The Trinity and the Incarnation

[wk11]

I’ve had some thoughts myself, and am curious what others think about the relationship between two fundamental Christian doctrines, the Trinity and the Incarnation.

In short, we know that God is a trinity, comprised of three persons with one shared nature (Frank Sheed did some great writing on this). In the Incarnation, one of these persons, the Son, took on an additional, human nature. It seems to me that this could have huge implications regarding how the persons of the Trinity relate to each other and act, together and independently. What are, or might be, truths we can glean about the Trinity from the Incarnation? I’m especially curious about how it affects how we view God in action; is the Son acting independently from the other two, are all acts shared between them, etc.

On a related note, I’d appreciate any referral to writers who have addressed this topic.

 

[Jomann]

Human nature was created by God. So in a way there’s nothing new to God about this.

For me is a complete mystery why God decided to take human nature inside the Trinity.

I wonder if the original plan was to take Adam and Eve.

Is speculated that’s the very reason why Satan rebelled. He simply couldn’t accept God elevating the human nature above angelic nature (himself).

 

[runningdude]

Because God the Son, through the incarnation, was given a true Human nature, he received a true Human soul. His human soul was autonomous, though, through grace, perfectly tuned to his Divine nature.

Because his human soul was autonomous and sinless, he could not desire death, and He experienced agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, as prayed to His father that cup of his sacrifice might be passed. Through perfect, unyielding, and humble obedience, he endured and followed through.

The Divine Will of God the Son was united with the Human will of the Man Jesus the Christ. As God, Jesus was privileged to know intimately the will of God the Father. As a Man, He was limited as to what he was authorized to share with fellow Man.

It is important to stress that God the Son Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit are equal in honor and glory to God the Father in every way. It is only through humble obedience, that their will is united with God the Father.

Through him, with him, and in him; in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor are yours, all mighty Father, forever and ever

 

[rinnie]

I’ve had some thoughts myself, and am curious what others think about the relationship between two fundamental Christian doctrines, the Trinity and the Incarnation.

In short, we know that God is a trinity, comprised of three persons with one shared nature (Frank Sheed did some great writing on this). In the Incarnation, one of these persons, the Son, took on an additional, human nature. It seems to me that this could have huge implications regarding how the persons of the Trinity relate to each other and act, together and independently. What are, or might be, truths we can glean about the Trinity from the Incarnation? I’m especially curious about how it affects how we view God in action; is the Son acting independently from the other two, are all acts shared between them, etc.

On a related note, I’d appreciate any referral to writers who have addressed this topic.

Jesus and Human and Divine. Although God took on a human nature in no way changes his Divine nature.

 

[hasantas]

I’ve had some thoughts myself, and am curious what others think about the relationship between two fundamental Christian doctrines, the Trinity and the Incarnation.

In short, we know that God is a trinity, comprised of three persons with one shared nature (Frank Sheed did some great writing on this). In the Incarnation, one of these persons, the Son, took on an additional, human nature. It seems to me that this could have huge implications regarding how the persons of the Trinity relate to each other and act, together and independently. What are, or might be, truths we can glean about the Trinity from the Incarnation? I’m especially curious about how it affects how we view God in action; is the Son acting independently from the other two, are all acts shared between them, etc.

On a related note, I’d appreciate any referral to writers who have addressed this topic.

What is right or clear about trinity and incarnation?

Three persons(Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are called God and it is said that Father is God, Son is God and Holy Spirit is God. But also there is one God!

Son incarnated and become Jesus so we have three gods and half god man anymore!

Not only Son incarnated but also Holy Spirit incarnated as a dove!

Holy Spirit(God?) travel through space and come on the world and seemed to people!

In where it is said God has three persons? In NT or in OT? Did ever Jesus said that Jesus is God? In where it is said Holy Spirit is God?

…

…

So you are curious have three persons act? Should you not be curious how three persons can be gods? If you say there is one God then why three distinct persons are supposed to be God? Coul you not see the perfect and flawless universe and order in it? Which God cause that excellent orderliness in universe? Father? Son? Holy Spirit? Both three together?

Or just Father as Jesus declared many times:thumbsup:

…

…

 

[PluniaZ]

The Divine Nature is immutable and did not change at all as a result of the Incarnation. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one will and act with one operation toward creation.

The human nature of Jesus Christ is not immutable and can experience changes, even as His Divine Nature remains immutable and unchanging. The human will of Jesus Christ remained perfectly obedient at all times to the single, immutable Divine Will.

 

[PluniaZ]

What is right or clear about trinity and incarnation?

Three persons(Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are called God and it is said that Father is God, Son is God and Holy Spirit is God. But also there is one God!

Son incarnated and become Jesus so we have three gods and half god man anymore!

Not only Son incarnated but also Holy Spirit incarnated as a dove!

Holy Spirit(God?) travel through space and come on the world and seemed to people!

In where it is said God has three persons? In NT or in OT? Did ever Jesus said that Jesus is God? In where it is said Holy Spirit is God?

…

…

So you are curious have three persons act? Should you not be curious how three persons can be gods? If you say there is one God then why three distinct persons are supposed to be God? Coul you not see the perfect and flawless universe and order in it? Which God cause that excellent orderliness in universe? Father? Son? Holy Spirit? Both three together?

Or just Father as Jesus declared many times:thumbsup:

…

…

Christians believe that God is Love. I don’t know how there can be love without a relationship. You may say, “God loves His creation.” But creation is not eternal. So who did God love before creation came into existence?

I see Love perfectly revealed to us in the persons of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father begets the Son eternally - there is never a time when the Son is not begotten of the Father. The Father begets the Son by communicating His own Essence, all of it, without reservation, to the Son. The Father does not hold back any of His Essence for Himself, but gives it all to the Son. This is Love.

And the Son receives the Father’s Essence completely and without reservation. The Son does not say, “That is enough, I will build my own essence from here.” The Son does not succumb to pride and try to build Himself up, but humbly receives all that He is from the Father. This is Love.

And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The person performing the action here (proceeding), is spoken of as the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, “He will receive of mine, and show it to you.” John 16:14. The Greek for receive, λαμβάνω, emphases the volition of the receiver (the Holy Spirit) and can be interpreted as “take.” So the Divine Essence is, in a sense, taken by the Holy Spirit, and yet the Father and the Son do not object, do not resist, but joyfully allow the Divine Essence in its entirety - all that the Father and the Son are - to be shared with the Holy Spirit. This is Love.

This is the vision of love that Jesus Christ has for mankind, from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.
41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two,
42 Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.

 

[ffg]

There are spaghetti maps out there that try, TRY, TRY to explain the mystery of the Trinity.

With human and analogy limitations it is effort at best.

Thus ‘mystery’, of course.

I think the incarnation helps us learn that God loves constantly and unchangingly.

I don’t think the incarnation can be used as a ‘change’ dynamic for the relationship between the 3.

It would be because of who God is (not becomes) that the incarnation takes place, not the other way around (the incarnation doesn’t re-define God or how He relates in the three persons).

 

[Aloysium]

I would suggest Jesus of Nazareth (from the baptism in the Jordan to the transfiguration) by Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[hasantas]

Christians believe that God is Love. I don’t know how there can be love without a relationship. You may say, “God loves His creation.” But creation is not eternal. So who did God love before creation came into existence?

I see Love perfectly revealed to us in the persons of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father begets the Son eternally - there is never a time when the Son is not begotten of the Father. The Father begets the Son by communicating His own Essence, all of it, without reservation, to the Son. The Father does not hold back any of His Essence for Himself, but gives it all to the Son. This is Love.

And the Son receives the Father’s Essence completely and without reservation. The Son does not say, “That is enough, I will build my own essence from here.” The Son does not succumb to pride and try to build Himself up, but humbly receives all that He is from the Father. This is Love.

And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The person performing the action here (proceeding), is spoken of as the Holy Spirit. Jesus says, “He will receive of mine, and show it to you.” John 16:14. The Greek for receive, λαμβάνω, emphases the volition of the receiver (the Holy Spirit) and can be interpreted as “take.” So the Divine Essence is, in a sense, taken by the Holy Spirit, and yet the Father and the Son do not object, do not resist, but joyfully allow the Divine Essence in its entirety - all that the Father and the Son are - to be shared with the Holy Spirit. This is Love.

This is the vision of love that Jesus Christ has for mankind, from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

Are all these philosophical statements from Bible?

God is love and nobody reject that. But explaining everything through love is not sufficient. God have many other eternal attributes and non of attributes are not above other. As it is mentioned in OT that your lord but is one. Being one and unique is an eternal attribute of God and non of other attributes can change that include love. God is eternal that means God is always out of time and matter. To claim that God incarnated does not reconcile with eternity.

I think love is more emphasized in Islam. One reason of creating everything is the love. But to defend Trinity and just say God is love do not satisfy. We know love of God very well.

You say Father(God) begot Son eternally. That statement is not from scripture but philosophical and seems to have conflicts. From Adam to Jesus Father(God) had never declared such thing. (Indeed God never informed such thing but some conjectures of people). Why? Because there is no such thing. If Son have divine attributes so Son must be God. How God begot another God? You say Son and Father have same essence. How many sons Father could beget? Countless? Begettin mean as if it happen in a time. Because it is an action. So Son in that manner cannot be eternal. You say Son take from Father and Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son:shrug:

 

[PluniaZ]

Are all these philosophical statements from Bible?

God is love and nobody reject that. But explaining everything through love is not sufficient. God have many other eternal attributes and non of attributes are not above other. As it is mentioned in OT that your lord but is one. Being one and unique is an eternal attribute of God and non of other attributes can change that include love. God is eternal that means God is always out of time and matter. To claim that God incarnated does not reconcile with eternity.

I think love is more emphasized in Islam. One reason of creating everything is the love. But to defend Trinity and just say God is love do not satisfy. We know love of God very well.

You say Father(God) begot Son eternally. That statement is not from scripture but philosophical and seems to have conflicts. From Adam to Jesus Father(God) had never declared such thing. (Indeed God never informed such thing but some conjectures of people). Why? Because there is no such thing. If Son have divine attributes so Son must be God. How God begot another God? You say Son and Father have same essence. How many sons Father could beget? Countless? Begettin mean as if it happen in a time. Because it is an action. So Son in that manner cannot be eternal. You say Son take from Father and Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son:shrug:

We are both speaking philosophically. There’s no need to use it as a dirty word against each other.

There are multiple passages from Scripture that confirm that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. That the Son is eternal, without beginning or end, is clear from John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And that the Son is begotten of the Father is repeated throughout Scripture - John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, Hebrews 1:6, 1 John 4:9.

When you say the begetting of the Son must take place in time, because begetting is an action, you are applying attributes of creation (actions take time) to God. But God is beyond time and outside of time, not limited by time, so such an inference is unwarranted.

The Scriptures are clear that there is only one begotten Son of God, in the passages I cited from John above, the Son is referred to each time as the “only” begotten Son.

God is one. But the Scriptures record Jesus as saying, “The Father and I are one.” John 10:30. So it is entirely Scriptural to believe that God is one, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God. You are making an unscriptural inference that “one” has to mean “one person”, but the Scriptures are clear from the beginning that “one” does not always mean “one person”:

Genesis 2:24:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

How do you understand Proverbs 8:22-36

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.
23 I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
24 The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived. neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out:
25 The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth:
26 He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:
28 When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters:
29 When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth;
30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times;
31 Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men.
32 Now therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not.
34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors.
35 He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord:
36 But he that shall sin against me, shall hurt his own soul. All that hate me love death.

 

[hasantas]

=PluniaZ;14426526]We are both speaking philosophically. There’s no need to use it as a dirty word against each other.

I express term “philosophical” to point that the doctrines are made-up and work of people. I do not intend to assault. That “dirty word” is the key and indeed the fact.

There are multiple passages from Scripture that confirm that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. That the Son is eternal, without beginning or end, is clear from John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
And that the Son is begotten of the Father is repeated throughout Scripture - John 1:14, 1:18,

I recently answered in that way:

171- O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. An-Nisa(4)

45- [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. Ali-İmran(3)

“By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world. From Got Questions.org”

Jesus is named as “word of God”. The word became flesh. When God wish something to happen God just says be and it is. God wished Jesus to be and God said be"word" and it is"word became flesh".

It is very philosophical to claim that Jesus is God by John 1:1-18. Such thing must be very clear. But through strained interpretations Jesus(human) become God!

John 3:16, 3:18, Hebrews 1:6, 1 John 4:9.

All believers are sons of God:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1

You see Jesus is not only Son of God. Jesus was used call God as Father and that is metaphorical. Otherwise all believers should be eternal begotten sons of Father!

Who is writer of Hebrews? Why should I respect it to establish essentials of Faith?

John 4:9 ?

When you say the begetting of the Son must take place in time, because begetting is an action, you are applying attributes of creation (actions take time) to God. But God is beyond time and outside of time, not limited by time, so such an inference is unwarranted

.

Then beyond of time Father has primacy! God is not something to be begotten. A begotten essence cannot be God.

The Scriptures are clear that there is only one begotten Son of God, in the passages I cited from John above, the Son is referred to each time as the “only” begotten Son.

Not scriptures but starined interpretations of philosophers.

God is one. But the Scriptures record Jesus as saying, “The Father and I are one.” John 10:30. So it is entirely Scriptural to believe that God is one, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God. You are making an unscriptural inference that “one” has to mean “one person”, but the Scriptures are clear from the beginning that “one” does not always mean “one person”:

When my father sent me to a place for a job and I say Father and I are one. What does that mean? That mean father had given me all authority of himself. Jesus was given great authority and Jesus were used to implement will of Father. So Jesus and Father should be regarded as one.

It is very clear in OT and NT that God/lord is one. And there is no any statements about personalities.

 

[PluniaZ]

Due to word limit I have to respond in two posts. Here is the first:

I express term “philosophical” to point that the doctrines are made-up and work of people. I do not intend to assault. That “dirty word” is the key and indeed the fact.

Well you are being philosophical whether you like it or not. For example when you say:

Then beyond of time Father has primacy! God is not something to be begotten. A begotten essence cannot be God.

You are being philosophical. So stop using “philosophical” as if it discredits the other person. Islam has produced some great philosophers, so it’s nothing to be ashamed of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

“By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world. From Got Questions.org”

The same website goes on to say:

John’s Gospel begins by using the Greek idea of a “divine reason” or “the mind of God” as a way to connect with the readers of his day and introduce Jesus to them as God. Greek philosophy may have used the word in reference to divine reason, but John used it to note many of the attributes of Jesus. In John’s use of the Logos concept, we find that

-Jesus is eternal (“In the beginning was the Word”)
-Jesus was with God prior to coming to earth (“the Word was with God”)
-Jesus is God (“the Word was God.”)
-Jesus is Creator (“All things were made through him”)
-Jesus is the Giver of Life (“In him was life”)
-Jesus became human to live among us (“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”)

These are all attributes of God, not a created being. And John is explicit: “the Word was God.” John 1:1. No philosophical inferences needed.

Jesus is named as “word of God”. The word became flesh. When God wish something to happen God just says be and it is. God wished Jesus to be and God said be"word" and it is"word became flesh".

Sounds like you are saying there are two words - God’s actual Word that he speaks (begets), and Jesus, whom you claim is some sort of created word, created by God’s Word. Does this make any sense? Isn’t John quite clear that Jesus is the Word in the first sense that you used?

It is very philosophical to claim that Jesus is God by John 1:1-18. Such thing must be very clear. But through strained interpretations Jesus(human) become God!

It is very clear. John says, “the Word was God.”

All believers are sons of God:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1

You see Jesus is not only Son of God. Jesus was used call God as Father and that is metaphorical. Otherwise all believers should be eternal begotten sons of Father!

John never calls believers “begotten” sons of God. John is quite clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Saint Paul is quite clear that believers are “adopted” not “begotten” as sons of God. Romans 8:15, 8:23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5.

Who is writer of Hebrews? Why should I respect it to establish essentials of Faith?

Saint Paul is the author of Hebrews. Such has always been the tradition of the Catholic Church. Who is the author of the Koran? Why should I respect it to establish the essentials of Faith?

John 4:9 ?

The First Epistle of John, Chapter 4, Verse 9:

By this hath the charity of God appeared towards us, because God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we may live by him.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+john+4&version=DRA

 

[PluniaZ]

Second Post:

Then beyond of time Father has primacy! God is not something to be begotten. A begotten essence cannot be God.

The essence of the Son is not begotten. His person is begotten. The Son’s essence is the same as the Father’s. This is the teaching of the Church of Rome, founded on the pillars of the Apostles Peter and Paul, that was declared by Rome’s representative to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, Hosius of Cordova, and recorded in the creed of that council - the Son is “consubstantial” with (“being of one essence with”) the Father.

When my father sent me to a place for a job and I say Father and I are one. What does that mean? That mean father had given me all authority of himself. Jesus was given great authority and Jesus were used to implement will of Father. So Jesus and Father should be regarded as one.

Really? Where else in the Bible does someone say, “This person and I are one” as a means of demonstrating their authority? Why did the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus when he said, “The Father and I are one”? They explicitly understood Jesus to mean that he was God:

John 10:30-33

30 I and the Father are one.
31 The Jews then took up stones to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them: Many good works I have shewed you from my Father; for which of these works do you stone me?
33 The Jews answered him: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, maketh thyself God.

It is very clear in OT and NT that God/lord is one. And there is no any statements about personalities.

Then how do you reconcile Proverbs 8, which I posted previously, and you didn’t respond to:

17 I love them that love me: and they that in the morning early watch for me, shall find me.
18 With me are riches and glory, glorious riches and justice.
19 For my fruit is better than gold and the precious stone, and my blossoms than choice silver.
20 I walk in the way of justice, in the midst of the paths of judgment,
21 That I may enrich them that love me, and may fill their treasures.
22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.
23 I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
24 The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived. neither had the fountains of waters as yet sprung out:
25 The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet been established: before the hills I was brought forth:
26 He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:
28 When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters:
29 When he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth;
30 I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times;
31 Playing in the world: and my delights were to be with the children of men.
32 Now therefore, ye children, hear me: Blessed are they that keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction and be wise, and refuse it not.
34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, and that watcheth daily at my gates, and waiteth at the posts of my doors.
35 He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord:
36 But he that shall sin against me, shall hurt his own soul. All that hate me love death.

 

[hasantas]

=PluniaZ;14427866]Due to word limit I have to respond in two posts. Here is the first:

Well you are being philosophical whether you like it or not. For example when you say:

You are being philosophical. So stop using “philosophical” as if it discredits the other person. Islam has produced some great philosophers, so it’s nothing to be ashamed of. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy

I have no problem with philosophers. My objection is to regard these philosophical knowledge and doctrines above scripture. Because doctrines(Trinity, .) only can be defended by philosophical thoughts. Is that true?

The same website goes on to say:

These are all attributes of God, not a created being. And John is explicit: “the Word was God.” John 1:1. No philosophical inferences needed.

The part I quoted is objective. The following parts are interpretations and comments. That is way I insist on term “philosophical”.

Sounds like you are saying there are two words - God’s actual Word that he speaks (begets), and Jesus, whom you claim is some sort of created word, created by God’s Word. Does this make any sense? Isn’t John quite clear that Jesus is the Word in the first sense that you used?

Jesus born was through a miracle without a father. To express that such thing is very easy for God it is explained that when God wish to something happen God just say be and it is. The order word of God is like power of God. God wished to create Jesus without a father so God said be and it is. Jesus is cerated by word of God. Or you think Jesus was created by another cause?

It is very clear. John says, “the Word was God.”

Yes. The word was God. That mean the word(cause or power) were God who created flesh. In fact power create but instead the “word” is used. So it is not suitable to say word created but word became flesh.

God is all people’s God. There is no need for such thing which only philosophers could understand.

John never calls believers “begotten” sons of God. John is quite clear that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Saint Paul is quite clear that believers are “adopted” not “begotten” as sons of God. Romans 8:15, 8:23, 9:4, Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5.

Saint Paul was not apostle of Jesus. He was enemy to believers of Jesus. I think the faith got wrong way after him. And we cannot establish faith on uncertain interpretation from 1 John.

Saint Paul is the author of Hebrews. Such has always been the tradition of the Catholic Church. Who is the author of the Koran? Why should I respect it to establish the essentials of Faith?

It is not certain Saint Paul is the writer. Even if he is but that make it distrustful. Saul was enemy of Jesus.

Qur’an is directly word of God. It is pure revelation. It is not like epistles and writings of uncertain writers. We can respect the exact words which came out through mouth of Jesus. Only four Gospels are very close to it. Gospels have revelation even it may not be pure. But other writings and letters are not supposed to establish faith on.

The First Epistle of John, Chapter 4, Verse 9:

The writer and time of writing is not certain. And it is not pure revelation just comments.

 

[hasantas]

=PluniaZ;14427867]Second Post:

The essence of the Son is not begotten. His person is begotten. The Son’s essence is the same as the Father’s. This is the teaching of the Church of Rome, founded on the pillars of the Apostles Peter and Paul, that was declared by Rome’s representative to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, Hosius of Cordova, and recorded in the creed of that council - the Son is “consubstantial” with (“being of one essence with”) the Father.

What does mean “His person begotten”? Was a person and God begot it later? Or God create a person and then begot? Why God required such thing? Is there any statement?

Holy Spirit was known before Jesus but why the Son was not known? Why do you not regard OT and Qur’an and NT? Is there anything else above these?

Really? Where else in the Bible does someone say, “This person and I are one” as a means of demonstrating their authority? Why did the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus when he said, “The Father and I are one”? They explicitly understood Jesus to mean that he was God:
John 10:30-33

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 10.

It is mentioned Father is greater than all. That means God is greater than Son but not equal. Also Jesus always say Father had given me. That mean Jesus do not possess anything fron divine.

People did not understand or misunderstood Jesus. Jesus explained what He meant by saying being son of God in verses 34-35(I said, Ye are gods…). And also Jews were used to kill or persecute prophets.

Jesus claimed to do what exactly Father ordered (If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.) Jesus did not say “I do works of us!”

Then how do you reconcile Proverbs 8, which I posted previously, and you didn’t respond to:

I am not scholar of OT. That may be about souls. Souls were created before universe. Some moraly high people can remember the times before soul get in to body.

Perhaps you can interpret better?

 

[PluniaZ]

I have no problem with philosophers. My objection is to regard these philosophical knowledge and doctrines above scripture. Because doctrines(Trinity, .) only can be defended by philosophical thoughts. Is that true?

I am using philosophy (or more simply, reason) to understand Scripture. Just as you are. The doctrine of the Trinity is explicit in the Christian Scripture. See 1 John 5:7:

And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

Of course you will say you don’t believe that passage is Scripture. But I don’t believe the Qur’an is Scripture. Which means what we really need to discuss is why the Christian Bible should be regarded as Scripture, and the Qur’an should not be.

The part I quoted is objective. The following parts are interpretations and comments. That is way I insist on term “philosophical”.

You are being philosophical too, and raising some good philosophical points, which I am happy to discuss with you.

Jesus born was through a miracle without a father. To express that such thing is very easy for God it is explained that when God wish to something happen God just say be and it is. The order word of God is like power of God. God wished to create Jesus without a father so God said be and it is. Jesus is cerated by word of God. Or you think Jesus was created by another cause?

These are some interesting philosophical statements. You consistently say that God acts toward creation by speaking. Christians hold the same view. Let’s discuss the Word beneath your next quote.

Yes. The word was God. That mean the word(cause or power) were God who created flesh. In fact power create but instead the “word” is used. So it is not suitable to say word created but word became flesh.

More interesting philosophy here. You equate God’s Word with God’s power. Do you believe God is perfectly simple, i.e., does not have components or parts? If so, then God’s power is God. Now power is an essential attribute of a thing, but a word is necessarily the product or result of some action. How do you reconcile that the Word is God, if God is simple? If there is a word there is a speaker. So how do you understand God to be both speaker and word?

God is all people’s God. There is no need for such thing which only philosophers could understand.

God is beyond our comprehension. Philosophers cannot even begin to understand God. What we know of God comes from His revelation to us, and He has given us the gift of reason to make sense of what He has revealed. The Christian Scriptures leave no doubt that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God.

Saint Paul was not apostle of Jesus. He was enemy to believers of Jesus. I think the faith got wrong way after him. And we cannot establish faith on uncertain interpretation from 1 John.

And Mohammed was not a messenger of God, but an impostor who has deceived billions. Mohammed denied that Jesus died on the cross and rose again, but made up an obvious lie that Jesus was replaced on the cross by somebody similar looking, and none of the people watching, including his own mother, noticed. You really believe that?

It is not certain Saint Paul is the writer. Even if he is but that make it distrustful. Saul was enemy of Jesus.

For 2000 years Christians have attributed Hebrews to Saint Paul. God would not allow his people to be deceived for that long, only for modern atheist scholars to suddenly discover the “truth.”

Qur’an is directly word of God. It is pure revelation. It is not like epistles and writings of uncertain writers. We can respect the exact words which came out through mouth of Jesus. Only four Gospels are very close to it. Gospels have revelation even it may not be pure. But other writings and letters are not supposed to establish faith on.

How do you know that? How do you know Mohammed didn’t simply make it up? The Bible never claims to be pure revelation spoken directly by God. The entire Bible, going back to Genesis, is the work of men inspired by God. Why would God suddenly change the way Scripture is revealed and dictate it directly in the Qur’an?

The writer and time of writing is not certain. And it is not pure revelation just comments.

Nobody doubts that 1 John was written by the Apostle John. And it is the writing of an Apostle chosen by Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[PluniaZ]

What does mean “His person begotten”? Was a person and God begot it later? Or God create a person and then begot? Why God required such thing? Is there any statement?

The Bible always uses “begotten” to refer to a father having a son or daughter. See biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=begot&qs_version=DRA This is why Jesus is called “begotten” by the Apostle John in John 1 and John 3 and 1 John 4. It means He is the Son of God the Father. Begotten is not the same as created. Created means God calls something into existence out of nothing. Begotten means the Father communicates his own Essence to the Son. As for why God the Father begets the Son, this goes back to my original post that God is Love. Love requires a relationship. The relationship between the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit shows us the true meaning of Love - each of them share their entire being with each other, without division or separation or keeping any part of their being for themselves alone. If only humans could learn to be so loving!

Holy Spirit was known before Jesus but why the Son was not known? Why do you not regard OT and Qur’an and NT? Is there anything else above these?

The Son was known. First as God’s Word - see Genesis 1 where God speaks and the world is created - i.e., the Word of God created the world. See also Proverbs 8, which I quoted before, where the Son is revealed as God’s Wisdom, which I’ll discuss below. And the Son of God is explicitly revealed in the Book of Wisdom Chapter 2:

12 Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life.
13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God.
14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts.
15 He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men’s, and his ways are very different.
16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.
17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be.
18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.
19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience.
20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words.
21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them.
22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.

It is mentioned Father is greater than all. That means God is greater than Son but not equal.

The Bible is explicit that the Son is equal to the Father. See John 5:18 - “Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he did not only break the sabbath, but also said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.”

Also Jesus always say Father had given me. That mean Jesus do not possess anything fron divine.

In John 5:26, Jesus says, “For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given the Son also to have life in himself.” Only God has life in himself. Every living creature is dependent on God for its life. Yet Jesus says the Son “also” has life in himself. This is another illustration of how the Son is begotten - begotten means that the Father has given his own essence (life in himself) to the Son. Both the Father and the Son have the same essence - life in himself.

People did not understand or misunderstood Jesus. Jesus explained what He meant by saying being son of God in verses 34-35(I said, Ye are gods…). And also Jews were used to kill or persecute prophets.

In this passage, Jesus refers to himself as “him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world.” Clearly Jesus is not only a man, because he had existence before he was sent into the world (in John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am.”). On top of this, Jesus says, “the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” What created being could God be in, and also be in God?

Jesus claimed to do what exactly Father ordered (If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.) Jesus did not say “I do works of us!”

In John 5:19, Jesus says, “19 Then Jesus answered, and said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you, the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.” Jesus says that whatever the Father does, the Son also does. No created being can do whatever the Father does. Only God can do the things that God does.

 

[PluniaZ]

I am not scholar of OT. That may be about souls. Souls were created before universe. Some moraly high people can remember the times before soul get in to body.

Perhaps you can interpret better?

Proverbs 8 is not referring to any soul. It says:

15 By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things,
16 By me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice.
17 I love them that love me: and they that in the morning early watch for me, shall find me.

That passage can only be referring to God. It goes on to say:

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.

This is not a creature - He was present in the beginning, before God made anything. That can only be referring to God. No creature is eternal.

The passage goes on:

I was with him forming all things:

Again, He was with God forming all things. Only God formed all things. And at the same time, there are two persons clearly indicated - Wisdom, and God. Christians have always understand that Wisdom here is the Word of God, Jesus Christ, who took on flesh and became man for our salvation. Everyone who believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have eternal life. Proverbs 8:35

 

[hasantas]

I am using philosophy (or more simply, reason) to understand Scripture. Just as you are. The doctrine of the Trinity is explicit in the Christian Scripture. See 1 John 5:7:

Of course you will say you don’t believe that passage is Scripture. But I don’t believe the Qur’an is Scripture. Which means what we really need to discuss is why the Christian Bible should be regarded as Scripture, and the Qur’an should not be.

You are being philosophical too, and raising some good philosophical points, which I am happy to discuss with you.

These are some interesting philosophical statements. You consistently say that God acts toward creation by speaking. Christians hold the same view. Let’s discuss the Word beneath your next quote.

More interesting philosophy here. You equate God’s Word with God’s power. Do you believe God is perfectly simple, i.e., does not have components or parts? If so, then God’s power is God. Now power is an essential attribute of a thing, but a word is necessarily the product or result of some action. How do you reconcile that the Word is God, if God is simple? If there is a word there is a speaker. So how do you understand God to be both speaker and word?

God is beyond our comprehension. Philosophers cannot even begin to understand God. What we know of God comes from His revelation to us, and He has given us the gift of reason to make sense of what He has revealed. The Christian Scriptures leave no doubt that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God.

And Mohammed was not a messenger of God, but an impostor who has deceived billions. Mohammed denied that Jesus died on the cross and rose again, but made up an obvious lie that Jesus was replaced on the cross by somebody similar looking, and none of the people watching, including his own mother, noticed. You really believe that?

For 2000 years Christians have attributed Hebrews to Saint Paul. God would not allow his people to be deceived for that long, only for modern atheist scholars to suddenly discover the “truth.”

How do you know that? How do you know Mohammed didn’t simply make it up? The Bible never claims to be pure revelation spoken directly by God. The entire Bible, going back to Genesis, is the work of men inspired by God. Why would God suddenly change the way Scripture is revealed and dictate it directly in the Qur’an?

Nobody doubts that 1 John was written by the Apostle John. And it is the writing of an Apostle chosen by Jesus, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Simply. You choice the easy way and just say Muhammad was a liar. But I proved my thoughts by which you believe in. I am glad at least you(all Christians) have a faith even you go wrong about attributes of God. You are not just people of God. All people were created by God.

I said Paul was enemy of Jesus. Is that not right? But you said Muhammad was an impostor. Even Satan could not claim that! I can point many wrongs in Saul’s disciplines. Could any one point a wrong in Qur’an? An impostor could say the most righteous words and ways? Even you abuse prophet Muhammad but by principles taught by Muhammad non of Muslim abuse Jesus and His religion. Muslims just notice some faults which were added into religion after Him.

There are Christians who interpret Bible in the way I do.

The fact God say through Qur’an do not injure Christianity and the conclusion does not change. If you just say Jesus was not God but He was sent by God and who believe in Jesus will have salvation that is more easy and certain. Because Jesus was a human and was sent with an authority which was given by God. That was very clear. Is there a need for God to come Himself? The way of God was/is not in that manner. God was used to send prophets. God did not sent another God even God did not sent an angel to preach people.

Satan come to people in the way which seems right. You say why God would allow His people to be deceived? There are many groups in Islam who were/are deceived by Satans. But the main course were always able to go on straight way. Muslims pray God to go on the staright way in Salat at least 40 times a day. You should not be so sure about being the unique true. Anyway…