The trinity in the Gospels

[Benadam]

One thing to remember. Only Heaven can reveal the Incarnation. That was what tested Joseph as a just man. He passed the test and was given a revelation from heaven. Faith in Jesus as God Incarnate is a grace that must be received. True then true now.

 

[RedFan]

Jesus did things that only the Jewish God could do: forgive sins

It is reported in the gospels that Jesus declared sinners’ sins forgiven. That could mean He was divine, or it could mean He was given by God the same power that he later passed on to the apostles (John 20:23). But the later verse is clear evidence that forgiveness of sins is a delegable power. It is therefore not necessarily proof of divinity.

 

[HarryStotle]

It is reported in the gospels that Jesus declared sinners’ sins forgiven. That could mean He was divine, or it could mean He was given by God the same power that he later passed on to the apostles (John 20:23). But the later verse is clear evidence that forgiveness of sins is a delegable power. It is therefore not necessarily proof of divinity.

But the power to forgive sins was not delegated until after Jesus delegated that power. In the Old Testament, only God could forgive sins. The priest would offer sacrifices asking God to forgive the sins of those who brought in their offerings. The priests did not and could not forgive sins.

For Jesus to unilaterally claim that power meant to his Jewish listeners that he had assumed a power reserved for God alone. It is because Jesus is God that he could delegate that power to the Church, but it wasn’t delegable in the Mosaic or Davidic covenants, prior to Jesus having delegated the power to the Apostles. That Jesus delegated the power to his Apostles does indicate his divinity. He didn’t act in the name of God, he did so in his own name and under his own authority.

 

[whyeyeman]

Jesus did things that only the Jewish God could do: forgive sins, accept worship. Rising from the dead was pretty cool too

• Jesus gave his disciples the power to forgive sin
• “Proskuneo” is the word applied to Jesus as “worship”, and is also applied to King David and the disciples among others.
• Lazarus raised from the dead.

 

[RedFan]

Matt. 28:18 has Jesus saying ““All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” It wasn’t his automatically by virtue of his divine status – else it wouldn’t have been “given” to him.

 

[PaladinSword]

Nope that is totally JW theology.

Incorrect.

Missing Generation between father and son.

God from God.

 

[HarryStotle]

Matt. 28:18 has Jesus saying ““All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” It wasn’t his automatically by virtue of his divine status – else it wouldn’t have been “given” to him.

Not sure that is true.

It would depend when and under what circumstances the being “given” occurred and precisely what the “been given” means.

If Jesus, the Word of God, through whom all things came to be was “given” all authority as a function of bringing all things to be, then the authority was given at the coming into being of heaven and earth. I don’t think Jesus specified when he was given all authority.

Besides if that authority had to “be given” at some temporal time the implications lead perilously close to Arianism, no?

 

[PaladinSword]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Benadam]

It wss His in the beginning. Unless you believe He is part human part God.
John 17 5

And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Did Jesus always have the authority?

 

[HarryStotle]

• “Proskuneo” is the word applied to Jesus as “worship”, and is also applied to King David and the disciples among others.

This is playing fast and loose with Biblical translations. Merely because some translators use the Greek word εχηγεομαι (proskuneo) for worship in the passage you cited, does not mean that Mark or Matthew use it in the same sense.

The Catholic Church uses ‘worship’ rather loosely in some documents, but also carefully distinguishes between latria, dulia and hyperdulia where doctrine is defined.

We need to look for consistency, since ‘worship’ has multiple meanings. The best way is to assess how the same writer consistently uses the word, not how different authors across great spans of time and translated by different translators might use the word in question within vastly different contexts.

Matthew, for example, uses it in the passage of the calming of the storm.

Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came toward Jesus. But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him, saying to him, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped (εχηγεομαι) him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matt 14:29-33)

Notice that they “worshiped him” meaning Jesus. This is, unlike your passage with David where God is worshiped but David is blessed by the people.

Even more crucial is that in the third temptation of Jesus, in Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 4, Jesus says to Satan, ‘Worship (εχηγεομαι) the Lord your God, and serve ONLY him.’ So Matthew is using ‘worship’ as an action due to God alone. It could even be Matthew’s intention to connect the two instances of worship to show that Jesus was worshiped as God. In particular, since he even adds “…saying, “Truly you are the Son of God…” to show that Jesus is being recognized by the disciples as deserving their worship.

The crucial point is that Jesus lets the disciples “worship” him using that same Greek word εχηγεομαι and does NOT correct them, as he corrected Satan. He didn’t say, “Hey fellas, you shouldn’t worship me, you should worship (εχηγεομαι) the Lord your God, and serve ONLY him,” in the same way he reprimanded Satan.

Jesus is implicitly assuming divinity by doing and saying what he did.

 

[Gorgias]

Or is it them that is walking?

Or both…

See scripture has a lot of meaning in how it’s written that is not immediately apparent.

No, it’s God doing the walking. The Greek uses a participle that means third person singular, not third person plural. So, there’s “lots of meaning” only if you presume that the lack of expressiveness of English is mirrored in the original language.

How is he walking if he doesn’t have a body?

It’s called “allegory”, or “anthropomorphism”.

 

[RedFan]

Authority given is authority not possessed by the recipient prior to the giving. I don’t see any other reasonable way to interpret “given.”. (Luke 10:19 would be an example.) To posit eternal possession of the authority is not the normal way one interprets “given” – and I see no reason to deviate from the ordinary meaning of the word just because it would fit in nicely with our conception of the divinity of Christ.

Matthew’s meaning may be untidy for us Trinitarians, but his meaning should be distilled from his words in the first instance, not from some torturing of the language fueled by confirmation bias.

 

[HarryStotle]

Authority given is authority not possessed by the recipient prior to the giving. I don’t see any other reasonable way to interpret “given.”. (Luke 10:19 would be an example.) To posit eternal possession of the authority is not the normal way one interprets “given” – and I see no reason to deviate from the ordinary meaning of the word just because it would fit in nicely with our conception of the divinity of Christ.

Matthew’s meaning may be untidy for us Trinitarians, but his meaning should be distilled from his words in the first instance, not from some torturing of the language fueled by confirmation bias.

No need to torture the language.

Was Jesus “given” a human body as a function of his becoming human? How did he receive that body?

I have no idea, do you?

Perhaps what Matthew was talking about is that Jesus, as a fully divine but fully human being, was “given” all authority within the backdrop of his becoming human?

 

[RedFan]

Why do you assume that Matthew believed Jesus to be “fully divine?”

 

[HarryStotle]

Matthew was a tax collector. He knew stuff.

 

[RedFan]

Interesting. I wonder if you have a theory on this one:

Peter proclaimed of Jesus at Pentecost that “God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Peter distinguished what was given to Christ, and what Christ always possessed by virtue of being divine. If God made him Lord, doesn’t that suggest he was not Lord to begin with, and received power and glory only later as a reward for his obedience to the Father’s will?

The fifty third chapter of Isaiah implies the same thing: God allotted him “a portion with the great” for agreeing to die for our sins. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians likewise teaches that “he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name.” The Letter to the Hebrews is even more explicit, suggesting that Christ endured the cross “for the sake of the joy that was set before him,” and now “has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.” And that is where Peter’s speech at Pentecost places him, “exalted at the right hand of God.”

This notion of God exalting Christ as a reward is as troublesome to us Trinitarians as God giving him authority. After all, if he was truly God, he could not have been made Lord; that station would already have been his automatically, and not a reward for sacrifice.

So I guess my question is, are tax collectors any smarter than fishermen?

 

[PaladinSword]

The father always generates the son.

Denying any of the person’s of the trinity as God would invalidate God as God.

His nature as God has to be trinity.

And Jesus is always fully human and fully divine.

If he wasn’t the son… the father wouldn’t be the father either… because of the logos.

Or something like that.

I am putting myself at risk of heresy even talking about it…

I lack a lot of the ability to describe it but I still kinda understand it.

Why are you guys keep asking these things?

That is not even OPs intention of the thread.

He is concerned with the development of doctrine and how it is historically revealed… not necessarily if Trinitarian theology is real though a lot of his posts seem to undermine that idea from his language.

Why are we here?

There are better places to study this.

I am going to fall into heresy my self if I’m not careful here by accident.

Edit: and he is primarily concerned with the synoptic gospels.

Second edit:
And implying any idea that Jesus is not Lord at any point falls into Arian or JW Mormon whatever territory…

It is not Catholic…

I doubt it would even be Gnostic but not sure.

Third edit:

Does eternity have a beginning or end?

 

[Benadam]

But did He get it from a source outside of Himself? If not, I would think the Father is eternally giving His authority to the Son just as the Father is eternally generating the Son

Edit: Paladin Sword beat me to it:slightly_smiling_face:

 

[RedFan]

But did He get it from a source outside of Himself? If not, I would think the Father is eternally giving His authority to the Son just as the Father is eternally generating the Son

If He did not “get it from a source outside of Himself,” then He gave it to Himself. That is different from the Father “eternally giving His authority to the Son.” If you see no difference, you must also see no distinction between Father and Son – and you adopt the heresy of Sabellius in your zeal to avoid the heresy of Arius.