So...Jesus was Unorthodox? The nerve of Trinitarians...

[TheGenuineChristian]

All over the NT we find statements of 'The God of Jesus' and even Jesus himself is found saying 'My God.' Who is the God of 'the man Jesus'? The Father. Who is the God of 'the man TheGenuineChristian'? The Father. Who is the god of Trinitarians? The father, son, and holy spirit. Since Trinitarians consider themselves "Orthodox" and me "Unorthodox" then the conclusion is that Jesus was "Unorthodox." Trinitarians got some nerve to suggest they are "Orthodox" when their "triune god" isn't even 'The God of Jesus.'

So, Trinitarians, did I get it wrong? Surely your god is 'the father, son, and holy spirit'?

 

[hedrick]

This is a frequently asked question, which there should be a better way of dealing with.

Orthodox theology has two relevant doctrines, not just the Trinity, but the Incarnation. The Son combined a human nature with the Logos. The human nature has all the attributes of a human being, and acts with human actions. So when Jesus is quoted in the Gospel, the statement are statements by a human. Thus it makes sense for that human to speak of his God.

The Trinity comes from thinking through the implications of Jesus' life, death and resurrection on our idea of God. If, as suggested by the NT, Jesus is the image of God, he shows us God not just as the sovereign lawgiver, but as the obedient servant. Jesus prayer to his father thus shows us in human form something that is part of God in eternity. Both the love of a father and a son. Hence we think that Jesus' prayer and obedience to the Father reflects in human form a relationship within God in eternity.

Now when you look at the filial love of the Son for the Father in eternity, the only terms that can be used are Father and Son, since they're both equally God. The eternal Logos presumably wouldn't refer to the Father as his God, since they're both God. However because Jesus is human, it does make sense for him to refer to the Father also as God.

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

This is a frequently asked question, which there should be a better way of dealing with.

Orthodox theology has two relevant doctrines, not just the Trinity, but the Incarnation. The Son combined a human nature with the Logos. The human nature has all the attributes of a human being, and acts with human actions. So when Jesus is quoted in the Gospel, the statement are statements by a human. Thus it makes sense for that human to speak of his God.

The Trinity comes from thinking through the implications of Jesus' life, death and resurrection on our idea of God. If, as suggested by the NT, Jesus is the image of God, he shows us God not just as the sovereign lawgiver, but as the obedient servant. Jesus prayer to his father thus shows us in human form something that is part of God in eternity. Both the love of a father and a son. Hence we think that Jesus' prayer and obedience to the Father reflects in human form a relationship within God in eternity.

Now when you look at the filial love of the Son for the Father in eternity, the only terms that can be used are Father and Son, since they're both equally God. The eternal Logos presumably wouldn't refer to the Father as his God, since they're both God. However because Jesus is human, it does make sense for him to refer to the Father also as God.

So who was the God of 'the man Jesus'?

 

[Incariol]

So who was the God of 'the man Jesus'?

You mean the God-man Jesus?

 

[hedrick]

So who was the God of 'the man Jesus'?

Typically Jesus referred to God as Father. I'd guess that he primarily prayed to the Father. I'm not sure whether it makes sense for Christ as a human to pray to or obey Christ as God. I'm willing to accept suggestions however. The NT also seems to refer to Jesus as having the Holy Spirit present in him. Within the Trinity the Holy Spirit is often seen as connecting Father and Son, so here too Jesus' relationship as a human would reflect something within the Trinity.

Incidentally, remember that in orthodox theology Christ's human and divine natures are united in one person. Hence actions of the human aren't independent of actions of the Logos. My understanding is that Jesus' relationships as human with the Father and the Son reflect in human form relationships within the Trinity.

[The last sentence has a typo which is significant for following discussions. I meant to type "Jesus' relationships as human with the Father and the Spirit", as should be clear from the first paragraph.]

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

You mean the God-man Jesus?

Nah, I mean 'the man Jesus', the one presented by his Apostles in the Book of Acts, for example.

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

Typically Jesus referred to God as Father.

Some passages for example? I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding here.

 

[Incariol]

Nah, I mean 'the man Jesus', the one presented by his Apostles in the Book of Acts, for example.

There is no "the man Jesus" as a distinct entity, that is a christological heresy.

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκο&#962, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library



"If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library



"If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδ&#8179, which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴ&#957: let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


"If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνά&#962 which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library



"If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because “the Word was made flesh,” and “hath a share in flesh and blood as we do:” let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


"If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


"If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his: let him be anathema."


NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


"If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema."

Troparion, Tone VIII
The preaching of the apostles and the dog[bless and do not curse]mas of the fathers sealed the one Faith of the Church; and clad in the robe of truth woven of theology from on high, it setteth aright and glorifieth the great mystery of piety.​

 

[cupid dave]

All over the NT we find statements of 'The God of Jesus' and even Jesus himself is found saying 'My God.' Who is the God of 'the man Jesus'? The Father. Who is the God of 'the man TheGenuineChristian'? The Father. Who is the god of Trinitarians? The father, son, and holy spirit. Since Trinitarians consider themselves "Orthodox" and me "Unorthodox" then the conclusion is that Jesus was "Unorthodox." Trinitarians got some nerve to suggest they are "Orthodox" when their "triune god" isn't even 'The God of Jesus.'

So, Trinitarians, did I get it wrong? Surely your god is 'the father, son, and holy spirit'?

The concept of trinity is a consequence of Christ telling us that he is the Truth, personified.

The ideal of Truth is a mental phenomenon, or a non-physical attribute of Jesus, a body of thoughts which are essential spirit.


The idea that Christ is this ideal we call Truth and the the mental entity we ourselves form concerning what is true defines the idea of the physical Son and the holy spirit we form mentally.


Consider that since Christ is the son of God, then the father must be what is Real, what corresponds to Truth.



TRINITY
Our Lord is Truth, in whose Spirit of mind we must commit our lives, in order to face Father Nature, The Almighty, Reality, within which we all exist

 

[cupid dave]

You mean the God-man Jesus?

Philip asked a similar question:

John 14:9

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, (even though I have been saying, "I am the Truth"), Philip?...

... he that hath seen me, (the Truth), hath seen the Father, (i.e.; the Reality of our existence is a mental phenomenon);

and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father, (when you have seen His image in my personification of Truth)?

 

[TheGenuineChristian]

There is no "the man Jesus" as a distinct entity, that is a christological heresy.

Then Apostle Peter was a heretic:

Acts 2:22 You that are men, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know—23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.

And likewise Apostle Paul is a heretic:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

[Incariol]

Then Apostle Peter was a heretic:

Acts 2:22 You that are men, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know—23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.

And likewise Apostle Paul is a heretic:

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Don't be ridiculous, they most certainly weren't. They didn't deny the hypostatic union.

 

[cupid dave]

LOGICAL SYLLOGISM:


A) Jesus is Truth, (personified). [John 14:6]
B) Truth must correspond congruently to Reality.
C) Reality is congruent to Truth as Jesus is congruent to God.

 

[cupid dave]

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Truth is our mediator between us and Reality.

Man can not directly know Reality, but must use his senses to develop ideas about it.

 

[Noxot]

I must admit that there is much confusion when one does not explain the nature of Jesus. since he is both created and uncreated ( I say uncreated because God is not made )

I do not get why some people get offended at the fact that jesus was also a creature. and also first born of all creation. go figure that God is the prototype for His own creation. and ofc He is better than us because He is who He is while we are who we are thanks to us not being Him and having free will. and jesus had free will and it is said jesus was perfect in all ways and we see that we are not so. even the highest creations that i know of has to follow jesus to be like God and so it must be that this Jesus is the way and the light and the door. and how could I ever try to understand anything about God the uncreated? I must not be God because I do not know. and Yet jesus says He knows and will show us.


but how dare those religious councils of men dare to speak a command from their own self instead of from God. even I the wasteland incarnation do not say what those fools have said. anathema are they, because they are truly cursed with their own thoughts that they have. I have no need to anathema as in cursing someone because all i have to do is point out that anathema is only done by God and I feel I can say "you are messed up" if you are already messed up. instead of saying "i'm going to mess you up" as those men say it when they speak about who is and who is not anathema.

but their own deeds prove who they are from. and I know I am not like them at least, and am happy for that. though I am very evil sometimes. I might speak from myself but I believe I have a little bit better sight than they on that matter.

 

[cupid dave]

I must admit that there is much confusion when one does not explain the nature of Jesus. since he is both created and uncreated ( I say uncreated because God is not made )

I do not get why some people get offended at the fact that jesus was also a creature. and also first born of all creation. go figure that God is the prototype for His own creation. and ofc He is better than us because He is who He is while we are who we are thanks to us not being Him and having free will. and jesus had free will and it is said jesus was perfect in all ways and we see that we are not so. even the highest creations that i know of has to follow jesus to be like God and so it must be that this Jesus is the way and the light and the door. and how could I ever try to understand anything about God the uncreated? I must not be God because I do not know. and Yet jesus says He knows and will show us.


but how dare those religious councils of men dare to speak a command from their own self instead of from God. even I the wasteland incarnation do not say what those fools have said. anathema are they, because they are truly cursed with their own thoughts that they have. I have no need to anathema as in cursing someone because all i have to do is point out that anathema is only done by God and I feel I can say "you are messed up" if you are already messed up. instead of saying "i'm going to mess you up" as those men say it when they speak about who is and who is not anathema.

but their own deeds prove who they are from. and I know I am not like them at least, and am happy for that. though I am very evil sometimes. I might speak from myself but I believe I have a little bit better sight than they on that matter.

The pretense that s so common among religious people tends to make ideas hard to arise among us.


The sacred words that people are supposed to revere so much that in some cases, like among the Jews, one can not even say the word G-d.
This "how dare u" stuff is the fodder and smoke of the inquisition and the subtle weapon in the hands of the authorities who reign over a congregation.

That is one reason that people have not learned the difference between jesus as the son-of-man, who came eating and drinking just as do we),... and the Christ, (a spirit which indwelled the physical body of Jesus) as the son-of-God that is in the kingdom within his mind.

That Christ is the ideal and perfection of Truth, personified.
Christ is the image of the ever unfolding father who says, "I am existence itself".

"I am Reality, and the son is my image called Truth."

 

[hedrick]

Don't be ridiculous, they most certainly weren't. They didn't deny the hypostatic union.

Then there is no reason to think that all of the posters here who refer to the man Jesus are denying the hypostatic union. I would accept it as a basic principle that conciliar definitions need to be understood in ways that don't involve calling the NT authors heretical.

Clearly some here are being non-orthodox. But I'm not clear that they are non-orthodox as a consequence of calling Jesus a man. E.g. cupid dave's last posting seems to see Jesus as a human body indwelled by a spirit that is more than human. This doesn't fit a normal definition of human, hence it doesn't look to me like he is portraying Jesus as a man.

 

[cupid dave]

Clearly some here are being non-orthodox. But I'm not clear that they are non-orthodox as a consequence of calling Jesus a man. E.g. cupid dave's last posting seems to see Jesus as a human body indwelled by a spirit that is more than human. This doesn't fit a normal definition of human, hence it doesn't look to me like he is portraying Jesus as a man.

Think about thisindwelling as the spirit of a dove that comes down from heaven and has the same effect as did the transfiguring metamorphosis reported in Matt 17:2-4, where Elijah leaves the mind of Jesus and returns to Moses.


Before John baptized Jesus he was the son-of-man.
Immediately upon baptizing him, Christ appears as the son-of-God.

 

[hedrick]

Think about thisindwelling as the spirit of a dove that comes down from heaven and has the same effect as did the transfiguring metamorphosis reported in Matt 17:2-4, where Elijah leaves the mind of Jesus and returns to Moses.


Before John baptized Jesus he was the son-of-man.
Immediately upon baptizing him, Christ appears as the son-of-God.

Indwelling isn't what I was objecting to. While the language is suspect for many orthodox, Col 1:19 says that the fulness of God dwells in Christ, so there has to be a way to understand indwelling as orthodox. I was objecting to Christ as a spirit indwelling a human body. That suggests that Jesus is not fully human, i.e. that there's a human body but not a human spirit. Perhaps I'm taking your wording too literally?

 

[WillieH]

This is a frequently asked question, which there should be a better way of dealing with.

Orthodox theology has two relevant doctrines, not just the Trinity, but the Incarnation. The Son combined a human nature with the Logos. The human nature has all the attributes of a human being, and acts with human actions. So when Jesus is quoted in the Gospel, the statement are statements by a human. Thus it makes sense for that human to speak of his God.

The Trinity comes from thinking through the implications of Jesus' life, death and resurrection on our idea of God. If, as suggested by the NT, Jesus is the image of God, he shows us God not just as the sovereign lawgiver, but as the obedient servant. Jesus prayer to his father thus shows us in human form something that is part of God in eternity. Both the love of a father and a son. Hence we think that Jesus' prayer and obedience to the Father reflects in human form a relationship within God in eternity.

Now when you look at the filial love of the Son for the Father in eternity, the only terms that can be used are Father and Son, since they're both equally God. The eternal Logos presumably wouldn't refer to the Father as his God, since they're both God. However because Jesus is human, it does make sense for him to refer to the Father also as God.

YHVH "over and over", ...specifically and CLEARLY notes that there is NO OTHER GOD BESIDE HIMSELF (not themselves):

Isaiah 43:10-11 -- Deut 4:35 -- Deut 32:39 -- Isaiah 45:6 -- Hosea 13:4 -- Isaiah 45:18, 21-22 -- Ex 20:1-3 -- and that He (not "THEY") manifest the CREATION -- Isaiah 44:24 -- "BY MYSELF" (not ourselves)

The "LOGOS" is NOT and NEVER was a man... The "LOGOS" is the unspoken WORD within the HEART of YHVH God, expressed and shared OUTWARDLY... (just as is in YOUR experience concerning YOUR "words")

The "LOGOS", ...is the EXPRESSION of the HEART of the ALMIGHTY, which was, is and always will be, ...subject unto HIM.

WORDS do not manifest themselves... they are subject to, and dependent upon being SPOKEN by a SPEAKER.

The "LOGOS" in reference to our (finite) perception of this ETERNAL notation, ...is CHRIST which is the KING, embodies ALL the individual "WORDS" (us/kings) within the "LOGOS"... but even the ENTIRETY of the WORD, (even though MUCH GREATER than the individual components of it which includes the individual "words" withiin It) was, is, and always will REMAIN, ...SUBJECT -- 1 Cor 15:28 -- unto the SPEAKER of them, and therefore is/are "SON/s" to the FATHER YHVH which SPOKE them all, and PRECEEDED them all. And FOREVER shall remain DEPENDENT upon the SPEAKER (YHVH God) to SPEAK them (JESUS=us)...


Your own individual experience displays as well as explains this... but you have to honestly LOOK at yourself in order to understand the concept. YOUR "words" are preceeded by YOU... and it is YOU which speak them, they DO NOT EVER "SPEAK themselves" and on a continuous basis WAIT, until YOU decide them to be manifest outwardly...

YHVH also notes TRUTHFULLY that "MEN" ...are, ...gods" -- Psalm 82:6 -- -- This is NOT a contradiction, nor is UNTRUTHFUL... for any which are OF the species are also in the IMAGE of that species ...which is PERFECTLY EXPLAINED in (and by) nature to us -----> A dog begats more dogs, a cat begats more cats, ...a shark begats more sharks, ...an oak tree begats more oak trees, ...a tomato begats more tomatoes, ...on to the infinity of lifeforms within YHVH...

ALL living things which are NOT "Sons"... animals, plants, fish, etc -- EVEN ANGELS are SUBJECT unto the SPECIES of GOD -- Heb 1:6 -- Heb 2:9 -- Heb 1:13-14 -- as is seen noted in the handing over of the CREATION unto Adam, by YHVH -- Gen 1:28

So, wherever YHVH "begats".... then "little YHVH's" come forth. Exactly LIKE Him... so any SON (1st=JESUS ...or subsequent=US) being called "gods" BY HIM is not contrary in the least, any more than if a begotten "TREE" were to claim itself as not a copy of the original that proceeded it.

JESUS CHRIST is named not only the SON of MAN (for He is of the species of man)...but is also named "god", for He is of the species of GOD.

This does not mean that JESUS had anything with originating Himself. It means that YHVH is the ONLY SELF EXISTENT being that IS... and JESUS is one MANIFEST in the IMAGE (A REFLECTION), of GOD -- Heb 1:3 -- and is the "blueprint" for all subsequent "sons", which are also of the "SPECIES" of God = YHVH

Where YHVH notes unto JESUS -- "Thy throne "O God" is forever..." -- Heb 1:8 -- is simply naming the THRONE of YHVH, ...and said "THRONE" is the "THRONE", ...which JESUS (and us as well shall, upon the completion of this realm), share forever:

Rev 3:21 -- To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with Me IN MY THRONE, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father ...IN HIS THRONE -- YHVH's "throne" is the "throne" of ALL His sons as well...


An IMAGE is NOT an ORIGINAL... it is a reflection or the copied manifestation of an ORIGINAL...

When you look into the mirror you do NOT see YOU... you see a REFLECTION of YOU... For it is YOU which produces the REFLECTION.

We must incorporate REASON in our observations of the WORD, or we shall, upon that unstable foundation, find NOTHING of Spiritual TRUTH -- Isaiah 1:18

May PEACE of His GRACE be with you...

...willieH