Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One god. We do not stipulate that they are identical in all respects. To understand this is clearly the problem that those at Nicaea dealt with. How to say that the three are one in substance and indivisible, BUT ALSO that we are not to confuse the identity of one with another.Yet, we, doctrinally, stress that they are to be seen as one.
Yet Jesus himself said "if you have seen me, you've seen the Father". So while he may indeed "appear" different to us, that is only because of our insistence on dividing man from God, and Christ from man, and physical from spiritual, etc, that causes us to not...quite...fully believe this.Not in the least. Christ, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth is the only one of the persons of God to have assumed a human nature. It seems almost too obvious that he would appear differently to us from the Father and the Holy Ghost.
Yeah, maybe. But I have a hard time getting away from Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, (the "image of God" verses) And I'm not talking "physical", of course, but attributes.One god. We do not stipulate that they are identical in all respects. To understand this is clearly the problem that those at Nicaea dealt with. How to say that the three are one in substance and indivisible, BUT ALSO that we are not to confuse the identity of one with another.
Why is that, though?One god. We do not stipulate that they are identical in all respects. To understand this is clearly the problem that those at Nicaea dealt with. How to say that the three are one in substance and indivisible, BUT ALSO that we are not to confuse the identity of one with another.
No reputable theologian would tell you that he was saying that he WAS literally the Father, though. How could that be what Jesus was meaning when he also said that the Father was greater than he, that he was doing the work of the Father, etc.? He couldn't. What he was saying is almost universally understood to mean that he and the Father were one in purpose. It's like we might say "The Senator and I are 'like that' " (while showing the index and middle fingers of your hand crossed. You know that gesture).Yet Jesus himself said "if you have seen me, you've seen the Father".
So while he may indeed "appear" different to us, that is only because of our insistence on dividing man from God, and Christ from man, and physical from spiritual, etc, that causes us to not...quite...fully believe this.
(Is this too far off-topic, Ky?)
Yet, that's precisely what the creed says:No reputable theologian would tell you that he was saying that he WAS literally the Father, though.
How could that be what Jesus was meaning when he also said that the Father was greater than he, that he was doing the work of the Father, etc.? He couldn't. What he was saying is almost universally understood to mean that he and the Father were one in purpose. It's like we might say "The Senator and I are 'like that' " (while showing the index and middle fingers of your hand crossed. You know that gesture).
As I recall, the Christological issue in question was a defense against Arianism which claimed that the Son had a beginning. That he was not eternal, but raised up by God to Godhood status. That God the Father and God the Son were one in divine purpose, but not in divine being. The creed sought to clear that up.Wellllllllll, that's one of the ideas that the Council of Nicaea specifically wanted to dispel.
Yet Jesus himself said "if you have seen me, you've seen the Father". So while he may indeed "appear" different to us, that is only because of our insistence on dividing man from God, and Christ from man, and physical from spiritual, etc, that causes us to not...quite...fully believe this.
(Is this too far off-topic, Ky?)
Yet, that's precisely what the creed says:
"Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made."
Agreed. I don't see anything there to debate.No reputable theologian would say that Jesus is less than the Father
Yes--by asserting the divinity of Christ. As God, he was not created, etc. But that in no way was meant to say that he was literally the Father. That's another heresy altogether.As I recall, the Christological issue in question was a defense against Arianism which claimed that the Son had a beginning. That he was not eternal, but raised up by God to Godhood status. That God the Father and God the Son were one in divine purpose, but not in divine being. The creed sought to clear that up.
Look carefully. That's not what you proposed. Yes, Christ is God. Yes, Christ was not created. Yes, Christ is of "one essence" with the Father. But he is not the Father. You did not quote the part that says "Begotten by his Father before all worlds," I see. How do you suppose that would be possible if he were the Father??
Agreed. I don't see anything there to debate.
Yes--by asserting the divinity of Christ. As God, he was not created, etc. But that in no way was meant to say that he was literally the Father. That's another heresy altogether.
Arianism is one version of that theme, right.He is not less than the Father, that's Arianism.
I don't think it's that bad. While this is a mystery, and we cannot exactly explain it, and the Nicene Creed is just a human attempt, I do think we can generally "get" the point. Essence and Substance refer to the being who is God. "One," however, is a more elusive word. When it's said that the Father and the Son are "one," it could mean that they are the same in every way and identical, but it could mean that two somethings are united in some respect. That's what the theologians say this means, and it makes sense to me.He is the Father, that's Monarchianism or Sabellianism or something. He and the Father are One, but not quite, so we throw around "essence" and "eternally begotten" and throw in a few "energies" and then wonder why no one has any idea what the hell we're talking about. Then we throw up our hands and call it a mystery.
It's not, but somewhere along the line the church had to define itself, what it believes, and so on, if it wanted to stand for something. It's unlikely that any cause or movement can take convert the world if no one can say what it is all about or that it's whatever you want to make of it.This doesn't seem to be the purpose for which Christ came. That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, maybe. But I have a hard time getting away from Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15, (the "image of God" verses) And I'm not talking "physical", of course, but attributes.
Arianism is one version of that theme, right.
I don't think it's that bad. While this is a mystery, and we cannot exactly explain it, and the Nicene Creed is just a human attempt, I do think we can generally "get" the point. Essence and Substance refer to the being who is God. "One," however, is a more elusive word. When it's said that the Father and the Son are "one," it could mean that they are the same in every way and identical, but it could mean that two somethings are united in some respect. That's what the theologians say this means, and it makes sense to me.
It's not, but somewhere along the line the church had to define itself, what it believes, and so on, if it wanted to stand for something. It's unlikely that any cause or movement can take convert the world if no one can say what it is all about or that it's whatever you want to make of it.
I'm going to hope you get some more complete replies here, but the simple answer should be no - the Father should not be said to have greater power/glory than the Son and/or the Holy Spirit.
The three persons of the Trinity are all co-equal. They are all God. One God in three persons.
I am thinking the Scripture you mention may be Christ Jesus speaking to His disciples as a human, saying that the Father is greater. But that one needs to be verified by someone else - I'm not sure that's the reason He said that. It also becomes easy to confuse Who Christ Jesus was if I've said that wrongly, because you don't separate Jesus the Man and Jesus as God into two "halves" or "persons" ... at least Chalcedonian Christians don't ... if I've gotten all that right.
I guess the question is: What difference does it make?
Perhaps I'm letting my rust-belt show a little, but this strikes me as straining at gnats while there are camels in the soup. What practical difference does this make? And if it does make such a difference, why didn't Jesus spell it all out? Why didn't he, when he was accused of blasphemy, say, "Oh no, no, I'm not God the Father, I'm God the son, eternally begotten, blah blah blah" instead of saying "Before Abraham was, I am"?
The more I look at it the more it seems to be a way to stand in the doorway. Not entering in and not allowing anyone else to enter either.
But, ok, I'm done preaching...you take the last word, brother, then we'll let Kylissa have her thread.
In a sense, I agree with you. But in another sense, I don't--because it's not a "practical" issue. To not know who your own god is (and that's what this boils down to) seems to me to be a serious flaw.
Everything that we believe about Jesus, which is everything that's critical and practical in our religion, depends on knowing who he was. If he was just a nice guy who taught us to be kindly, we've got nothing more than a philosophy of life, and every atheist has that. Conversely, if he was God, who is the Father we (the Hebrews) already knew?
In the final analysis, we cannot understand this stuff. However, we can corral the essentials and fence out the wrong answers sufficiently to be confident of the basic truth of it all. To me, it's necessary, although I do agree that we can't fall into trying to define the mystery of God down to the last speck of information.
Thanks for a nice discussion.
Why didn't he, when he was accused of blasphemy, say, "Oh no, no, I'm not God the Father, I'm God the son, eternally begotten, blah blah blah" instead of saying "Before Abraham was, I am"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?