The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Jesus God or What?

Theology Christology
#81

What a mess this complex trinity theory is. :mrgreen:

Personally, I came to the simplicity of knowing, “Jesus was the Father outside the eons and Father was Jesus in the world” by resting in silence while praying. I didn’t have to read an intellectual 600 page treatise on “the being of God.” Also let me say that within weeks of my introduction to God, by, in and through Christ Jesus, I realized first and foremost the keeping truth of the pre-eminence of Christ Jesus in all things. From that moment on, I have been painfully aware of the spirit that resides in carnal man, that would ever desire to lessen the position and being of Christ Jesus. Even the subtlest of language, motivated by this spirit, stands embarrassingly painful in it’s glaring nakedness. What spirit is this of which I speak? It is the spirit of anti-Christ that lays within the carnality and rebellion of the human soul in each of us. God bless the man that is led by the spirit instead of the soul, and the mind of Christ rather than the intellect.God bless the man that is wise enough, to prayerfully sit in silence before God, to gain a firsthand account on the being of the Godhead.

Yes, I tell others if you want to know the being of God, learn His voice and that is best done in the silence of prayer. Then as needs be, go to the Bible and soon enough you will receive a witness to what you have heard. I also share with the young ones, “measure truth by simplicity, for that which He desires us to know, is always made simple.”

Lastly, I warn of the rebellious carnal soul. It loves complexity, for there it can hide it’s rebellion in the midst of the confusion, complexity builds.Think about that with your next long and complex trinity treatise.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2Cor 11:3

A couple of closing thoughts on the Godhead I had jotted down years ago.

*The Father = I Am Spirit
The Son = I Am Spirit Manifested

“Jesus was God’s personality and attributes manifested in a form. They were ONE IN SPIRIT but differing in manifestation. They were THE TWO IN ONE. One invisible, the other visible.”

That is why Jesus could say that He AND His Father were one. They were One, One in Spirit. It is the same way that we all can say we are one. It is ii spirit, not in the form, where our oneness lies."*

Simply I give all glory to Christ Jesus,

John

#82

John, I swear, after the resurrection, I’ll look you up and we can play a game of ping-pong or something if you’re not too busy…

Of course, that goes for Clement of Alexandrian and a whole bunch of really old dead guys from his day who I will look up. I want to thank them committing the simple to simple things like the creeds.

But here’s the thing - every time we come up with something ‘better’ - we add to the complexity and noise. What took them (the old dead guys) two hundred years to work through - and Christology is about all they worked on (Who was Jesus?) - we think we can improve on in a fortnight. Arrogance.

Rather than thanking them for their hard work and being in their communion - some spit on their accomplishment as the ‘doctrines of men.’

What a fashionable thing to say as one presents one’s own ‘doctrine’ as the Truth over what they found with the help of the Paraclete in two centuries of work.

Perhaps, you’re adding to the complexity yourself, John and Aaron and everyone else who thinks they are capable of rewriting Christianity for the ages. The unteachable being teachers.

#83

I think much of the debate concerning the question of Jesus’ nature and identity comes down to this: does Jesus bear the title kurios (and ho kurios) because of an inherent divine nature he has possessed from all eternity, or was this title (and all the honour that goes with it) not his own inherently but instead given to him by the Father after his death and resurrection? One of the things that really pushed me in the direction of unitarianism is how lacking the evidence is for the former, and how clear the evidence is for the latter - i.e., that Jesus is “the Lord” (with a capital “L”) - and thus worthy of honour and worship - not because he shares the “divine essence” of God and is ontologically equal to the Father, but because the Father has exalted his Son to this unique status and position, and has given him a name that is above all names (Matt 28:18; Acts 2:36; Phil 2:8-11). More on this later, though. :slight_smile: I’ve decided I first want to address (as thoroughly as I can) the topic of whether the OT supports a trinitarian understanding of God before getting too in-depth with who Jesus is! So I’ll be posting a response to the OT part of Jason’s “Trinitarian Digest” paper soon :mrgreen:

Indeed! Some good examples of the context (and not the closest noun or pronoun) being the determining factor are Acts 4:10-11, Acts 7:18-19 and 2 John 1:7. So yeah, context is definitely key here. In the larger context of Scripture, the expression “the true God” is found four other times (2Chron 15:3; Jer 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess 1:9). In all four places I think the Father is being referred to; in both NT verses he most definitely is. And in the immediate context, 1 John 5:20 mentions “him that is true” two times, and both times it refers to the Father; this adds weight to the interpretation that the pronoun “this one” (the “true God”) refers back to the Father. Moreover, the fact that Jesus is called “the life” and “eternal life” is not really a strong argument for him being the “true God” here, since, according to Jesus, eternal life is knowing both the Son and the Father (the “only true God”) - so it is completely appropriate that they both be called “eternal life” by John.

#84

Aaron,

Thanks for your comments. Glad to find them, as always, thoughtful and challenging.

Whether ‘personhood’ is an inherently relational notion is perhaps a (maybe THE) key philosophical/theological component to trinitarianism.

Let me see if I follow you. You agree that God is necessarily a personal being. There are some necessary features definitive of personal being per se, and for you this includes just “rational self-awareness.” There are then some contingent (your “potential”) features of personal being, and “inter-personal relationship” is among these. This is the “ecstatic” dimension of personal identity and relations. I think this ecstatic dimension defines personal being per se while you think it’s a contingent feature of personal being. Furthermore, God is “maximally personal” without actualizing this potential for ecstatic, inter-personal relations. On your view one can be a ‘fully realized person’ (i.e., maximally realized in terms of personal loving existence) all by one’s own self, without relating to other persons at all. So we don’t need other persons to be fully realized persons.

Am I following you?

If so, then we may just be at an impasse early on, for in my view personhood is inherently an ecstatic notion and persons cannot be maximally personal, engaged in fully loving existence, apart from relating inter-personally.

There’s a bit of an aesthetic dimension here too (which is found in the Fathers as well). One might question whether existence which is not inter-personal can really be described as “maximally” (i.e., perfectly) personal and loving. It’s arguable that being personal with/via personal others is a greater, more beautiful, more aesthetically satisfying form of existence that being a solitary person. We may just disagree here. There’s no purely logical argument that can resolve this for us. You may have intuitions I don’t have. But I can’t but believe inter-personal relationality is a greater form of personal existence than solitary individualism (assuming for the sake of argument that the latter constitutes a ‘person’ at all). That seems self-evident to me. So on an intuitive/existential level I just can’t agree that solitary ‘persons’ (viz., lone individuals) are “maximally personal,” however otherwise like persons they may be (as rational and self-perceiving). That seems strongly counter-intuitive to me as best. At worst, I’ve no analogy to make it a meaningful understanding of fully personal and loving existence.

It’s easy to imagine inter-personal relations as a greater, more beautiful, more loving form of existence than otherwise. Does not human experience universally confirm that being inter-personally related is a more beautiful, fulfilling form of loving existence than solitary existence as a sole individual? I think it’s obvious that it does. Being inter-personally related actualizes dimensions of love and identity and meaningful personal existence not possible for a sole individual, and as such actualizes forms of beauty and realizes aesthetic satisfactions not experienced by sole/solitary individuals. And since I’m inclined to a version of Anselm’s perfect-being theology, I have to say that an inter-personally related God is greater (more beautiful, more praiseworthy, having a greater [richer and fuller] loving experience) than one not so related. So apart from such inter-relatedness being impossible, my conclusion is that God is necessarily inter-personally related.

Does this jive with you Jason?

Tom

#85

If one accepts the Gospel that Christ did relinquish (empty) most of Godhead for Him to live amongst us as a true human being - then the ‘absurdities’ Morgridge lists above can describe only one person. Are they true now that Christ is resurrected? No - that is saying that Christ The Resurrected will be eternally the God/Man - where whatever limitations He humbled Himself by have been lifted. We shall be like Him, but not Him - the only God/Man. So, He remains (even in heaven) a resurrected man with a body. He’s the Eternal Man and Eternal God - apparently to Morgridge, that’s an eternal absurdity as well.

But let’s be clear about this: When the fathers talked about Christ being 100% man - they meant BOTH iterations of humanity - pre and post resurrection which differ (even for Christ) in quality and capability. (He really did die) So when we see Him as He IS - in His full Godhead AND Resurrected manhood - it will be quite a sight - I think He tried to show that to His disciples once - but it almost blinded them - too much of His Person being revealed for unresurrected eyes. In light of that :mrgreen: , Morgridge’s dilemma of melding the two ‘parts’ goes poof!

Is simple logic an excuse for disbelief? “Logic compels me…” That looks like a case of passing the buck to me.

#86

Thanks for this, Aaron. This is my question as well (from your first paragraph here), but of course you put it so much more clearly than I could have.
I agree that that is the real question. It seems to me that the weight of the clearest biblical evidence points in the direction of kurios and ho kurios being titles bestowed by the Father. But I could be wrong.

#87

Tom, thanks for your thoughts on this (although I know you were replying to Aaron.) It’s understandable to me to view God relationally in the way that you do, but perhaps this was precisely the reason for creation; God wanted or needed other beings to relate to. I know that flies in the face of standard theologies (like Anselm’s) that claim that God doesn’t need anything, (certainly not us!) because He is whole and complete as He is all by Himself.
But I think at least some of your basic intuitions about God’s relational nature are right. What I’m not as sure of is the conclusions you draw from that.

#88

Ran, I discovered that I’m in the bad habit of quoting whole posts rather than the most relevant parts, so I’ll simply confine myself to saying about your last post: Good points!

#89

I wouldn’t have put it quite that way, but yep. :slight_smile:

More specifically, a single interpersonal unity of deity helps answer at least three conceptual problems:

1.) What philosophers call the problem of relational consciousness, i.e. that it may be impossible to be self-conscious without some kind of perception and acknowledgment of that which is not one’s self personally. (Not a problem for atheism, obviously, which is why atheists like to use this as an anti-theistic argument. :wink: )

2.) Active vs. static self-existence of deity. Static self-existence would mean that God’s own central existence has nothing at all to do with intentional action (or rather that it’s entirely contradictory to intentional action). That’s a major problem when we’re talking about an entity which is supposed to be intentionally active (i.e. when we’re talking about theism instead of atheism). Unfortunately, most theists (though not all) have tended to be privative aseitists. (That’s a fancy way of saying God exists without even depending on Himself for existence, i.e. static self-existence.) That’s partly due to respect for key Greco-Roman pre-Christian philosophers, but also partly because of perceived problems with positive aseity. (That’s a fancy way of saying God is dependent upon Himself for His own existence.) A dynamic eternal interpersonal relationship between God self-begetting and God self-begotten solves several problems along this line. It also fits better (I and other positive aseitist theologians would say) with scriptural testimony about God being the Living God, especially in the OT. (A huge amount more could be said along that line, too.)

3.) It solves the Euthyphro Dilemma by providing an objective moral grounding at and as the root of all reality. God’s morality is not dependent on some standard ontologically greater than Himself, and neither is it some mere groundless assertion. The way of the Lord is righteousness (‘fair-togetherness’); God is love: single-person monotheism has trouble making such claims coherently. Trinitarian (or at least binitarian) theism features God (singly) being an eternally actively mutually supporting interpersonal relationship. The positive justice of righteousness is thus actively inherent in God’s own most fundamental existence.

Anything less, is only… less. :slight_smile: I don’t blame other people for believing less is true–these are tough issues to suss out. But I won’t believe less than “God is love” (whether stated simply like that or in meticulous technical language) without good reason to do so.

#90

or credit others when in silence they throw up their hands knowing God is less than the “ought” and more than the “all”

same action same dilemma as above. Who shall measure such an infinite love called “Agape” Thank God we know the shaddow of it.

The “less” or the “more” must ever bow before the “Immeasurable” however by His calling we are ever building new ways of grasping for Him and that is a delightful exercise, even in it’s futility.

I do enjoy reading of your thoughts, Jason and also those of others here. Best of all, I like the passion of RanRan where in my mind I have come know him as RantRant. :wink: :laughing:

#91

Really, how special is that? God can bestow the title of ‘Disciple’ on a friggin stone and have it cry out the truth. As long as He can bestow the title of ‘Lord’ onto something other than Himself - why not a hub-cap?

…And very funny John - but if I coddled you, I’d ruin your day. “Where’s RanRan? And what have you done with him?” Love ya, man.

#92

Yeah, that comes from trying to deal with the scriptural data, and the conceptual principles, in a logically coherent manner. It would admittedly be much simpler to rest in silence while praying. Also, it would be much simpler not to try to claim that whatever comes to mind then, is what scripture testifies to (since that might get back to the annoyingly messy complexity of scriptures which don’t only exist in one’s mind.)

Atheism and agnosticism are much simpler, too. :slight_smile: Which is why some people go with one of those instead.

Throwing up your hands and retreating to something simpler is certainly your prerogative. But when you go on to try to claim that your private revelation is not only the truth, but a truth testified to by something that doesn’t only exist in your own mind, then I claim the prerogative to check just how far that claim fits. And if I find it doesn’t fit, then nope, I’m not inclined to credit you in those places. Whereas, on the other hand, I’ve been equally consistent about crediting you where your private revelation does fit with the external data to which you’re also appealing.

A37: the sad thing is, if it wasn’t for people who spend their lives devotedly working out such things at seminary (and even at some cemeteries which aren’t seminaries), you would have exactly zero idea what the little squiggly marks on this or that old parchment mean, much less any idea about whether or not you should believe what those squiggly marks say about anything at all. (Ditto John. Ditto me, for that matter. :slight_smile: )

Um, there? :unamused: It wasn’t all that hard to find.

Or do you think the false prophets being warned about in the verse immediately previous to the ones brought up by A37, were not trying to claim specially inspired religious authority over the lives of the people John was warning? I doubt you’d think they weren’t false prophets. :wink:

1 John 4:1 (NASV) “Beloved, do not believe every spirt, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

So, verses 2-3 are warning about false prophets, and one way to watch out for them.

Apparently you didn’t. Maybe you should just stick with quoting what I said instead of trying to come up with what you think I said. :wink: Your track record with that since you arrived on the forum has been less than entirely impressive.

Heck, I could come up with a quote from me that would fit better with what you imagined I was saying! :laughing: But if I was really engaging in the rampant egotism you imagine about me, would I have bothered to excuse a misunderstanding of yours based on poor composition on my part?–or to agree with you all sorts of places?

If I spend several paragraphs making educated guesses about what people whom John (I mean the author of 1 John) calls “false prophets” were trying to teach, and which I agreed with you (in several ways) was not the ortho-trin two natures of Christ, how exactly does that translate out to “The traditional, orthodox and ecclesiastical Church is where the antichrist dwells and has sold people a bill of goods about the Trinity”?

Do I think people in teaching authority, and especially people claiming prophetic inspiration, are more liable to condemnation by God due to the responsibility of their position? Yep; so does God, apparently, by report of the scriptures. (I don’t think that includes our forum’s “John”, because I don’t consider him to be trying to make authoritative claims.) Do I think that includes me, too? Yeppy-yep-yep; which is why I try very hard not to cheat or fudge to get X results when doing metaphysics or scriptural exegesis. The OT condemns false prophets; 1 John is condemning false prophets; I’m pointing out that 1 John is condemning false prophets for claiming spiritual or revelatory authority to announce something other than X as true. I am not aware that the Church, claiming its own inspired authority to teach (whatever that might be), is any less condemnatory about people falsely claiming inspired authority to teach.

Really, what’s the problem here?

#93

Aaron (not A37 :mrgreen: ),

I desperately need to eat some lunch (and do some ‘work’ work here at the office), but I wanted you to know I’m not intentionally trying to ignore you; on the contrary, I look forward to answering you, and especially to discussing your forthcoming reply to the first part of the digest. You’ve been a very thoughtful and sober-minded opponent so far. :smiley:

#94

I want to reply in this thread. Unfortunately, as I was writing my explanation for how Jesus is God, I got so caught up in it that I ended up with ten pages in my Word document. I really think it would be something interesting to share, because I feel I have a somewhat fresh perspective on the matter (I know what was said about trying to trump the Church Fathers, but I’m viewing this from a more modern approach that doesn’t necessarily contradict what’s been taught, I think), but I’m reluctant post for fear that no one would read it. I’m not claiming any special revelation or anything, for I’m merely taking some ideas from others and forming my own framework on the matter from what I so far learned. But I really think I touch on some things that haven’t been mentioned yet, at least not in this thread.

Would anyone be interested in what I have to say?

#95

Dondi,

Posting honest ideas is what it’s all about, right? Do you want to post all ten pages? I’d suggest a 4 or 5 paragraph summary highlighting the heart of it. Is that possible?

Tom

#96

I’m debating whether or not to generate two different threads and reference them because one part deals with the Diety of Christ, but is also related to a creation topic that separately might invite some other dialogue along those lines. I’ll look into cutting down what I can, but much is relevant to the topic (as well as progressive in explanation)that I hate to leave anything out. I’ll give it a run through and see about posting tomorrow. Thanks.

#97

I like forward to reading it.

#98

Well, for one, pretending that it’s the SAME problem you say we’re having that John’s young church was having, when it is not!

We’ve got 2000 years of Christian thought and doctrine and creeds! on the matter of who was Christ was and you want to compare THAT to the knowledge possessed by a church or churches that were 20 years of age, who, chances are, didn’t have on hand much more than a couple copies of a couple Gospels and maybe a letter or two from John?

Do we really have THEIR problem or one of our own? Those who wish to throw out or ignore Christian thought for the immediacy of experience and personal revelation and prophecy have not changed their tactics - I can’t see any difference between a Montanist of John’s day or any other enthusiast - the difference now is that they have TV shows and have declared Christ’s Church itself as the enemy to true wisdom and the seat, not of wisdom, but the ‘doctrines of men.’ Meanwhile, we’re swamped with THEIR doctrines 24/7 which, of course, is all straight from the Holy Spirit. Cha-ching!

It’s only the SAME problem if the enemy is the same - You say it’s the Church and I say it’s the Montanists and Gnostics that John was warning them about. You say it’s only a problem if they claim authority to teach - as if claiming inspiration isn’t claiming much much more than that, it’s the immediate claim of infallibility…“Ah, maybe it wasn’t the Holy Ghost who told me the world would end last week” At what point, with John, do we tell these jokers to leave?

So what’s the problem here? You turning the attack of the false teachers back onto John himself - who was claiming authority to teach and confront an inspired, infallible Montanist, and, more importantly, giving his young church the authority to do the same.

Granted. You have every right to defend your tradition - just don’t tell me it’s not a tradition.

#99

:laughing: Well, I don’t know how “special” that is, but your comment is kind of the point, as I see it. Power bestowed on something or someone does not belong to the individual or thing to whom it is given, but rather to the one who gives it. I think that lends at least surface evidence to the “Jesus is not God” (or wasn’t always God at one point) side of the equation.
I’m simply saying that I see Aaron’s point. But I also see some of yours (and Jason’s, etc.)

#100

You could also post it as a txt file attachment. (Or a .doc file. I think the forum system accepts pdf, too. Though maybe not; I know it didn’t at first, but I half-recall this was fixed early on…)

Alternately, you could post a summary and also the full file. I’ve done that before sometimes. :slight_smile: (Not as often as some people would wish, I expect… :laughing: )