.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thanks for the information. What do J-hovah’s Witnesses say about the Holy Spirit?

They say that the Holy Spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. (Micah 3:8; Luke 1:35), but not a separate Person. Since only the Father knows the day or the hour, and the Holy Spirit does not, according to JW, this indicates that the Holy Spirit is not God.

 

[pacloc]

Did Jesus have two wills or one will? If He had two wills, could His human will differ from His Divine will in the sense that what He willed as a human was different from what He willed as Divine.

St. Maximus answers this question very well, a search on google found a writing from Pope Benedict on St. Maximus that should help. This is the link:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080625_en.html

and here is an excerpt that should explain the 2 wills Christ:

“Hence, we see that the person who withdraws into himself is not a complete person but the person who is open, who comes out of himself, becomes complete and finds himself, finds his true humanity, precisely in the Son of God. For St Maximus, this vision did not remain a philosophical speculation; he saw it realized in Jesus’ actual life, especially in the drama of Gethsemane. In this drama of Jesus’ agony, of the anguish of death, of the opposition between the human will not to die and the divine will which offers itself to death, in this drama of Gethsemane the whole human drama is played out, the drama of our redemption. St Maximus tells us that, and we know that this is true, Adam (and we ourselves are Adam) thought that the “no” was the peak of freedom. He thought that only a person who can say “no” is truly free; that if he is truly to achieve his freedom, man must say “no” to God; only in this way he believed he could at last be himself, that he had reached the heights of freedom. This tendency also carried within it the human nature of Christ, but went beyond it, for Jesus saw that it was not the “no” that was the height of freedom. The height of freedom is the “yes”, in conformity with God’s will. It is only in the “yes” that man truly becomes himself; only in the great openness of the “yes”, in the unification of his will with the divine, that man becomes immensely open, becomes “divine”. What Adam wanted was to be like God, that is, to be completely free. But the person who withdraws into himself is not divine, is not completely free; he is freed by emerging from himself, it is in the “yes” that he becomes free; and this is the drama of Gethsemane: not my will but yours. It is by transferring the human will to the divine will that the real person is born, it is in this way that we are redeemed. This, in a few brief words, is the fundamental point of what St Maximus wanted to say and here we see that the whole human being is truly at issue; the entire question of our life lies here.”

 

[Tomdstone]

St. Maximus answers this question very well, a search on google found a writing from Pope Benedict on St. Maximus that should help. This is the link:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080625_en.html

and here is an excerpt that should explain the 2 wills Christ:

“Hence, we see that the person who withdraws into himself is not a complete person but the person who is open, who comes out of himself, becomes complete and finds himself, finds his true humanity, precisely in the Son of God. For St Maximus, this vision did not remain a philosophical speculation; he saw it realized in Jesus’ actual life, especially in the drama of Gethsemane. In this drama of Jesus’ agony, of the anguish of death, of the opposition between the human will not to die and the divine will which offers itself to death, in this drama of Gethsemane the whole human drama is played out, the drama of our redemption. St Maximus tells us that, and we know that this is true, Adam (and we ourselves are Adam) thought that the “no” was the peak of freedom. He thought that only a person who can say “no” is truly free; that if he is truly to achieve his freedom, man must say “no” to God; only in this way he believed he could at last be himself, that he had reached the heights of freedom. This tendency also carried within it the human nature of Christ, but went beyond it, for Jesus saw that it was not the “no” that was the height of freedom. The height of freedom is the “yes”, in conformity with God’s will. It is only in the “yes” that man truly becomes himself; only in the great openness of the “yes”, in the unification of his will with the divine, that man becomes immensely open, becomes “divine”. What Adam wanted was to be like God, that is, to be completely free. But the person who withdraws into himself is not divine, is not completely free; he is freed by emerging from himself, it is in the “yes” that he becomes free; and this is the drama of Gethsemane: not my will but yours. It is by transferring the human will to the divine will that the real person is born, it is in this way that we are redeemed. This, in a few brief words, is the fundamental point of what St Maximus wanted to say and here we see that the whole human being is truly at issue; the entire question of our life lies here.”

I don’t see the specific answer to the question:
1.Did Jesus have two wills or one will?
A. two wills
B. One will
2. If He had two wills, could His human will differ from His Divine will in the sense that what He willed as a human was different from what He willed as Divine.
A. human will can will something different from his Divine will
B. human will cannot will something different from his Divine will
Is the answer to 1 A or B?
Is the answer to 2 A or B?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is something that I don’t understand since a broad plan negates omniscience unless we change the definition of omniscience.

I don’t see how. I see no conflict. Say God is watching a horse race. He know the outcome of the race. In some way the race and its outcome is a part of God’s plan. We don’t know how of course, but God does. Where is the conflict.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am not debating the existence of the Holy Trinity, particularly on a Catholic Forum! It is the absolute dogma, the bedrock of Christianity. And I have heard the argument you propose based on love between the Father and the Son. However, if it were not difficult to grasp, there would not have been so many heresies deemed by the Church regarding the nature of Jesus and that of the Holy Spirit. Nor would there have been so many books and articles written attempting to explain the meaning of the Trinity in comprehensible human terms. It is, after all, a most difficult and almost impossible concept for us humans to understand this side of heaven, and even more so as the Second Person of Jesus is believed to be both fully human and fully divine. You also mention the “simplicity of co-existence,” but I would note the Trinity is not merely the co-existence of Persons (the use of the term co-existence itself possibly lapsing into heresy) but rather coequal co-eternity. Finally, I suppose you are differentiating between a solitary G-d and One G-d, which you too believe in. I do not see where the belief in a solitary G-d is necessarily a reflection of egoism, because of the fact that G-d interacts with His Creation, which He created out of love. Besides, according to Jewish belief, His solitariness is what makes G-d absolutely unique.

Excellent answer. The thing is though that the Jewish Scriptures have many passages which indicate that God is not solitary. And they start with Genesis where God says " …let us make man in our image and likeness…" In fact there are so many that one wonders how they could have been missed?

Linus2nd

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t see the specific answer to the question:
1.Did Jesus have two wills or one will?
A. two wills
B. One will
2. If He had two wills, could His human will differ from His Divine will in the sense that what He willed as a human was different from what He willed as Divine.
A. human will can will something different from his Divine will
B. human will cannot will something different from his Divine will
Is the answer to 1 A or B?
Is the answer to 2 A or B?

I think the official teaching of the Church is that Jesus had a human will and a divine will. However, His two wills were perfectly united, that is, the human will always conformed to the divine will, so that there was never any question of one will being different from or contrary to the other.

 

[meltzerboy]

Excellent answer. The thing is though that the Jewish Scriptures have many passages which indicate that God is not solitary. And they start with Genesis where God says " …let us make man in our image and likeness…" In fact there are so many that one wonders how they could have been missed?

Linus2nd

Passages such as the one you mention have been interpreted differently by Jewish scholars. This specific one has been interpreted in two ways: one is G-d’s use of the magisterial “we” and the other interpretation is that G-d, in His humility, is incorporating and addressing the angels in His act of the creation of man.

 

[pacloc]

I don’t see the specific answer to the question:
1.Did Jesus have two wills or one will?
A. two wills
B. One will
2. If He had two wills, could His human will differ from His Divine will in the sense that what He willed as a human was different from what He willed as Divine.
A. human will can will something different from his Divine will
B. human will cannot will something different from his Divine will
Is the answer to 1 A or B?
Is the answer to 2 A or B?

1.A 2.A

It is not the Divine will that hungered, thirsted, was tired, and disliked pain, and physically feared death. That does not mean that he sinned, but that he was fully human. To say that he only had the divine will is to make him not really human. Read the information in the link, it answers your questions. I just posted what I thought you were asking, primarily what Christ meant when He said Not my will, but Yours be done.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You do understand that if God makes all things in a predetermined manner, a fallen world serves no purpose, he could easily just give you the lessons learned in your life at the moment he created you and not create those that will not be in Heaven. Although it may not sound correct, our actions do make God respond, not the other way around. Otherwise you would make God the creator of sin and evil. That is why in response to the 1st Adam’s fall, God sent His son. It is a response. But in God’s power He foreknows all of these actions/responses.

I wouldn’t say you are wrong, I just think my view makes more sense. Which is, that God foresees every possibility and provides for every contingency in his one creative act. And of course that would include all the " changes " made necessary because of our disobedience.

As far as sin goes, God allows us to use what he has created good for evil purposes. That is what makes sin so horrible, we kind of make God an unwilling partner to our sin. Of course he is not a partner but it is still a great insult to God that we use his creation to commit sin. It is like slapping him in the face, or telling him to " get lost. " It is like stealing something that belongs to someone else. It is like taking a sacred object and grinding it into the mud…

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[meltzerboy]

I wouldn’t say you are wrong, I just think my view makes more sense. Which is, that God foresees every possibility and provides for every contingency in his one creative act. And of course that would include all the " changes " made necessary because of our disobedience.

As far as sin goes, God allows us to use what he has created good for evil purposes. That is what makes sin so horrible, we kind of make God an unwilling partner to our sin. Of course he is not a partner but it is still a great insult to God that we use his creation to commit sin. It is like slapping him in the face, or telling him to " get lost. " It is like stealing something that belongs to someone else. It is like taking a sacred object and grinding it into the mud…

Pax
Linus2nd

I wasn’t sure how far you were going in the second paragraph, but I like the analogies!

 

[pacloc]

I wouldn’t say you are wrong, I just think my view makes more sense. Which is, that God foresees every possibility and provides for every contingency in his one creative act. And of course that would include all the " changes " made necessary because of our disobedience.

As far as sin goes, God allows us to use what he has created good for evil purposes. That is what makes sin so horrible, we kind of make God an unwilling partner to our sin. Of course he is not a partner but it is still a great insult to God that we use his creation to commit sin. It is like slapping him in the face, or telling him to " get lost. " It is like stealing something that belongs to someone else. It is like taking a sacred object and grinding it into the mud…

Pax
Linus2nd

I agree with all you say here. I’m just trying to rid the air of the idea that God has willed all that will take place, He does not and can not will sin. This means that we really are free and are being taught by our choice to sin, which is withdrawing from God/life/light. God’s foreknowledge is just that, knowing what we will do, not acting out what He is making us do.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Did Jesus have two wills or one will? If He had two wills, could His human will differ from His Divine will in the sense that what He willed as a human was different from what He willed as Divine.

I believe that Jesus prayed for His human will to be in perfect alignment with The Divine Will.

Jesus grew in all kinds of ways as a human, not just physically.

It is written that “the Word became flesh”, meaning human, meaning that Jesus was a human being and many seem to think that Jesus was not just like us in all ways except for one.

It does NOT say, ‘almost like us’, does it?

It says, “Just like us”!

The Divine Will is God’s Will and it is God’s Will that ALL be saved and it was this Divine Will that Jesus prayed for His human will to be perfectly in line with.

I only “know” a little, there is quite a bit that I believe and I consider “know” and “believe” two completely different words with two completely different meanings even tho there seem to be quite a few on here who disagree with me on these words and seem to think that they are interchangeable.

Some of my “beliefs” are based on some of the things that I “know”.

To me, being a Catholic is NOT about being told what to think and not about being told what I believe.

In other words, God is more important than our beliefs and the reality of God is not contingent on our beliefs.

It is written that “Mary pondered these things…” concerning some of the things that happened to her and I believe that what is written concerning “Mary’s ponderings” should be an inspiration to us concerning things that have happened to us.

I think that “things”, out of the ordinary so to speak, have happened to quite a few people and I believe that they should be “encouraged” to “ponder these things in their own heart”.