Hypostatic Union

[psimmond]

Paidion wrote: It gets worse! If the one true God is 3 persons, and God was born as a human being, then 3 persons were born as a human being. Thus Jesus was 3 persons. I wonder to whom he was talking when He was praying. He addressed Him as "Father". Was He talking to the part of Him that was the Father?

Paidion, either you have absolutely no idea what Trinitarians believe, or you know and are intentionally misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity to make the point that you think this doctrine is absurd. I'm quite certain it's the latter .

You talk about there being four or more Gods, you keep talking about God being an essence, and you even talk about your big toe! I understand that what you believe is much simpler, but simpler is not always better.

In a way, your argument here reminds me of the typical sovereignty vs. free-will debates: both parties present one side pretty well but downplay or redefine the other side. You've created a more simplistic way of viewing God, but in the process, you've decided that God sometimes means God and sometimes means generic God or deity, which is different than God. And in the end, deity seems to mean very little.

[steve7150]

And in the end, deity seems to mean very little.







One of the definitions of deity is "divine character or nature" which means above humans or angels and i interpret "deity" as uncreated. So to me "deity" says a great deal.

"God" on the other hand to me from a biblical perspective means "God Almighty" and since Moses and Jesus referred to the Father as the One True God , i think deity is the best description of Jesus.

I think both John and Thomas who were Jews and monotheists meant "deity" in their usage of the word "God" in their references to Jesus. With regards to Thomas a minute before he saw the resurrected Christ and said "My Lord and my God" , a minute before he didn't believe Jesus at all and then by seeing and feeling him decided Jesus was the God Almighty? I don't think he meant that, i think he meant "deity."

[mattrose]

I think both John and Thomas who were Jews and monotheists meant "deity" in their usage of the word "God" in their references to Jesus. With regards to Thomas a minute before he saw the resurrected Christ and said "My Lord and my God" , a minute before he didn't believe Jesus at all and then by seeing and feeling him decided Jesus was the God Almighty? I don't think he meant that, i think he meant "deity."

This seems like a very strange argument to me for 3 reasons

1. You're arguing that when they SAID 'God'... they actually MEANT 'deity'... So, in the midst of a debate which includes the appropriatness of using the term 'God' for Jesus you quote a verse that does just that and then try to use it against that view

2. You're arguing that for Thomas to make a jump from not believing Jesus at all to believing He was God almighty was TOO FAR a jump to make in mere minutes.... but you're totally fine with him making a jump from not believing Jesus at all to believing He was deity

3. You're arguing that there is a big distinction to be made, apparently, between being 'God' and being 'Deity'... a point I'm still trying to figure out. Is 'deity' LESS MIGHTY than 'God'? If so, is this lack of might part of a lesser nature or voluntary submission?

[Paidion]

1. You're arguing that when they SAID 'God'... they actually MEANT 'deity'... So, in the midst of a debate which includes the appropriatness of using the term 'God' for Jesus you quote a verse that does just that and then try to use it against that view

Matt, I don't think Steve is simply choosing to arbitrarily make θεος mean "deity" when it suits his purpose. Rather the word θεος does mean "deity" in some contexts. Also Steve is right in saying that the meaning is often "divine character or nature".

In John 1:1, the word θεος is used in both senses in that one verse, and the Greek construction requires "God" for the first instance, and "deity" for the second.

ἐν ἀρχη ἠν ὁ λογος
In (the) beginning was the Logos

και ὁ λογος ἠν προς τον θεον
and the Logos was with the God.

In each and every instance in which θεος is modified by the article ὁ where θεος had no other modifiers, the word θεος refers to God the Father. So the Logos was with God the Father.

"προς" does not mean being "with" Him in a physical sense. If that were what John meant he would have used the preposition "συν" or the preposition "μετα". It has the meaning "with" in the sense in which we might use it today if Joe has a plan of action and we say, "I'm with you, Joe".


και θεος ην ὁ λογος

Notice "God" does NOT had the article. Also "θεος" comes BEFORE the verb instead of after. This lack of an article and word order indicates that "θεος" is used as a quality, in this case having the quality of divinity. What follows is a couple of other instances where this is the case:

ὀ λογος ὁ σος ἀληθεια ἐστιν (John 17:17)
According to the order if the words, on might translate this as "Your word truth is" but translators correctly render it as "Your word is truth". "Truth" comes before the verb because truth is a quality. It's the kind of thing God's word is. It might have been written, "Your word is true."

Similarly in ὀ θεος ἀγαπη ἐστιν (I John 4:18, 4:16), the arrangement of the words is "God love is", correctly translated as "God is love." Love is a quality. It's the kind of thing which God the Father is. (Notice the article before "theos" indicating that the Father is meant). It might have been written, "God is loving."

Thus, in the sentence θεος ην ὁ λογος (theos was the Logos) should be rendered "The Logos was theos", theos being the quality of the Logos. The quality was that of being deity. It might have been written, "The Logos was divine." Only the Father and the Son (and their spirit of course) is divine. No other beings in the universe are divine or true deity.

Martin Luther, whatever else he was (e.g. persecutor of Jews and Anabaptists), was a good Greek scholar. Concerning John 1:1, he put it succinctly:

"The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism." (Basic of Biblical Greek p. 29)

Sabellianism was a form of modalism. Sabellianists would have understood "The Logos was God" as meaning that Jesus and God the Father are one and the same person. If that was what the apostle John had meant, he would have written, "ὁ θεος" rather than "θεος".

Arianism (supposedly) would have understood Jesus as a lesser deity, and would have translated the phrase as "The logos (or "word") was a god" as the New World Translation does.

Neither are correct. From my understanding I feel like translating the phrase as "The Logos was God-stuff", but I don't because that sounds crude and disrespectful. Yet, I believe that to be the true meaning. Perhaps "The Logos was God-essence" would be more appropriate.

[mattrose]

But all of this (above) is exactly my point!

If the word 'God' (in Greek) sometimes contextually refers to 'deity'
Then why can't the word 'God' (in English) sometimes contextually refer to Jesus?

[steve7150]

I understand "God" to mean God Almighty whom Jesus prayed to. There is also the office of "god" or "a god" which was used to describe Moses,Satan and certain judges in Psalms which Jesus quoted.
I think Jesus is greater then the office of "god" or "a god" yet he prayed to God Almighty and said "not my will be done but yours." So when Jesus says "not my will" he is saying there are two different wills, so as far as i can see Jesus is not the Almighty therefore "deity" is the most accurate description IMHO because there is only one true God. Jesus seems to be the "Word" or creative force which God used to create and later became flesh and who seems to have originated from within God himself, again IMHO.

[Paidion]

If the word 'God' (in Greek) sometimes contextually refers to 'deity'
Then why can't the word 'God' (in English) sometimes contextually refer to Jesus?

I would say that "God" shouldn't be used to refer to Jesus in English, because when most people hear or read the word "God", they think either of God the Father, or of the Trinity (a single complex Being made up of three persons). They do not think of deity or the divine essence. Probably, the early Trinitarians did think of "God" in the sense of deity. They spoke about the "substance"(essence) of God, or "ὑποστασις" (hypostasis) in Greek (see Heb 1:3 where Jesus is said to be "the exact imprint of His essence".) They emphasized that there is only one hypostasis, but three "προσωπα" ("faces" or "persons"). When the concept of the Trinity is explained in that way, it is not self-contradictory. I tried to point that out to Psimmond, but he denies that Trinitarians use the word "God" in reference to His essence, and he affirms that either I have absolutely no idea what Trinitarians believe, or that I know and am intentionally misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity. I agree that I have absolutely no idea of his Trinitarian concept, since what I'm hearing concerning that concept doesn't seem rational enough to have any idea of.

However, if I understand you correctly, when you say "Jesus is God", you mean "Jesus is deity" or "Jesus is divine." I can respect a form of Trinitarianism which is accompanied by a rational explanation.

[psimmond]

Paidion wrote: I tried to point that out to Psimmond, but he denies that Trinitarians use the word "God" in reference to His essence, and he affirms that either I have absolutely no idea what Trinitarians believe, or that I know and am intentionally misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity. I agree that I have absolutely no idea of his Trinitarian concept, since what I'm hearing concerning that concept doesn't seem rational enough to have any idea of. (underline added)

Rationality is certainly a good thing, but as I said before, "Consider the possibility that your 3 lb brain may not have the ability to comprehend this aspect of God."

"Reference" is a bit vague; what I denied was that Trinitarians call God an essence. If I'm wrong, and I realize I could be, please correct me by pointing me to a mainstream Trinitarian denominational statement that refers to God as an essence. (Remember, I said God has essence, not God is essence.)

I think it's interesting when you refer to my belief as "his Trinitarian concept" as though it's some kind of novel idea that I developed. The only Trinitarian doctrine I'm familiar with says God is a Godhead--three persons of the same divine essence:

“God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God....When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone.” Wayne Grudem

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons (Greek: ὑποστάσεις): the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial (Greek: ὁμοούσιοι)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

"The word "trinity" is a term used to denote the Christian doctrine that God exists as a unity of three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each of the persons is distinct from the other, yet identical in essence. In other words, each is fully divine in nature, but each is not the totality of the other persons of the Trinity." http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/what-trinity

[Paidion]

Rationality is certainly a good thing, but as I said before, "Consider the possibility that your 3 lb brain may not have the ability to comprehend this aspect of God."

It wouldn't matter if my brain were INFINITE in size. It could never "comprehend", or accept as true, a statement which is self-contradictory.

“God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God....When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone.” Wayne Grudem

It could be conceived that the three together are not "greater" in some sense. But surely it must conceded that they are greater in number.

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons ... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

I have already argued that if that is the way God is defined, then the sentence "God was born as a human being" is tantamount to "The Trinity was born as a human being".
If this is not the case, then the word "God" is being used in a different sense in the sentence, "God was born as a human being."

Likewise, if "God" means "The Trinity", then to say "Jesus is God" means "Jesus is the Trinity". If not, then "God" must be used in a different sense in the sentence, "Jesus is God".

So it seems we are just repeating the same arguments over and over, and getting nowhere.

I can see a consistency in a Trinitarian argument only in the way I understand Mattrose to believe in it (but maybe I misunderstand him). Here is the way that argument could go.

1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three divine Persons of the same divine Essence.
2. The word "God" means that divine Essence.
3. Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God.
4. God is not the Father. For that would exclude the other Two. And God is not the Son or the Holy Spirit for the same reason.
5 . However, we may use the terms: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to distinguish the Three, each of whom are of the One Divine Essence (i.e. each of whom is God)
6. God is not a Person, but an Essence, and in Itself is impersonal unless associated with one of the three divine Persons.
7. Each time we speak of God as "He" we do not mean the Divine Essence, but we mean one of the members of the Trinity.
6. When we say, "God was born as a human being", we mean "The Son of God was born as a human being" or we may say "God the Son was born as a human being."

If Trinitarians admit that they are using "God" in at least two different ways, and explain how they are using it in each statement, then they can offer a consistent explanation.

Having explained this consistent theory of the Trinity, I am not convinced, because I do not see this in Scripture:

1. Jesus prayed to His Father calling Him "the only true God", and then added "and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" as someone OTHER than "the only true God." If Trinitarianism were true in ANY sense, Jesus, too, would be true God.

2. Jesus also referred to His Father as "the only God" (John 5:44)

3. Paul referred to the "one God" as the Father, and Jesus, not as the one God, but as the "one Lord":

... yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (I Corinthians 8:6)

4. In his letter to Titus, Paul also meant the Father when he wrote of "one God". But he referred to Jesus as the mediator between God and men.

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

When Paul spoke of the one mediator between God and man, how was he using the word "God"? Clearly he did not mean an essence, or a Trinity. He meant the Father.

To sum up my own understanding:

1. There is one true God, the Father, the Creator of all things.

2. There is one Son of God, the only-begotten Son, begotten by the Father before all ages. This act of begetting marked the beginning of time.The Father created all things THROUGH His Son. Thus the Son is Deity, and may be called "God" in the sense of His being of the same Essence as the Father who begat Him, just as each of us is human because we were begotten by human beings.

3. Unlike us, the Father and the Son can extend their Personality anywhere in the universe, and they do so, especially in the hearts of the faithful. This Personality extension is called the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not a third divine Person, but the very Persons of the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son share the same Spirit.