truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Graceseeker:
Perhaps key to our particular disagreement at the moment are a couple of lines from the Chaledonian Definition that
I'm going to highlight by simply lifting them out:

"Following the holy fathers, we . . . acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in the Godhead . . . of one substance [homoousious] with the Father as regards his Godhead . . . one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ...."

Nicea is NOT affirming belief in one God who is the Father, and a second belief in Jesus who is the Lord. It is affirming one belief in God who is Father and who is Son. And who as the Son, Chaledon goes on to clarify, is also known as the "Only-begotten God," but as Nicea affirmed we are still talking about just one God (not multiple gods), the very one you know as Father is also known as Son (and Holy Spirit, too, if you want to go that far)


Maybe this will help.

WHY is Jesus the "Only-begotten God"? In other words, I'm not disputing the claim itself at all. I'm asking, creed-wise, what makes it the case that Jesus, as human being, is also simultaneously fully God?

My particular answer to the question is as follows: The human being "Jesus Christ" is God (divine, uncreated) ONLY because he is the unique, eternally-begotten "Son" and "Word" of the Unbegotten God, the Father, right? (looking at Chalcedonian Creed again...). This is how Jesus is "Light from Light, true God from true God" as well as "of one being with the Father." (looking at Nicene and N-C Creeds). In other words, Arius was incorrect that there was a time when the Son was not, for that would have meant that God the Father wasn't ETERNALLY the "Father". And the Nicene Creed affirms that the One God IS "the Father" of the "only begotten Son". It demonstrates NO TEMPORALIZING of God as "Father." This hits directly as the CORE of Arianism. To believe what Arius was saying would be not only to inappropriately say that there was a time when the Son was not...it would be to imply that there was a time when God AS FATHER was not. That's completely out of bounds. Arius was right in a way about the logical priority of the Father and the Son (ie the Father is Unbegotten and the Son is begotten of the Unbegotten Father) but he was absolutely INCORRECT to temporalize the whole relationship, making God ORIGINATING the Son at some point in time...essentially making the God the Son into a CREATION of the God the Father...and making God being "Father" a purely temporal affair.

Now, I believe all this...WHILE holding that there is a meaningful distinction between the "One God" and "One Lord" idea such that the One God speaks particularly about God the Father. Even N.T. Wright noted in his work that Paul did INDEED make just this kind of distinction in his writings. It seems to me that the creators of the Nicene Creed used that same distinction WHILE they articulated the grounding ideas why Jesus is the "Only-Begotten God".

Here's something else I found. This is from Charles Spurgeon...and his take on the Nicene Creed. I pretty much agree with this all the way. Specifically what he says about the "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ..." section...including consubstantiality thing. Like I completely agree with what Spurgeon says about HOW the wording of the Creed RIGHTLY goes against what Arius was trying to say.

So...am I really an Arian? Really? :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Basically, the Nicene Creed affirms that God's "Father-hood" didn't just begin when he created Creation. It is ETERNAL.

From wiki...
The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius ignited the controversy that bears his name when St. Alexander of Alexandria, who had succeeded Achillas as the Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon on the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's speech as being a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and then argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing." This quote describes the essence of Arius' doctrine.

Do you see this? THIS is the core of what the Nicene Fathers was trying to dismantle with Arius. Arius took the logical PRIORITY of the Unbegotten over the Begotten in the Uncreated...temporalized the whole thing WRONGLY...and came to the conclusion that the Son's "begotteness" was tantamount to being the Son's ORIGINATION. That's wrong...and that's what they were combatting.

Feel me, GraceSeeker? Am I still an Arian?
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

I would say things like this:

Just like the Uncreated God has ETERNALLY been "Father of the Unique Son/Image" by His Spirit, He also has ETERNALLY been "Speaker of His Self-Disclosing Word/Memra" by His Spirit. Actually, Christianly speaking, God the Father's Son/Image and Word/Memra are one and the same, the Lord Jesus Christ. (See Chalcedonian Creed)

"...one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Would you agree with this, GS? Are we all good now? :shade:

Interestingly enough, this view favors Sunni Islam over the Shia, insofar as the Sunni view of Islam allows for Allah to be a "Speaker" without any Creation to speak to.

"For example, we say that Allah was from ever Hearer, See'er,
Omniscient, Wise, Omnipotent, Having power, Living, Self-existent, One
and Eternal. And these are His personal attributes. and we do not say
that He was from ever Creating, Doing, Intending, pleased, displeased,
Giving sustenance, Speaking; because these virtues describe His
actions; and they are not eternal; it is not allowed to say that Allah
was doing all these actions from eternity. The reason for this
distinction is obvious. Actions need an object. For example, if we say
that Allah was giving sustenance from ever, then we will have to admit
the existence of sustained thing from ever. In other words, we will
have to admit that the world was from ever. but it is against our
belief that nothing except God is Eternal."
Shia Muslim, Shaykh Saduq

Basically Shaykh Saduq is saying that God didn't "Speak" before the "object" of Creation was there to speak to. Sunni Muslims disagree and allow for God to be a Speaker WITHOUT any creaturely object. Sunni Islam allows for this type of "uncreated speech" of God to NOT being seen as shirk. Shaykh Suduq's Shia belief does not. He sees God's activity (speech) being co-eternal as God HImself...as being directly "against our belief that nothing except God is Eternal."
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

A MUST READ. Very accessible.

Eternal or Created Speech: Muslim Interpretations of God's Word
by Amanda Elizabeth Propst

From the work...

John of Damascus, active in the eighth century AD, is traditionally considered to have been aware of the significance of God‟s speech to Muslims as an eternal attribute and theological concept in the new discourse between Christians and Muslims. John, in his Disputatio Christiani et Saraceni, if it is correctly attributed to him, presents idealized debates between Muslims and Christians in the century after the Muslim conquest of Syria in 635.18 In one of his debates, he bases the entire argument on the premise that an orthodox Muslim will not admit that the pre-existent Word of God was created. The result was that the Muslim, refusing the createdness of the Word, would hopefully be convinced that the pre-existent Christ, referred to also as the Word of God in the Qur‟ān, is coeternal with God since any Word of God must be uncreated. If the veracity of the text can be confirmed, then by the time of John of Damascus the theory was that the Qur‟ān, as the Word of God, was uncreated.

Interesting...
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Wanted to say something about Abd Allah Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni's problem with the Trinity. Pages 28-30. Worth the read.

As I'm reading, he conceived the union of natures in Christ like a a mixture, not a complementarity situation. He says...

The Byzantines hold the doctrine that the word amalgamates with the body of the Messiah and mixes with it as thoroughly as might wine with milk.

From this understanding, he (rightly) saw the incarnation being nonsense, because once Christians said that the Word was inseparable from the divine substance, then it could not account for how divine substance and created substance could be "mixed" like wine and milk. Either the divine and created substances are TRULY non-mixable...OR...a tertium quid would HAVE to be posited such that the "substance unites with the humanity." But...this is the absolute WRONG way to think of this. But I understand: he didn't have the full understanding of complementarity that was ACTUALLY articulated by the Byzantines. He said...

It is impossible for an accident to become incarnate in a certain body while that accident adheres to another body.

If we take the complementarity view, then al-Juwayni's problems go away. It demonstrates how their is no MIXING of the two "substances" (divine and non-divine), which the attributes of the divine substance can be attributable to the human substance. God the Father's Word "enhypostasizes" Jesus...such that Jesus of Nazareth has human substance as human as divine substance as UNCREATED Word/Memra of God. Like the natural attributes of FIRE (luminescence, burning things, etc) can be attributable to a METAL BAR as the fire permeates the metal bar...without the fire changing into metal or the metal changing into fire. The Fire and Metal Bar are not MIXED like some kind of compounded, but they do coinhere in ONE particular object: the metal bar itself. Speaking of Jesus, his singular human existence is permeated with and uniquely "radiates" the Divine "Fiery" Energy of the God's uncreated Word...like a white hot "Sword of the Spirit".

Yeah!
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Even if none of this is true, we can't say that theological concept of something being uncreated and created at the same time is plain nonsensical gibberish. We simply can't. If it were merely unintelligible gibberish, then there wouldn't be such heavy, prolonged debate about it in Christianity AND Islam!
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Let me be bold and say it like this:

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the "word"of God to Mary, is the human "embodiment" of the Name and Great Commandments of God the Father; that is to say, Jesus is the complete human expression of 1) God the Father's self-disclosure [ "I Am" (John 8:58) ] 2) "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength" and 3) "Love your neighbor as yourself." He was the perfect living, breathing expression of the reality of the "Mother of the Book": Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One Uncreated Creator by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification to the Creator and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to others and ourselves. In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves, purify our "mirrors" of God, and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because our Creator is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving. He IS what Micah 6:8 is saying.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
I would say things like this:

Just like the Uncreated God has ETERNALLY been "Father of the Unique Son/Image" by His Spirit, He also has ETERNALLY been "Speaker of His Self-Disclosing Word/Memra" by His Spirit. Actually, Christianly speaking, God the Father's Son/Image and Word/Memra are one and the same, the Lord Jesus Christ. (See Chalcedonian Creed)

"...one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ."

Would you agree with this, GS? Are we all good now? :shade:
Click to expand...

Well, based on what you said in the previous post, you aren't the classical Arian, but I still don't read this as orthodox. It seems that while you recognize Jesus as Lord that you are likewise intent on denying that Jesus is nothing more and nothing less than the incarnation of the Father. So, if to be Lord is divine, but Jesus is not one with the Father as God, how do you avoid ending up with two different divine beings and thus two different Gods?

I still refer you back to what I understand the Nicene Creed is saying.

It makes one single over-arching statement --> We believe in one God. (It then makes three statements about this one God.)
1. Because he is God, the Father is almighty and maker of heaven and earth.
2. Because he is God, the Son is the Lord and then his temporal history is related.
3. Because he is God, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life.

Note: if there is only one Lord, and Jesus Christ is here listed as Lord as a way of distinguishing him from the Father (and by implication then also the Spirit), then how can the Spirit also be declared as Lord as the same time?
​
I hear you reading the creed as if it were making three separate and independent statements.
1. I believe in one God who is the Father.
2. I believe in one Lord who is the Son (and though you don't say it aloud, I read it hidden in every line of what you write) and who is not God.
3. I believe in the Holy Spirit who is neither God nor Lord. (Yet, the creed says the Spirit is the Lord.)
​
Frankly, that is NOT what I believe. I just don't see that being either what the ecumenical council was trying to say at Nicea nor what the NT itself proclaims with regard to either the Son or the Spirit. As for my comment that we agreed on 98%, while I still think we largely agree, I hope you know that I just pulled that particular number out of the air. Though, it might also be worth noting that according to genetists we humans share 98.5% of our DNA with chimpanzees. I largely agree with most things taught in Islam with just a few differences. Sometimes those differences are important. The Word of God is more than just something that proceeds from the Father, it is an actual expression of God's very being.

With respect to the discussion of Arianism, what had stirred Arius up was he perceived to be a heretical teaching in which there was no room for distinguishing the divinity of God the Father from that of God the Son. In other words, Arius would think that I was a heretic. And for Arius the problem with my view is that if the Father and the Son are not to be distinguished from one another with one God and the other Lord, then the limitations of the Son would have to be ascribed to the Father as well. Arius questioned how God, the unknowable, the immutable, the transcendent one could become fully human without being changed, lessened, in the process. This would not do, Jesus had to be inferior to the Father, he could not be co-equal with him. Thus he could be like God, but could not share in God's very essence. Therefore, Arius understood that the Son had to be generated in time rather than in eternity. But this point where you disagree with Arius is his conclusion. It seems like you do indeed share his premises.

Athanasius' response is that the Son has to be generated by God from eternity, that is that the Son has no beginning. But get what that means. If the generation of the Son is eternal to God, then it must also be internal to God, for in pre-temporal eternity, there is no existence of anything outside of the one God. Creation not only is in time, but it is also external to God. But generation of the Son prior to this would imply that the Son was internal to God, i.e. he is God. It is for this reason that Athanasius concludes that the Son is not just homoiousios (being of similar substance to God) as some of the Arians claimed, but that the Son was by necessity homoousios (being of the same substance) and co-eternal with the Father. That is what the "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father" portions of the Nicene Creed is all about.

When in Philippians 2:9-11 Paul writes:
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Click to expand...
He is not saying that it is the name "Jesus" that is so special. No, look more closely. Paul is saying that God has given to Jesus "the name that is above every name." The given name that Paul refers to is the tetragrammaton (YHWH), the sacred name of God. It is the name that Jews would not even speak, so that they substituted in place of that name the title "LORD." To say that Jesus is Lord, is to say that Jesus is God.

What is particularly striking here is the way that Paul combines two OT passages. Isaiah 45:22-23 reads:
22 “Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
Click to expand...

In that very same chapter of Isaiah, we six times get the refrain about God seen in verse 22: "There is no other" emphasizing God's uniqueness.

The second passage comes from Isaiah 42:8 -- "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols." In Philippians 2, Paul is applying some of the strongest affirmations about the unique sovereignty and identity of God that can be found in the Old Testament to the person of Jesus. This sort of adoration is reserved for God alone. That's what Philippians 2 is really saying. Not just that Jesus is Lord, but Paul essentially is making the claim that God has said that Jesus is God, for when you proclaim that Jesus is Lord, you are in essence giving glory to God for God the Father and God the Son share this same essence. Thus it is no surprise that Thomas proclaims Jesus as both "my Lord" and "my God." There is no difference between these two assertions as far as the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds are concerned.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
Well, based on what you said in the previous post, you aren't the classical Arian, but I still don't read this as orthodox.

Seriously? Oboy.

***************************************

GraceSeeker:
I still refer you back to what I understand the Nicene Creed is saying.
It makes one single over-arching statement --> We believe in one God. (It then makes three statements about this one God.)
1. Because he is God, the Father is almighty and maker of heaven and earth.
2. Because he is God, the Son is the Lord and then his temporal history is related.
3. Because he is God, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life.

In my view, God is specifically noted to be the Father...and the Son and Spirit are divine because of their relationship to God the Father. The "Lord" language solidifies that they ALL have the same divine nature.

*****************************************

GraceSeeker:
It seems that while you recognize Jesus as Lord that you are likewise intent on denying that Jesus is nothing more and nothing less than the incarnation of the Father. So, if to be Lord is divine, but Jesus is not one with the Father as God, how do you avoid ending up with two different divine beings and thus two different Gods?


Let me just post a few quotes from Scripture...

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:7

Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
Romans 8:34

that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 15:6

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:3

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
2 Corinthians 1:2-3

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
2 Corinthians 13:14

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
Galatians 1:3

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
Ephesians 1:2-3

that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him
Ephesians 1:17

giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
Ephesians 5:20

Ok. These are just SOME of them. I was too lazy to post them all. All I'm trying to show is that, like N.T. Wright himself noticed, Paul DOES make the distinction where the One God refers specifically to God, the Father of Jesus Christ. What I've been saying is that the Nicene and N-C Creeds use this same BIBLICAL distinction WHILE providing all the context for Jesus to be called the "Only-Begotten God."


**********************************************************************

GraceSeeker:
I hear you reading the creed as if it were making three separate and independent statements.
1. I believe in one God who is the Father.
2. I believe in one Lord who is the Son (and though you don't say it aloud, I read it hidden in every line of what you write) and who is not God.
3. I believe in the Holy Spirit who is neither God nor Lord. (Yet, the creed says the Spirit is the Lord.)

1) The "Lord" thing is what pronounces the divine nature of both Son and Holy Spirit. We are NOT disagreeing on that.

2) What I say is that Jesus is NOT the One God (God the Father) and he IS "very God from very God" having the same divine nature as the Father, because he is the Son and Word of God.


*******************************************************************

GraceSeeker:
Athanasius' response is that the Son has to be generated by God from eternity, that is that the Son has no beginning. But get what that means. If the generation of the Son is eternal to God, then it must also be internal to God, for in pre-temporal eternity, there is no existence of anything outside of the one God. Creation not only is in time, but it is also external to God. But generation of the Son prior to this would imply that the Son was internal to God, i.e. he is God. It is for this reason that Athanasius concludes that the Son is not just homoiousios (being of similar substance to God) as some of the Arians claimed, but that the Son was by necessity homoousios (being of the same substance) and co-eternal with the Father. That is what the "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father" portions of the Nicene Creed is all about.


I don't disagree with any of this.


******************************************************************

GraceSeeker:
In Philippians 2, Paul is applying some of the strongest affirmations about the unique sovereignty and identity of God that can be found in the Old Testament to the person of Jesus. This sort of adoration is reserved for God alone. That's what Philippians 2 is really saying. Not just that Jesus is Lord, but Paul essentially is making the claim that God has said that Jesus is God, for when you proclaim that Jesus is Lord, you are in essence giving glory to God for God the Father and God the Son share this same essence.

GS, I believe the Jesus is "homoousias" with God the Father. I also believe that the "Lord" language used with Jesus (and with the Spirit) testify to divine nature being associated with them.

What are you after here, GS? There seems to be SOMETHING that you are wanting. This must really be bothering you to place this much effort on this.
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
With respect to the discussion of Arianism, what had stirred Arius up was he perceived to be a heretical teaching in which there was no room for distinguishing the divinity of God the Father from that of God the Son. In other words, Arius would think that I was a heretic. And for Arius the problem with my view is that if the Father and the Son are not to be distinguished from one another with one God and the other Lord, then the limitations of the Son would have to be ascribed to the Father as well. Arius questioned how God, the unknowable, the immutable, the transcendent one could become fully human without being changed, lessened, in the process. This would not do, Jesus had to be inferior to the Father, he could not be co-equal with him. Thus he could be like God, but could not share in God's very essence. Therefore, Arius understood that the Son had to be generated in time rather than in eternity. But this point where you disagree with Arius is his conclusion. It seems like you do indeed share his premises.


Ok. Step by step.

1) Do you hear me saying that Jesus is NOT co-equal and cosubstantial with God the Father?
2) Do you hear me saying that the Son was generated in time?

If NO to both 1 and 2, then how do I share Arius' premises?
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Grace Seeker said:
So, peacelover, let me just ask you a single question (with several anticipated follow-ups): Are you personally mortal or immortal?
Click to expand...
i wonder what prompted you to ask such a question.... ^o)
mortal ofcourse.

there better be some follow-ups!!....i feel lame myself answering this!

Grace Seeker said:
I have no evidence from anyone that this is what Muhammad (pbuh) was principally known for, so that effectively excludes him from being the paracletos that is mentioned by Jesus.
Click to expand...
I won't agree until i find out the details.....
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
GraceSeeker:
Well, based on what you said in the previous post, you aren't the classical Arian, but I still don't read this as orthodox.

Seriously? Oboy.
Click to expand...
Seriously. Or, as you say, I wouldn't be spending so much time on this.

But let us remember that the word "orthodox" simply means "right praise", or in this context right thinking. And I'm not saying that you are a heretic, I've done plenty of wrong thinking in my day and maybe others would look at what I am saying now and affirm you and wish to tell me that I'm the one who is screwed up.
But, yes, seriously. And that is because I find that some of the things you are saying are inconsistent with each other, even mutually exclusive in nature:
YieldedOne said:
2) What I say is that Jesus is NOT the One God (God the Father) and he IS "very God from very God" having the same divine nature as the Father, because he is the Son and Word of God.
Click to expand...

YieldedOne said:
I believe the Jesus is "homoousias" with God the Father. I also believe that the "Lord" language used with Jesus (and with the Spirit) testify to divine nature being associated with them. </p>
Click to expand...
These are examples of statements I find internally inconsistent with themselves if one is trying to affirm classical trinitarian understandings. Thus, I think you misrepresent what the Trinity is to others when you seek to defend it, for you are speaking of it amiss. That is why this is important to me.

When you say that Jesus is "NOT the One God" but then continue to say that "he IS 'very God...'," then you are admitting a second god into the Godhead. THAT IS POLYTHEISM, not trinitarian monotheism. In monotheism there is exactly "one God", NOT "one God+" (which is how I read what you have described).

Further, if you "believe the Jesus is 'homoousias' with God the Father," then it seems to me that one's interpretation of all of Paul's "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" statements must be understood in terms of that expression. So, given the choice between reading that statement as grouping concepts in this fashion "(God our Father) AND (the Lord Jesus Christ)" or reading that statement as grouping concepts in this fashion "God (our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ)" only the second of those treats the two concepts of "Father" and "Lord" as being of the same essence (i.e. homoousias).

What I see as an insistence (on your part) in emphasizing the conjunction "AND" results (in my view) in a subordination of the the Son and the Spirit to a higher status of the Father. (I.e. Justin Martyr or even Irenaeus, not bad company to be in by the way.)
Indeed, your expression has a lot in common with Irenaeus. For Irenaeus, the Son (as Word) has always been with the Father and is the one who makes the Father known. He also taught that the Son has always been, that he did not come into existence subsequent to the Father, but has been with the Father from before the beginning. Further, Irenaeus insists on a sort of unity between the Father and the Son by casting the Son as the Word giving expression to the Father's reason. So, the Father conceives of an idea (such as the world) and it is generated by the Son (the Word of God) who speaks it into being. Just to be clear, however, this is NOT what is meant by Trinity at Nicea. Yet, Irenaeus ideas are not cast as heretical (though Justin Martyr's were) and are often termed "orthodox subordinationism."

The reasons I say that Irenaeus' ideas are NOT trinitarian is that it was specifically to challenge this sort of subordinationism that Tertullian, fighting to preserve the unity of the Godhead as one being and not subsets of beings, coined the phrase trinitas to speak of this unity in which no subordination of one person to the other occurred because of the sharing of the single essence. According to Tertullian, though there are real distinctions between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, yet there are no real separations. And very clearly when you consider the Father to be God, and simultaneously you consider the Son to be Lord but not God, you have not just distinction but separation and thereby deny the unity of the Godhead as one which is the essence (no pun intended) of what the Trinity is meant to affirm.

Of course, maybe I'm falling into Sabellianism, holding such a strict view of the unity of the divine essence that I'm not allowing for enough distinction among the persons, but I don't think so. In any regard, what we have going on here between us is a good example of the sort of conversations that must have taken place between Christians in those first few centuries as they tried to interpret what was meant by the words of scripture so that even the tiniest nuance of a word became much debated. But I want to reaffirm my understanding of Nicea "was to place on record once and for all that the being of the Son is identical to the being of the Father, dealing a mortal blow to subordinationism" (The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, by Robert Letham, copyright 2004). The problem with the position Origen (and it seems you) present is that it was specifically Origen's subordinational views that Arius fell back on in arriving at his own ultimately heretical views of a greater and lesser God.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

peacelover said:
i wonder what prompted you to ask such a question.... ^o)
mortal ofcourse.

there better be some follow-ups!!....i feel lame myself answering this!
Click to expand...
</p>
Here is the first follow-up.
So, what happens when you die? Is that all there is? End of story? You exist no more? No afterlife?
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
GraceSeeker:
With respect to the discussion of Arianism, what had stirred Arius up was he perceived to be a heretical teaching in which there was no room for distinguishing the divinity of God the Father from that of God the Son. In other words, Arius would think that I was a heretic. And for Arius the problem with my view is that if the Father and the Son are not to be distinguished from one another with one God and the other Lord, then the limitations of the Son would have to be ascribed to the Father as well. Arius questioned how God, the unknowable, the immutable, the transcendent one could become fully human without being changed, lessened, in the process. This would not do, Jesus had to be inferior to the Father, he could not be co-equal with him. Thus he could be like God, but could not share in God's very essence. Therefore, Arius understood that the Son had to be generated in time rather than in eternity. But this point where you disagree with Arius is his conclusion. It seems like you do indeed share his premises.


Ok. Step by step.

1) Do you hear me saying that Jesus is NOT co-equal and cosubstantial with God the Father?
2) Do you hear me saying that the Son was generated in time?

If NO to both 1 and 2, then how do I share Arius' premises?
Click to expand...

1) Yes. Indeed I do.
2) No. Therefore you are not Arian, but as I expressed in my last post, you do have a great deal in common with Origen's view which led directly into Arianism. You share at least one of his basic premises, even if you don't arrive that the same conclusion he did.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Grace Seeker said:
Here is the first follow-up.
So, what happens when you die? Is that all there is? End of story? You exist no more? No afterlife?
Click to expand...

That's not the end...obviously!
After a person dies...on the Day of Judgement he'll be resurrected and will be accountable for all his deeds on earth...and God Almighty will then grant him Paradise or condemn him to Hell..
That's when a person's eternal life begins....
that is if God wills he'll live a blissful life in Paradise foreva or will suffer eternal punishment in Hellfire.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

I would say that humans are Mortal Jesus can't be both Mortal and Immortal.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

:::repeatedly bangs head against a wall:::

:uuh:
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Grace Seeker said:
</p>
Here is the first follow-up.
So, what happens when you die? Is that all there is? End of story? You exist no more? No afterlife?
Click to expand...

God remakes us - the one that is ever living and never dies unlike the Human being - Just like God made us before - Its easy for God - this is one of the major themes in the Quran - the pagans had a problem of the afterlife and the Resurrection.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
But I want to reaffirm my understanding of Nicea "was to place on record once and for all that the being of the Son is identical to the being of the Father, dealing a mortal blow to subordinationism" (The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, by Robert Letham, copyright 2004). The problem with the position Origen (and it seems you) present is that it was specifically Origen's subordinational views that Arius fell back on in arriving at his own ultimately heretical views of a greater and lesser God.

This is what I see all this coming down to.

What you want me to say is this: Whenever the persons who made up the Nicene Creed said "One God", they specifically did NOT refer to "the Father", but they directly meant that the "One God" was Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Nicene Fathers did NOT use the distinctions that even N.T. Wright noticed that Paul himself used in Scripture between the "One God" and "One Lord". And because I don't agree with that, you have claimed that I'm "Arian" or at least subordinationist-unto-Arianism.

Do you see this? It's not really about whether or not I believe that Jesus is co-substantial/co-equal with God the Father, both sharing divine nature. It CAN'T be that...because I've affirmed those things ad nauseum. You merely don't take my affirmations as genuine because I don't agree to the way you interpret the language of the Nicene and N-C Creeds.

Basically, if I were to say that the "One God" in the Nicene Creed, by the direct intention of the persons involved in it's inception, specifically indicated all 3 divine persons, you'd have no problem with me.

Ain't I right?
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
Basically, if I were to say that the "One God" in the Nicene Creed, by the direct intention of the persons involved in it's inception, specifically indicated all 3 divine persons, you'd have no problem with me.

Ain't I right?
Click to expand...
i think that this is what the matter reduces to as well. now, if i could just go back to an earlier point concerning the shema and which person of the trinity it refers to, i believe that you had claimed that it was in reference to the father only. i quite disagree. from the old testament, it would seem quite clear that YHWH does not merely refer to the father for we have passages wherein YHWH clearly speaks of the son:

10 “Shout and be glad, Daughter Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. 11 “Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you. --- Zech. 2:10 NIV

notice that in the above more than one individual is called the god of israel---he who sends and he who is sent. in light of the above wherein we quite clearly see that YHWH speaks of more than just the father, how can you then claim that in the shema, YHWH ought only refer to the first person of the trinity? where is the warrant for this?

i understand that what we're discussing here is almost trivial but it is interesting if nothing else.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top