Posted on 08/14/2010 12:20:34 AM PDT by Cronos
The Christian religion was not a departure from but as Jesus said, a fulfillment of the of the Hebrew. Where in the Hebrew Scriptures would Christ or the Apostles have found a triune God? They wouldn't. They could point to the O.T. for teachings about the resurrection from the dead, the role of the Messiah, the establishment of the kingdom, all basic doctrines of Christian belief but a doctrine so important that the Catholic Catechism terms, “The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity” cannot be found.
What can be found in Jesus’ own words is how he described his relationship with God. Son to a father, servant sent forth to a master, an inferior ruler sitting at God's right hand, not having the the knowledge God has, etc. but never as an equal.
So is Jesus a created being? Yes, as Rev. 3:14 says, ‘the beginning of creation’.
Well, strictly speaking, not having the knowledge the FATHER has.
I am familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses' claim thuat when Jesus says "I and the Father are one," he means one in purpose. I never found that persuasive.
I don't usually do the 'great huge chunk o' Scripture' thing, but I think this section from the so-called "High Priestly Prayer" in the Gospel according to John, is a pretty high-falutin' way of saying "one in purpose," if that's all it means.
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. 26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."
Yes, “Father” is the word used and I should’ve noted that.
“I am familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses’ claim thuat when Jesus says “I and the Father are one,” he means one in purpose. I never found that persuasive.”
As I am. Certainly when when two people say they are “one” it means far more than just purpose, ..... attitude, experience, moral character, so forth is involved for them to be “one”.
One in purpose IS an over simplification to be sure given Jesus’ statements about the closeness he has with his father.
But what we do see in this prayer is a comparison of the the relationship between Jesus and the Father and that of the disciples, as in vs. 22: “..that they may be one even as we are one”,
It follows then that Jesus could say he and his Father were “one” without it necessarily referring to a trinity.
The Middle Eastern way of expression does seem “high falutin’” to our English language speakers, doesn't it?
And yet Hebrews 1 does indicate that Jesus was superior to the angels, what abotu John 8:24
Of a truth, any 'god' of a mortal's imagination is like a comic book super hero or super villain simply because it is a product of the imagination.
The Hindu 'gods' are examples, ditto for the 'gods' of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology. Ditto for Islam's Allah.
Great fiction writers - whether Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon Five, L.Ron Hubbard, Mohammed etc. - imagine powerful creaturely beings, some with form, some without, but all of them - including Star Trek's "Q" - are subordinated to Laws of Logic or reason, no doubt because they are merely figments of a mortal's imagination.
Even the 'force' of Star Trek which would roughly compare with the collective consciousness of Eastern mysticism - is constrained to the (multi)verse itself. There is no "beyond" the creature or the imagination of men.
The greater insight from the pagans comes from Plato who indeed sensed the beyond and the in between of time and timelessness.
That sensing does not arise from reasoning or physical sensory perception. Indeed, the Jewish mystics call it the neshama, the breath of God (Gen 2) which made Adam a living soul. The ordinary soul which all living creatures have is called the nephesh in Genesis 1. And the pivot wherein Adamic man (unlike bacteria, fish, daffodils and elephants) chooses to be Godly minded or earthly minded is called the ruach.
We see this choosing also in Romans 8.
The operative part in these insights from the Torah and from the words of Jesus in the Gospels, the writings of John and Paul is ruach Elohim - the Spirit of God. Without God Himself, we are blind - limited to our sensory perception and reasoning.
He has spiritual perception, the awareness that God IS and Who He IS, the sense of not belonging "in" this physical creation. Physical signs and wisdom will not bring a person to this insight.
Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
Jesus' Name is I AM
John 8:53Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? 54Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. 55And you have not known him, but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word. 56Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. 57The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.
Any mere creature who makes such a claim is a liar, and not to be followed.
And lest there be any doubt about what Jesus meant when He said that, check out the Jews' reaction to Him:
John 8:59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
Why would they do that, except they thought He had blasphemed?
John 8:24? You might be a bit more specific.
John chapter seven tells of Jesus going to the temple and how many comments were made about who he was, some saying since the rulers hadn't said he is the Christ Jesus couldn't be him.(vs. 26)They repeated a error saying when the Christ came no one would know from whence yet they knew where Jesus was from. (vs. 27).
In vss. 28, 29 Jesus says they know where is from, he didn't come of his own initiative but was sent forth.
In vss. 40-44 some said he was the Christ, The Prophet, others that no, the Christ wasn't to come from Galilee, others said yes, since Jesus came from Bethlehem of David.
In chapter eight Jesus says either they, the Pharisees, believe that Jesus was “he” or they would die in their sins.
“He” is who? Why the Christ! (John 8:24)
In vs. 26, Jesus says he that sent him is true and what Jesus spoke came from that one.
The Pharisees simply could not conceive that someone they held in such contempt could have come from the Father.(vs.27)
Once again Jesus is in a subordinate position to his Father, he is sent forth, he doesn't speak of his own initiative but rather what the Father taught him.
Had the Son been equal to the Father what could the Father teach the Son? Had the Son been co-eternal with the Father what would there be that would not be fully known to both?
An amazing confluence of persons and events, at a time of great spiritual and intellectual ferment.... That is, in the centuries immediately preceding the Incarnation of Christ, the Father's Holy Word, Logos of the Beginning and order of Creation, Alpha to Omega....
What Plato made explicit in his contemplation was his fully conscious awareness of a Presence beyond himself, the divine Nous, as his partner in a divine–human dialogue. This it was which drew Plato on his quest for Truth. He did not "contact" divine Nous by means of sensory perception or reasoning. Rather it was experienced as an "event" taking place in the movements of his own soul, being drawn by/from a Source outside of or "beyond" himself, a Source moreover perceived to be "Beyond" the natural world altogether.
Perhaps this is why Justin Martyr found Plato's school at Athens so attractive: Perhaps he had had similar experiences. But this was long after the decease of Plato himself. The point is, the two men had intimations of divine Truth that would only be made fully explicit in the Incarnation of Christ and in the descent of the rauch Elohim, the Holy Spirit of God. It has been said that not only the Old Testament, but also classical philosophy, found their "fulfillment" in the coming of Christ.
You wrote:
When a man has the spiritual gift of "ears to hear" or "eyes to see" he does not need to rationalize God or imagine Who He might be or what He might be like.So very true!
Anselm of Cantebury — the great saint and doctor of the Catholic Church — was a man of soaring intelligence who placed the highest value on reason. Yet unlike his similarly gifted correspondent Gaunilo, a preeminent "man of reason," Anselm was convinced that faith always has priority over reason. In other words, it was illegitimate to "reason" one's way into faith. Gaunilo evidently thought (I am still studying their correspondence) that such an attempt is perfectly legitimate.
Anselm expresses his faith in these sublime lines [Proslogium XV]:
“O Lord, you are not only that than which a greater cannot be conceived, but you are also greater than what can be conceived.”This of course means that God is not "reducible" to the categories of human reason in the first place. And that it is a grave error to believe otherwise.
Which I imagine is why God gave us His Revelation by means of the Holy Scriptures: We couldn't possibly figure out all of God's Will and intentions from our own native abilities, but needed God to provide us with guidance in these matters.
Anyhoot, just wool-gathering today, I guess. FWIW.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your splendid essay/post!
I suppose it could be done that way. But I wouldn't know how to do it that way....
The idea of a via negativa to the Holy Trinity strikes me as unpromising from the get-go....
Mad Dawg: Well, rictly speaking, not having the knowledge the FATHER has
But Father is the only one in the NT identified as God, and the only one prayed to. So, cyc's comment that the Son is a created being, the beginning of the creation of God (Rev 3:14, KJV), goes hand in hand with "the firstborn of every creature" (Col 1:15, KJV).
Furthermore, cyc's argument finds more 'meat' in Jesus' own admissions "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and, again, when Jesus refers to the Father as his God (cf. John 20:17).
Post-Nicene Church busied itself with a blatant alteration of the scriptures in order to "sneak in" evidence of the Triniatrian dogma which equates all three divine Hypostases in essence, as co-equal, co-eternal godliness.
Numerous verses have been altered in various ways for that purpose, such as 1 John 5:7 (the [in]famous Comma Johanneum), 1 Timothy 3:16 (changing he was manifest to God was manifest— an easy although blatant change in slightly different ink), Acts 20:28 (changing the church of God to church of the lord and to church of God and the Lord), John 1:18 (changing only begotten Son to only begotten God), 1 Peter 3:15 (changing Christ to God), etc.
Is there a school of thought that Thomas was mistaken or what?
First of all, yes, certainly. I tcould be construed that way and it is not necessarily construed in a Trinitarian way, as far as I can tell.
However, what I seem to notice is that non-Trinitarians seem also to have what I think of as a non-mystical set of opinions about the 'end of man.'
We think of what you might call "man-ness" taken up into God in Jesus, so that it is a God/Man sitting at the right hand of the Father. Thus in our thinking the 'end of man' is an ever closer and ever more intimate union with God. (I ask my students who are math-capable to think of asymptotic curves, always approaching some limit 'closer than any given interval' yet never reaching the limit.)
I know "mystical" is a controversial word, but I don't know another one to use.
I do not generally see such thinking among those who think of Jesus as a creature or as somehow less than God in every respect.
In my prayer and in my thinking that is the best possible understanding of the perfection of happiness that I have come across. It preserves the difference between Creator and creature while honoring the aspiration of the longing human heart.
So when I -- koff, koff -- expound (no, stop laughing!) that part of John, I talk about our being caught up in the Life of the Trinity, in the Life of God Himself -- the Spirit already in us drawing us closer and always closer to God, conforming our will to His Will ever more closely, and filling our hearts with His Love ever more fully.
So, in that exposition, it follows inevitably that we will be closer to one another, and approximate ever more exactly the oneness of God.
Something like that anyway....
**1. Jesus saying to baptise in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not in the nameS of .. or in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the....?**
Matt. 28:19 is a command.
Picture yourself the Founder, President, and CEO of a company. You meet with your sales staff (that already knows your name), telling them to go out and reach new customers, saying, “The Founder, President, and CEO guarantees this product.”
Does your sales force go out and do this mentioning your name, or just your titles?
Jesus Christ did not fail to teach doctrine to his disciples. They understood that the NAME is JESUS.
The name of the Father:
Remember the birth of John the baptist? The neighbors and cousins started to call him Zacharias, after his father’s name. Jesus Christ said: “I come in my Father’s name..” John 5:43 That name would be JESUS.
The name of the Son:
(You all know this), “..shalt call his name JESUS....” The Son’s name is not “Son”.
The name of the Holy Ghost:
“..the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name..” John 14:26 Sent in who’s name? Who is talking in that passage? The Son, whose name is JESUS.
That is why the disciples knew exactly what they were doing when they baptised in the name of JESUS for the remission of sins.
The Christ declared that God is a Spirit. John 4:24
God is not a man, but dwelled in a perfect man (not as an animal that has no soul, but a man with all the attributes of a man). The Son grew weary, hungered, and also said “I thirst”; but as the God of heaven and earth, raised the dead, healed the sick and cast out devils. For “..God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself..’ 2 Cor. 5:19
Deity cannot die, but the Christ did, and was raised by God.
There’s been talk about how the trinity is so simple, yet is attempted to be proven by ‘persons’.
The Godhead IS simple: The Father is Spirit, and the Son is flesh.
Found in scripture: “God the Father”
NOT found in scripture: “God the Son” or God the Holy Ghost”. The “Son of God” and the “Spirit of God” are scriptural. The phrases are that way for a reason: Paul put it plainly to the saints in Ephesus. “One God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all”. Eph. 4:6
He has chosen his name Jesus to be the only “name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved”. Acts 4:12
As the Catholic Catechism says,
“251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.
Yet that same Catechism says,
“The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity.”
So we have here a dogma hat is described with words of a new and unprecedented meaning developed from certain notions of a philosophical origin that is now and forever beyond all that we can humanly understand. Moreover Christian faith is to rest upon this dogma!
That sounds like credulity since Paul defines faith as confidence that there is a reality, an underlying substance with evidence to support what is not beheld.
“God/Man”??? I thought you didn't teach Christ was a part God, part man.
“end of man’???.....where does that expression come from?
Namely, that if the Father were the Sun, then Jesus Christ would be the light of the Sun and the Holy Spirit would be the warmth of the Sun.
We see a similar description in Revelation 5. The Father is on the throne (Revelation 4) and Jesus emerges from the midst or bosom of the Father, and the Holy Spirit extends through Him into the world.
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20
Therefore cause>effect, the sense of time passing, an arrow of time, does not apply to the Creator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.