W
whyeyeman
Guest
So why do you write this about Arius?
- Status
R
RedFan
Guest
To further the debate you began. Like you, I do not find the Trinity revealed in Scripture. I find the Trinity to be the upshot of the early church’s effort to understand its experience of the risen Christ. And I think the evolution of Chistianity from the Sermon on the Mount to the creeds of the Fourth century – from what was essentially a guide for moral actions preached to Jews to what is essentially a set of theological beliefs held by Gentiles – actually got this one right.
We need to study the church fathers carefully to see it, and put it in context. The march of Christianity outward from Palestine into the Greek world inevitably resulted in a cultural and philosophical disconnect, as tales told and texts written from a Jewish/messianic perspective were being interpreted by men imbued in a Greek philosophical tradition. Those few scattered passages in the emerging New Testament canon that could arguably be deemed binitarian or (far less frequently) trinitarian yielded no coherent picture of the Son’s participation in the Godhead, and two centuries of patristic thinking were occupied by the effort to weave that idea into a doctrine that was consistent with Scripture. It was thus natural that Greek philosophy, which had long sought to locate an ontological bridge between the One and the Many, between the realm of soul/spirit and the material world, would provide the looms for this tapestry. Particularly in Alexandria, Christianity was discovering its affinity with middle Platonism and using it as a lens through which to view Christian concepts, furnishing the early church fathers with a template for reworking Jewish monotheism into a trinitarianism that could successfully resist devolving into tritheism.
We need to study the church fathers carefully to see it, and put it in context. The march of Christianity outward from Palestine into the Greek world inevitably resulted in a cultural and philosophical disconnect, as tales told and texts written from a Jewish/messianic perspective were being interpreted by men imbued in a Greek philosophical tradition. Those few scattered passages in the emerging New Testament canon that could arguably be deemed binitarian or (far less frequently) trinitarian yielded no coherent picture of the Son’s participation in the Godhead, and two centuries of patristic thinking were occupied by the effort to weave that idea into a doctrine that was consistent with Scripture. It was thus natural that Greek philosophy, which had long sought to locate an ontological bridge between the One and the Many, between the realm of soul/spirit and the material world, would provide the looms for this tapestry. Particularly in Alexandria, Christianity was discovering its affinity with middle Platonism and using it as a lens through which to view Christian concepts, furnishing the early church fathers with a template for reworking Jewish monotheism into a trinitarianism that could successfully resist devolving into tritheism.
Last edited:
A
Autumn-Smoke
Guest
I agree with you: Jesus is not the Father. He one part of the God-Head. There is God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. We see all three of them together in Jesus’ baptism: God the Father–the voice from heaven; God the Son–being baptized; and God the Spirit–ascending as a dove from heaven. All 3 have the title of God. They have different functions though.
The greatest prayer of Israel, The Shema, uses a word to describe God as ONE.
"Hear Oh Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One.’’ The word used in Hebrew is “Echad”. It is most often used in the Old Testament to describe a Unity. So in the case of God, He is a Unity of 3–One Unit – One God in 3 persons. (like you have one egg, yet there are three parts: the yolk, the white, and the shell. Even if you separate them, they are all considered one part of an egg)
There is another word ‘Yachid’ which means ‘One and Only’. This word is Never used to describe God in the Old Testament.
(see this site as one example: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm)
So Jesus rightfully has the title of God. But he has a different function than that of the Father and that of the Holy Spirit. They are the One God. Jesus is God.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
One name indicated in the Gospel:
Matthew 28:19 “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
And in the Epistles:
1st 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.”
2 Peter 1:1: “Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
B
Benadam
Guest
Like us then, authority given to Him by God would require evidence from a source outside of Himself.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Matthew 28:19 does not say that all three of these people are coequal and coeternal.
1 John 5:7 is likely a manuscript error. It does not appear in manuscripts for hundreds of years and is only ever in Latin manuscripts.
2 Peter 1:1 does not say the Jesus is our God and Saviour. It says “Our God AND our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Two separate people.
1 John 5:7 is likely a manuscript error. It does not appear in manuscripts for hundreds of years and is only ever in Latin manuscripts.
2 Peter 1:1 does not say the Jesus is our God and Saviour. It says “Our God AND our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Two separate people.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Do you think this view is compatible with catholicism? That is really what the point of this thread was.
B
Benadam
Guest
Don’t forget the quality of the Glory Jesus is teaching about Himself. That is obviously natural for Him to have.
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.
So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
It doesn’t say “in your presence”. That is a misleading translation.
John 17:22 - “the glory that you have given me I have given to them”
Christians have been glorified with the same glory that Jesus was glorified. Christians weren’t preexistent, so I would have to assume this is not teaching that Jesus is preexistent.
John 17:22 - “the glory that you have given me I have given to them”
Christians have been glorified with the same glory that Jesus was glorified. Christians weren’t preexistent, so I would have to assume this is not teaching that Jesus is preexistent.
B
Benadam
Guest
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
If it isn’t teaching Jesus preexisted what does it mean when He says " I had with you before the world ever was"
If it isn’t teaching Jesus preexisted what does it mean when He says " I had with you before the world ever was"
B
Benadam
Guest
God’s glory when Jesus transfigure and Moses and Elijah appeared Have you seen Christians get this Glory?
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white.
Luke say’s it is God’s Glory
Luke 9:30-32
30 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. 31 They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake,[a] they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.
Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white.
Luke say’s it is God’s Glory
Luke 9:30-32
30 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. 31 They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake,[a] they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
That he had glory with the father before the foundation of the world. God always knew he would glorify the world through his son.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm… so, let’s see if I’ve got this straight:
- you point to Paul’s assertion that Jesus is made “Lord and Messiah”, and have an issue with that, vis-a-vis Jesus’ divinity
- but, you will not accept that Scriptural instances of ‘Lord’ mean Lord
- and, you will not accept that Scriptural instances of ‘Messiah’ mean Messiah
- therefore, any instances of “Lord” and “Messiah” are, by your definition, incapable of supporting the “Lord and Messiah” quote
B
Benadam
Guest
So Jesus was talkingt about 'potential Glory not Glory He really had. You have to know that’s a stretch. No reason to believe that. Especially considering that truth that is plainly revealed in Sacred Scr1pture dismissed for a revelation that is naturaL for man to come to know
V
Vico
Guest
Don’t have time to post more on it now, but there are only five manuscripts dating from the 2nd to the 7th century that contain the fifth chapter of 1 John (1). No papyrus has it and some Greek manuscripts cited by 16-17 c. editors are no longer extant, but agree with the Latin.
(1) Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.
Deuteronomy 6
Exodus 17
Matthew 4
Last edited:
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Well, he says in the very same prayer that he has given this verse same glory to his disciples.
B
Benadam
Guest
That makes sense. If it be the Glory of God revealed when Jesus transfigured. That God’s Glory would need to be given by God through a God/Man to other men. Since that kind of Glory transfigures man into the perfection of the image and likeness we share with Him,
Last edited:
R
RedFan
Guest
I do. One’s belief in the Trinity suffices, regardless of how it is derived.
R
RedFan
Guest
I believe Jesus to be divine. And I believe that Peter’s declaration of Jesus being made “Lord and Messiah” offers ZERO proof of that proposition.
I accept EVERY Scriptural instance of “Lord” meaning either God, or a person with dominion over others – depending on the context.
I accept EVERY Scriptural instance of “Messiah” meaning Messiah.
Not so. Not so on TWO levels. First, the “therefore” implies that what precedes the word logically entails what follows it – and as a matter of pure logic, it doesn’t, nor have I ever claimed that it does. Second, lots of OT instances of “Lord” (but none of “Messiah”) could support Peter’s declaration IF he meant it as a declaration of divinity. We haven’t had the discussion with him, so we don’t know for sure – but let’s be clear on how the Jews who were converted that day would have understood his words. God made him Lord? Perhaps so; lordship can be granted or inherited. But God made him God? The very concept would have been almost unintelligible to any Jew!
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Perhaps not on its own, but a case might be made that Jesus saw himself as BOTH Lord and Messiah and continually implied that in his teaching and by his actions, contrary to the Jews who expected a merely human Messiah.
All of Jesus’ words in this context are an insistence on his part that as Messiah, he is not to be considered merely human.
I don’t think (but I might be wrong on this) Jesus ever refers to himself as Messiah or Christ until his trial before the Sanhedrin. He does, however, refer to himself by the circumlocution ‘Son of Man,’ and less frequently ‘Son of God.’
What is interesting is that the Son of Man in Daniel will ‘come on the clouds of heaven’ and sits on the throne at the right hand of power. Both of these are divine designations for the Jews, which is why they charged Jesus with blasphemy when he spoke those words at his trial. And he did not deny the charge of blasphemy.
So Peter’s words that Jesus is both Lord and Messiah is a realization that Jesus was not a merely human Messiah, otherwise Peter would not need to stipulate “Lord and…,” Messiah was its own honorific. This was clearly to come down on one side of the long debated Jewish notion that the Messiah might not merely be the human Son of David – as the Scribes and Pharisees contended – but more than that as implied by the added designation Lord, the Old Testament placeholder for Yahweh.
This was Jesus’ point in his dispute with the Pharisees when he said David himself called the Christ his Lord.
As Brant Pitre points out, many of the Gospel narratives are about Jesus trying both to reveal his identity as Messiah and Lord (God) to those properly disposed, but also to conceal it from his opponents the Jewish leaders and Romans. Revealing that he was the Messiah would get him killed by the Romans for sedition and revealing that he, a human being, is God would get him executed by the Sanhedrin for blasphemy.
Notice that when Pilate heard that Jesus’ Kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, he found Jesus, even if he were the Jewish Messiah (King), innocent of the charge of sedition. The Jewish leaders kept pushing the blasphemy angle until they succeeded in having him crucified.
So for the three years of his ministry, Jesus walked a fine line between revealing and concealing his true identity – God AND Messiah. The Gospel narratives, read in that light, are very revealing, especially when and where Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I Am?” I little divine humour.
This is basically what Peter is acknowledging – that Jesus claimed to be both Messiah and Lord (God) at his trial and was executed for making that claim. And now Peter is stating clearly that Jesus was indeed, both Messiah and Lord.
Last edited:
- Status