Trinity Issues

[Valke2]

Thank you!

As for the Christology you have mentioned, this is how I understand it:

Jesus Christ had two wills, a divine (which he shared with the father) and a human, since he was fully human and fully divine. This is different to fallen man, who each also have two wills that are in opposition to one another (let’s call them the “good” will and the “bad” will). Jesus only has the good human will. In the passage of John that you mentioned, Jesus is talking about adhering his human will to the father’s divine will. I think he does this because for Christians, Jesus is the be all and end all of humans. We need to follow the example of Jesus in everything that we do, including adhering our own will to the will of God. And so during the life of Jesus, he did several things such that Christians could follow his example. An example of this is when Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. Of course Jesus did not need to be baptised, but he did this for two reasons (as far as I know): to institute the Sacrament itself, and for us to follow his example.

Does that make any sense?

I’ve just had another idea, so I might expand a bit. Let’s compare Jesus (maybe Mary too - I’m not sure of whether or not she possessed two wills like a fallen man, I think she may have only had one) to Adam and Eve. Before they were fallen, they would have only had one will - the good will. Yet somehow they committed Original Sin. And so surely, this is an example of not adhering one’s will to the will of God.

You might find this interesting, but I admit I have not read through all of it yet - it’s lunch time

I like your Adam and Eve analogy. I think that on the subject of Trinity, no matter how concisely it can be explained, it takes faith to accept the explanation, in part because one has to agree with a certain interpetation of specific verses.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You may want to change the question to " Why was Arianism dismiss by the Catholic Church?" Or " A review of the first Ecumenical Council of Nicaea?" these may get you a better answer.

Or search the web for such

 

[Ghosty]

I’ve just had another idea, so I might expand a bit. Let’s compare Jesus (maybe Mary too - I’m not sure of whether or not she possessed two wills like a fallen man, I think she may have only had one) to Adam and Eve. Before they were fallen, they would have only had one will - the good will. Yet somehow they committed Original Sin. And so surely, this is an example of not adhering one’s will to the will of God.

This actually fits the understanding of the Fall I’ve read by certain Rabbis, regarding the yetzer hara (bad inclination) and yetzer hatov (good inclination).

Incidently, Paul also discusses the yetzer hara and yetzer hatov in Greek terms in a number of his letters when he talks about “my flesh wants what I do not want”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

…I guess my position would be something akin to the findings of the “Jesus Seminar” , in that I believe Jesus existed but that the majority of the stories and quotations attributed to him are not reliable.

So, like the Jesus Seminar you approach the texts w/ a pre-existant bias against the supernatural and eschatological?

 

[Valke2]

So, like the Jesus Seminar you approach the texts w/ a pre-existant bias against the supernatural and eschatological?

I approach the texts with a pre-existant bias against the belief that Jesus was Divine. Yes.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I approach the texts with a pre-existant bias against the belief that Jesus was Divine. Yes.

However that does not mean He never claimed Divinity. The Jesus Seminar manifestly denies He claimed such–again, by their pre-existeant bias.

 

[Valke2]

However that does not mean He never claimed Divinity. The Jesus Seminar manifestly denies He claimed such–again, by their pre-existeant bias.

That may be. I don’t know why they claim that (or if they claim that). However, it is certainly odd that Jesus did not shout out his claim of Godship to the masses. And it is odder that Jews have been blamed for killing God when it is clear that Jesus did not really announce that he was God to the Jews, even if you believe he disclosed this to his disciples.

IF the question is, do I view the Gospels as reliable evidence that Jesus claimed to be God, I’d have to say I’m on the fence.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

… However, it is certainly odd that Jesus did not shout out his claim of Godship to the masses. And it is odder that Jews have been blamed for killing God when it is clear that Jesus did not really announce that he was God to the Jews, even if you believe he disclosed this to his disciples.

IF the question is, do I view the Gospels as reliable evidence that Jesus claimed to be God, I’d have to say I’m on the fence.

There it is John 8:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am”

“Truly, truly” (Amen, amen–or, “It is so, it is so” or “It’s a fact, it’s a fact”)

He does it in the Temple, before everybody. He’s almost killed then and there, being stoned by all the stones availible from the on-going construction.

He preceeds that declaration refering to His signs (miracles) and refering to His derived authority–and also refering to only those who are ACTUALLY receptive to the Father will recognize Him for who he is. In John 6, the “bread of life” discourse he repeatedly underscored His position, that He literally came down from Heaven (even though born from a woman) and He is literally the 'bread of life" (though He doesn’t look like bread)–with “truly,truly” underscoring these claims repeatedly. And again, only those who discern with spirit (NOT symbolicaly–see Romans 8) and not “flesh” (wordly standards) can see this.

"Aut deus homo malus"

 

[Valke2]

There it is John 8:58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am”

“Truly, truly” (Amen, amen–or, “It is so, it is so” or “It’s a fact, it’s a fact”)

He does it in the Temple, before everybody. He’s almost killed then and there, being stoned by all the stones availible from the on-going construction.

He preceeds that declaration refering to His signs (miracles) and refering to His derived authority–and also refering to only those who are ACTUALLY receptive to the Father will recognize Him for who he is. In John 6, the “bread of life” discourse he repeatedly underscored His position, that He literally came down from Heaven (even though born from a woman) and He is literally the 'bread of life" (though He doesn’t look like bread)–with “truly,truly” underscoring these claims repeatedly. And again, only those who discern with spirit (NOT symbolicaly–see Romans 8) and not “flesh” (wordly standards) can see this.

"Aut deus homo malus"

The bread of life speech is not given to the masses, is it? Truly, truly, … that’s one out of 4 gospels and I’d bet it is from the latter in time gospels.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The bread of life speech is not given to the masses, is it? Truly, truly, … that’s one out of 4 gospels and I’d bet it is from the latter in time gospels.

It begins, John 6:30 in the synagogue at Capernaum–not just his followers, not just the apostles, but anybody who was interested it what He had to say–Christianity, like Judaism, is an* exoteric* faith–pubic revelation, public texts. We tought in secret only under intense persecution (and sometimes still do under the same conditions).

Anyway, the Bread of Life discourse occurs after the miracle of the multiplication of bread and fishes–the only miracle (“Sign” in John) that is recounted in all four gospels. Jesus gets big crowd as a result of it–which He comments on.

The result of His pronouncement?–The first recorded schism. Many of his followers leave Him, then and there. Undoubtedly, most of the interested listeners were really turned off as well–let alone the synagogue officials.

Now, the dating of the gospels is tricky at best. John is usually, even by believing scholars, dated as the last written–with usual composition dates circa 90-100 AD.

However, there an increasing contingent who argues for earlier composition–including JAT Robinson in his The Priority of John

Consider, John repeatedly refers to places in Judea, especially Jerusalem in the context of being there at the time of the writing–which makes a post 70 AD composition near impossible–because all of those places were destroyd by the revolt of 70-73 AD

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

…Now, in Peter Kreeft’s A Moral Absolutist Refutes Relativism, people can be divided into 4 categories:

1. Non sages–the great majority of us
2. Sages–people who knock your socks off in their perceptions about the world, humanity, &reality. Examples pretty universaly agreed upon are Socrates, Confucious, Buddha–and of course, Jesus
3. Non sages who claim they are God–not just Shirley MacClaine new-age types, but people who really think they are the creator of all being; i.e. insane people. Their utternaces are trite, loopy, yet predicatable
4. Sages (actually Sage) who claim they are God (guess who?)

I got the reference wrong, it’s in **another **Kreeft book (which happens to be on my bookshelf next to the one I cited) The actual refennce is Between Heaven and Hell: amazon.com/Between-Heaven-Hell-Peter-Kreeft/dp/0877843899/sr=8-6/qid=1168557796/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/104-5832727-0043957?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[mich2]

First, my disclaimer. I am assuming that this is the place to challegne Catholic beliefs. I mean you can’t have apologetics without someone criticizing the religion. If this is not the purpose of this board, I apologize.

As a Jew, the Trinity and the Incarnation are probably the two aspects of Christian faith that I disagree with most strongly. “Faith will not force intellect to believe something which leads to a contradiction.”(Hasdai Crescas).

The three-in-one aspect of the Trnity has been said to correspond to three divine attributes: power, wisdom and goodness. Kabbalistic Jews also viewed God as making Himself accessible to us through various stages, called sefirot (Crown, Wisdom, Understanding, etc…) These could easily be seen as attributes by those who had not studied kabbalah extensively.

Rambam had no patience for the many attirbutes, one God views. “Those who believe that God is One, and that He has many atributes, declare the unity with their lips, and assume plurality in their thoughts. This is like the doctrine of the Christians, who say that He is one and He is three, and that the three are one.”

1. If the Trinity corresponds to God’s attributes, does it make sense to limite Him to only three? Nachmanides, in debating Pablo Christiani, argured that there must be a Quinternity, to include the attribute of Life, and the substance of the Being Himself who possesses these attributes.
2. If both Father and Son are God, then I assume that they share the same will. But this seems to be contrary to how Christians interpet Psalm 110. (The Lord [father] said unto my lord [the son], Sit at my right hand.)
   Additionally in the Gospe of John, Jesus says “I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.” Does this mean that the father and son have two wills, with one will wanting what the other will does not?

Thanks.

If we ask what view did 1st century jews held concerning the Messiah? Does the New Testament convey the correct image, or is it distorted? We find in the scriptures the title Son of God as an entity equal to the Father (and therefore divine).

**Jn. 5:18-22. " . . . the jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making himself equal with God." **

Here, the pharasees, the doctors of the Law, seem to understand the term Son of God as being someone (or something) equal with God.

(John 10:30). “I and the Father are one.”
31. “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,”
32. “but Jesus said to them, I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you 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 a God.” (John 10:31-33)

This unity was taken as being an equality with God, the reason being why the Jews immediately wanted to stone Him.

There is also John’s Logos, which became flesh. The word is also equal to God according to John.

**(John 1:1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God .
**
Were such concepts in existence among the jews at all during the time of Jesus, or was this just a new concept brought forth by the authors of the scriptures?

I will quote just two jewish authors, Philo and Josephus, contempory to the time or close to the apostles. From these two, the Christian concept of the divinity of Jesus believed by the early christians can be seen as not being a new teaching, but was a theology that seemed to have already existed.

**Philo of Alexandria - GENESIS, BOOK II

1. (Gen. ix. 6) Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another god,
   “in the image of God He made man” and not “in His own image” ?
   Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing
   mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the
   universe but (only) in that of the second god, who is his Logos. >>**

Some who have studied Philo and the Logos doctrine claim that Philo I did not say he believed in the LOGOS as a separate god, necessarily. Rather, that Philo conceived of the LOGOS as a manifestation of God, who could and did appear angelomorphically.

Josephus, in the discourse on Hadies wrote:

** “For all men, the just as well as the unjust, shall be brought before God the word: for to him hath the Father committed all judgment : and he, in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as Judge, whom we call Christ”**

Here the Logos is identified as the Son and Messiah as well as God Himself.

Andre

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That may be. I don’t know why they claim that (or if they claim that). However, it is certainly odd that Jesus did not shout out his claim of Godship to the masses. And it is odder that Jews have been blamed for killing God when it is clear that Jesus did not really announce that he was God to the Jews, even if you believe he disclosed this to his disciples.

IF the question is, do I view the Gospels as reliable evidence that Jesus claimed to be God, I’d have to say I’m on the fence.

Bearing in mind my previous post I ask you to consider 1)by coming through the Pharisees Jesus would have lost the direct display of teaching a passive peasant the path to God 2) Jesus’ death sentence was for being accused of claiming to be God/King of the Jews. I suspect had Jesus revealed his self from the pulpit it would have solidified Judaism, separating the Jews further from the gentiles, and been very poorly received by the Romains who were in charge and not know as a kind forgiving people. -just thoughts

 

[Valke2]

If we ask what view did 1st century jews held concerning the Messiah? Does the New Testament convey the correct image, or is it distorted? We find in the scriptures the title Son of God as an entity equal to the Father (and therefore divine). …

**
Here, the pharasees, the doctors of the Law, seem to understand the term Son of God as being someone (or something) equal with God.
**

Except that son of God was not understood by first century jews as describing someone as divine. I’ll post later where else in the Tanach the term was used and what it meant to Jews.

 

[teachccd]

60 20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” 66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. 67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” 71 He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.

John 6: 60-70

You either believe or you walk away…

Just thought I’d say it again…

 

[clmowry]

You can find other verses in the Tanach which support the royal we language used by God. Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18.

Does anyone know if it was typical grammer for the kings at the time of the compostion to refer to themselves as “We” or “Us”?

Chuck