N
Noreb
Guest
There were others in the Bible called saviors, 2Kings 13:5 (KJV) for example. Please read also 1Co 8:5 and 6.
Why is "God" interchangeable for "God the Father", but not for the Son or the Holy Spirit?
- Status
N
Noreb
Guest
Please read 1Co 8:5,6. It makes it very clear
N
Noreb
Guest
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
I actually have quite a bit of “faith” in the Church God/Jesus/Holy Spirit established for us here on earth so I think I’ll roll that way… Without “faith” we have nothing.
SD
C
ckonrad
Guest
It sounds like you are getting into the trap of thinking you can understand the trinity, it is one of those things that the human mind cant wrap itself around it is just accepted on faith. However if you need to do what you are doing for your own psychological needs or if you enjoy it then go for it, but i think you are setting yourself up for frustration. I wish i had my catechism and my catholic study bible with me at the moment to make some helpful qoutes for you. However from memory the first few verses of the gospel of John are very helpful in this regard, if you recall that e.g “the word was with God in the begining and the word was God”Just in case you didnt understand what I meant by this small table, I’ll add a bit more explanation.
You see, not long ago I was reading from the Good News Bible. What I noticed near the front was some sort of reflection question. I can’t remember exactly what the question was about, but this is how it referred to the Trinity: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I’m sure it wasn’t meant to be fully theologically correct, but it does emphasise what I mean.
In the Bible, the Persons that make up the Blessed Trinity are basically known by those terms arent they (God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit). The GNB was right in that regard. It is the Church, that has developed over time the Trinitarian formulae more sophisticatedly.
But, how strange would this sound to a non-Christian like Muslims. The bible basically refers to our God as “God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit” **ie. Nature, Person, Person **). No wonder there are so many interpretations of the Bible.
N
Noreb
Guest
It is good to have faith,however in order to receive eternal life Jesus said that knowledge was also necessary.( John 17:3)
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
Well I would like to think I have some of that too, but evidently not enough to undestand what your hidden agenda is.
. Before I go jumping to conclusions how about you clear it up a little.SD
M
MH84
Guest
**Please everyone, answer what is being pointed out in the first three posts! Pretty much all of you are just talking about whether Jesus is God or not. That is not really what this thread is about.
Please read the earliest posts. If you are feeling a bit lazy answer me these please directly:**
Nature:_______God________God____________God
The above shows that the Father is referred to by His Nature (or what He is), but the Son and the Holy Spirit are referred to by who they are (as opposed to what they are).
Please read the earliest posts. If you are feeling a bit lazy answer me these please directly:**
- If the authors really knew that God is Trinitarian, why did they call the Father by His Nature (God), but Jesus and the Holy Spirit by their Personhoods (Son and Holy Spirit)?
Nature:_______God________God____________God
The above shows that the Father is referred to by His Nature (or what He is), but the Son and the Holy Spirit are referred to by who they are (as opposed to what they are).
- Doesnt the term, “Son of God” seem to imply that Jesus is separate from God? I say this because the term is not referring to the Personhood (who He is) of God, but His nature (what He is) instead, or even both His nature and His Personhood. If the authors of the NT knew Jesus was equal to or the same as God, why didnt they call Jesus, “The Son of the Eternal Father” or something like that? Instead, it seems like they thought God was a separate being, and that Jesus was the Son of that Being.
M
MH84
Guest
Noreb, this bible verse seems to be supporting what I have been trying to say. This is what St. Paul says here:
4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), **6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came **and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
As a Catholic, this is testing me. These verses are saying that the Father is the only God, while Jesus is the only Lord. There are two points to note here:
- The Holy Spirit was not in the equation. Paul doesnt say that He is also God or Lord.
- The Father is only called God. The title “Lord” seems to be lower, because there is no title equal with God is there? Also, I hope Im not saying this out of context, but read Acts 2:36.
St. Peter says that Jesus was made Lord by God. This tells me that “Lord” is not equal to “God”.
Someone answer this directly please.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
Genesis 1:26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Interpreted by Christianity as a reference to the Trinity, not the Royal “We.”
The entire Prologue of John-, starting with “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
"All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be. " Only God can create. (And John ties in the Prologue with the beginning of Genesis.)
“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side has revealed him.” The Word was God, the only Son is God, He is at the Father’s side–not above the Father, or below the Father, but on the same plane as the Father–at his side.
John 18:4-8 "Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him went out and said to them ‘Whom are you looking for?’ They answered him ‘Jesus the Nazorean’. He said to them ‘I AM’. …When he said to them ‘I AM’ they turned away and fell to the ground. So again he asked them ‘Whom are you looking for?’ They said ‘Jesus the Nazorean’. Jesus answered ‘I told you that I AM’ "… Jesus claims to be God ( I AM) and that claim was so powerful that they could not look upon him and it knocked them off their feet.
Jesus told the disciples to baptize “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”–not in the Names of them. One Name, One God, three Persons–the Trinity.
Jesus said “The Father and I are one” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father”.
I am no biblical scholar or apologist, but it seems clear to me that Jesus claimed to be God, and that John makes that claim also. There are many other texts also, and I think you have not taken them fully into consideration and are too narrow in your focus. The Scriptures have to be read as a whole, and I believe you know that, and know the Scriptures pretty well. So I cannot understand why you are having a problem with this.
The entire Prologue of John-, starting with “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
"All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be. " Only God can create. (And John ties in the Prologue with the beginning of Genesis.)
“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side has revealed him.” The Word was God, the only Son is God, He is at the Father’s side–not above the Father, or below the Father, but on the same plane as the Father–at his side.
John 18:4-8 "Jesus, knowing everything that was going to happen to him went out and said to them ‘Whom are you looking for?’ They answered him ‘Jesus the Nazorean’. He said to them ‘I AM’. …When he said to them ‘I AM’ they turned away and fell to the ground. So again he asked them ‘Whom are you looking for?’ They said ‘Jesus the Nazorean’. Jesus answered ‘I told you that I AM’ "… Jesus claims to be God ( I AM) and that claim was so powerful that they could not look upon him and it knocked them off their feet.
Jesus told the disciples to baptize “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”–not in the Names of them. One Name, One God, three Persons–the Trinity.
Jesus said “The Father and I are one” and “He who has seen me has seen the Father”.
I am no biblical scholar or apologist, but it seems clear to me that Jesus claimed to be God, and that John makes that claim also. There are many other texts also, and I think you have not taken them fully into consideration and are too narrow in your focus. The Scriptures have to be read as a whole, and I believe you know that, and know the Scriptures pretty well. So I cannot understand why you are having a problem with this.
M
MH84
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am quite aware of those scripture verses you have used. A point I want to make now, is in relation to your comment which objectively said is a fair one.
The thing is, mostly when I have posted questions like the ones in this thread, people say something similar: Read in context etc etc. The problem with this advice is that firstly, people are generally telling me to read in the same “context” they are as if theirs is the right one.
Secondly, they give me quotes like John 1:1, and John 10:30 as an indirect response to my questions. The problem is that when one does this (as I have done too when trying to argue a point) is that they are doing the same things ie giving me some quotes with a narrow view. They are bringing up points and trying to make it fit into their own beliefs. I see a lot of this going on here. The only positive that comes out from this is that at least they are trying to defend the teachings of the Church, which is good. But it does hinder the search for the truth.
I have read these quotes, and yes they do provide some evidence into the opinions of the early Christians. However, other Christians don’t see the same things in the Scriptures as we do. They often bring up quite plausible arguments (in my view) to the seemingly iron clad quotes of Scripture to prove the Apostles belief in the Blessed Trinity.
CONT.
M
MH84
Guest
I think there are certain passages in Scripture which show that while the early Christians adored the Lord Jesus, they did not see Him as Co-equal. Again Im not saying that there is no Blessed Trinity, nor am I saying that the Chuch is wrong. However, I am in a point of my faith where I want to see it for myself.
This thread is not for arguing the existence of the Blessed Trinity or the divinity of Christ. In this thread, I would like direct responses to the questions I have asked. Most of the questions have come form myself, not from other people or whatever, although their opinions may have played a part in my questions.
I am quite sure that the following question, for instance, is all my own so to speak.
I admit here that I think its a very good question, and one that I have wanted to know the answer to for a long time. I’ll post it again:
This greeting is what the priest may start Mass with, its taken from one of the letters of St. Paul I think.
Thus, maybe he thought God was the God even of Jesus. Jesus even talks about His “Father” being “God” as well doesnt He? In John 17:3,
Does someone have an answer to this? Please dont go all around the question by bringing up John 1:1 etc. We just can’t say that one has to read the Bible here (eg. John 1:1) in this manner, but read these other passages in another manner (eg. John 17:3). Because otherwise aren’t we just putting our own preconceievd opinions into the Bible? I think that one can get the Bible to read in any way they want if they have certain passages (eg. John 1:1) that the other verses “must” be read in light of.
This thread is not for arguing the existence of the Blessed Trinity or the divinity of Christ. In this thread, I would like direct responses to the questions I have asked. Most of the questions have come form myself, not from other people or whatever, although their opinions may have played a part in my questions.
I am quite sure that the following question, for instance, is all my own so to speak.
I admit here that I think its a very good question, and one that I have wanted to know the answer to for a long time. I’ll post it again:This greeting is what the priest may start Mass with, its taken from one of the letters of St. Paul I think.
Read it carefully. See, there is no mention of “God the Father” or “Father”; only “God”. But hang on a minute. All of the Persons in the Trinity are God aren’t they? Or did St. Paul think otherwise? Just by looking at this passage alone, one can see that “God” is distinguished from the “Son” and the “Holy Spirit”. Why would Paul address one Person by His nature, and the other two by their Personhoods? Just maybe, he thought he wasn’t doing that. Maybe he thought, that God was a distinct Person from the Son and the Holy Spirit! Maybe He thought God was God. Not “God the Father” in a Trinity, but perhaps “God, the Father” (notice the comma). IOW, God was the only God, but still also the Father of Jesus.
Thus, maybe he thought God was the God even of Jesus. Jesus even talks about His “Father” being “God” as well doesnt He? In John 17:3,
Jesus says that His Father is the only God. Notice that Jesus doesn’t refer to Himself as God the Son. Also, Jesus called His Father, “God” (as if God is the only God), not “God the Father”.
Does someone have an answer to this? Please dont go all around the question by bringing up John 1:1 etc. We just can’t say that one has to read the Bible here (eg. John 1:1) in this manner, but read these other passages in another manner (eg. John 17:3). Because otherwise aren’t we just putting our own preconceievd opinions into the Bible? I think that one can get the Bible to read in any way they want if they have certain passages (eg. John 1:1) that the other verses “must” be read in light of.
J
japhy
Guest
It is certainly possible that the earliest Christians did not understand the Trinity to the degree we do today; certainly, there was enough confusion over it a couple hundred years later that it had to be dogmatically defined.
As to why “God” almost always means “God (the Father)”, I think it is because it is confusing. Jews already knew of God as their Father, although perhaps not as intimately as Christians do. The Sonship of God is a very difficult concept to understand.
D
davidv
Guest
See bolded items. It seem to me you are asking what was on Paul mind at the time he wrote this. Since he is no longer around to ask, it seems to me that is a question that has no anwser. That being the case, we are left with the Churches teaching regarding the nature of God and Trinity.
M
MH84
Guest
Yes what was on Paul’s mind and the other authors.
That doesnt fill me with too much confidence. If we don’t have the answer now, how do we know the ECF had the answers.
Why is it that we associate God the Father as being the God of the Jews. Since they didn’t know that God consists of three Persons, how could the Jews have thought that God the Father was their God. Why not the Holy Spirit or the Son.
Japhy, dare I say it, but even in your mind you seem to think that God the Father is “main Person”. Even though you believe in the Church’s teachings, your subconscience seems to reflect the fact that you thought that the Jews thought the Father was the only God. But how could this be so when the Persons of the Trinity wasnt revealed?
Anyway, none of this is answering my questions.
To refresh your minds, one of my questions is: doesn’t the term Son of God used by the Apostles indicate that they thought the Son was distinct from God? No where does anyone say, “Father of God” or “Holy Spirit” of God. If they thought that Jesus was also God, wouldn’t they have called Jesus something like, “Eternal Son of the Father”, or “Son of God the Father”? If I am the son of someone, doesnt that mean that I’m distinct or separate from them?
J
japhy
Guest
I think the Jews didn’t understand Who God is (as Christians do), for this reason:
God wanted Israel to know He was the only God there is, and so Israel came to know God as their master, their Lord, their “Father” even. God’s “Holy Spirit” was a “part” of Him, His essence, if you will, that He would bestow on His prophets and whoever else He so chose. The Davidic king was the “son” of God, His anointed, His “Messiah”, but still only a man, and still distinct from Who God is. God was preparing them for His revelation as not only the source of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit Itself, as well as not only the source of His “Son”, their King and Messiah, but the everlasting and eternal Son and King and Messiah. This was really the only way there could an everlasting king and not merely an everlasting kingdom (through the succession of many mortal kings).
I am sorry you are troubled. Perhaps the Early Church Fathers can shed light on the subject for you. Suffice to say, from the arguments for the Trinity (and despite those against the Trinity – both from Scripture) the Church recognized the divinity of Jesus Christ and the truth of the Trinity. I cannot answer your question any better, as I do not know exactly what relationship Paul believed existed between the God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
Unfortunately I’m not sure you’re going to get an answer that you are completely satisfied with, hopefully I’m wrong. As Catholics we are fortunate enough not to have to rely on our brains to totally re-think everything the authors of the Bible were thinking, that is what Sola-Scriptura is all about and we see where that has led.
For one it is totally impossible to know exactly all the thoughts that were going through their heads. I believe that’s what makes Sacred Tradition so important, we have the Church that God established to show us things that aren’t so clearly shown in Scripture. The ECFs were around very close to the times of the NT writings, and some were more than likely students (1st or 2nd hand) of these writers. Another thing to remember is how these people (apostles) were required to be much more accurate in their transferal of information, since it was sometimes their only means of passing on information. I would imagine some of these ECFs received their information first hand or close to it. And for most of them to be pretty clear on who God was I think that speaks volumes.
Perhaps the writers didn’t think it would be an issue at all so they used the names to simply identify each person of God. The Bible would be twice as long if they substituted “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” everytime they were used… well maybe not but much longer
I think you’re brain is going to explode if you’re not careful.SD
M
MH84
Guest
Let me explain. If I thought that God was my Father, but I didnt know that He was a Trinity, I would call the whole Godhead, “Father” because I didnt know there were distinct Persons that make up God. However, this would not mean I was only referring to God the Father when I called God, “Father”. Therefore, I wouldn’t have known which individual Person I was caliing Father. Do you knw what I mean? Just because God the Father is called “Father” doesnt mean that I didnt think that the Son or the Holy Spirit were not “Father” as well. Its because I didnt know there was more than one Person in God.
So when you say the Jews only believed in God the Father, that is not accurate. They believed in God (the Godhead), they just didnt know He was a Trinity.
J
japhy
Guest
I meant they only believed in God as Father: they didn’t recognize any sense of “Sonship” in God, since He was before all else.
M
MH84
Guest
Thanks for your words. I don’t think my brain will explode, theres still heaps of room in my skull if you know what I mean.
I want to address the quote. If the writer’s didnt think it was an issue, why did they not ever clarify what they meant by “God”. When Peter told the people that “God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ”, and that “God annointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit”; why didnt they ever clarify that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were also God? Also, when they were talking about “God” why didnt they ever say they were talking about “God the Father”, not the Son or the Holy Spirit?
The main point I want to raise is, why did they think that the Father was to be called God while the other Persons were not? And why did they think the Father deserved precedence when using the title of God?
- Status