Did God die on the Cross?

[Paidion]

After a few years of serious study I concluded that the overall historical and biblical evidence supports a unitarian view and not a trinitarian one. It's not the first time I've gone through a paradigm shift, but this was a big one.

Looks like your with Jesus on this one, Jose! Jesus prayed:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

So Jesus acknowledged His Father as "the only true God", and then with that little word "and" indicated Himself as Someone other than "the only true God".

However, I think it is important to recognize Jesus as fully divine, since He is the one and only offspring of the only true God. He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence. (Heb 1:3)

And the Logos was God (in the sense of being divine in essence). (John 1:1)

No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:18)

The fact that Jesus, as the Son of God, is fully divine doesn't imply that we believe in "two Gods" as some claim that we believe.

[BrotherAlan]

Okay, so, after thinking about this issue some more, and consulting some other sources (including a professor in a Catholic seminary), I stand by the words that I stated in my earlier post. In particular, I stand by what I said in stating that it is not proper to say that, according to Catholic theology, the begetting of the Son from the Father is a “process”. While the generation of the Son from the Father is a PROCESSION (perhaps that is the word you, Paidion, heard from Catholic teachers—similar sounding to “process”, but a very different idea), it is not a “process”, for the word, “process” carries with it the implication that there is a series of actions and changes that are required to complete the “process”, and this is certainly NOT what Catholic theology holds concerning the eternal generation of the Son from the Father.

So, again, what Catholic theology holds concerning the generation of the Son from the Father is that it is indeed an eternal procession and generation—meaning, a generation that exists outside of time (as Paidion alluded to in one of his recent replies). And though it is true to say that something eternal is now, always was, always will be, and always remains the same (and, thus, God is eternal based on this description), the essence of something being eternal is that it is completely outside of time. And, so, while there is certainly some truth in saying that the Father has always begotten the Son, is begetting Him now, and will always beget Him, this statement is not taken to mean that this begetting occurs IN TIME (as if it was a “process”). Rather, such statements are to be understood as meaning the generation of the Son is a single and complete act, occurring completely outside of time, in and for all eternity—but, note this again, it is ONE, SINGLE, COMPLETE ACT: the Father generates the Son by an operation of self-understanding that is, at once, and for all eternity, perfectly complete (the Father does not “grow” in His understanding of Himself and thus have a “process” of generating a more perfect Word throughout time; but, rather, the Father, in one single “moment”, if you will, in eternity, perfectly understands Himself and, from this self-understanding, generates one Idea/Thought/Word, which perfectly Images Himself, so perfectly, in fact, that this Word IS the very same Divine "substance"/essence as the Father, for all eternity….there is no change or “process” in God, whether in God the Father generating or in the Word being generated—rather, God is perfect and perfectly complete, in and for all eternity, with absolutely no change or “process” in Him whatsoever...and, so, God the Father is perfect and perfectly complete for all eternity, with no change or "process" in Him at all, as is also the case with God the Son....for BOTH are "the one true God" (cf., Jn. 17:3)...)

And, thus, it can be stated in Scripture, “You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten you,” (Ps. 2:7, etc.) where “TODAY” stands for, one could say, the “ETERNAL DAY” in which God eternally exists. Even the pre-Christian philosophers had a notion of God generating one perfect thought, which thought is Himself, for all eternity. Thus, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church’s greatest theologian, commenting on the “Metaphysics” of Aristotle once wrote, “[God’s] act of understanding, which is of himself, is eternal and always in the same state.” (Note the use of the singular, "act"-- not a plural, "acts", or "process of understanding Himself", or anything like that-- rather, just one, eternal, singular act of self-understanding, or intelligible operation , by which God perfectly understands Himself in and for all eternity).

This philosophical notion that God’s act of understanding, which is an understanding of Himself, being eternal and always in the same state, while it does not “PROVE” the Trinity, does perfectly fit with what is revealed in the Scriptures, namely, that God eternally generates a Word, i.e., an interior Thought of Himself, which Word/Thought is so perfect that it actually is HIMSELF. And this generation, though occurring in and for all eternity, is, again, NOT to be understood as a “process"-- as if there was “change” in God-- that is occurring over a prolonged (even everlasting) period of time. But, rather, this generation is an eternal act.

And, to interrupt myself for a moment: it is important to note that there is a real difference-- and a real big difference-- between an act being eternal, i.e., occurring in eternity (completely outside of time) and an act(s) that "last forever" (i.e., lasting forever in time). "Being eternal" and "lasting forever (in time)" are not quite the same thing. This can be seen by noting that, though, something which IS eternal ALSO lasts forever (in time), eg., God, still something which lasts forever in time is not necessarily "eternal"; for, that which is eternal is, by definition, outside of time completely (and it is possible, at least theoretically, for something to last forever in time without being completely outside of time). The main point here being that the very notions of being "eternal" and of "lasting forever" are not quite the same notions (for, again, the former has the notion of being completely outside of time, the latter the notion of having being at all times whatsoever or, at least, all times in the future).

Thus, this generation of the Word/Son from the Father is to be understood, as much as we can understand it, as a single, perfect, and complete procession of generation, which perfectly, in and for all eternity, by one single intellectual act (or "operation") of self-understanding by the Father, generates His Perfect Image, the Word…to Whom, with this same Father, and the Holy Spirit, belongs all glory and majesty now and for all eternity. Amen…

I hope that makes some more sense…(though, of course, in dealing with this, or any Mystery, there will always be more questions to ask, and to seek to answer, out of a love for God, Whom we wish to know, always, more and more perfectly!)

In Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, and Son of the Blessed Mary,
BrotherAlan

P.S.
As this is now a thread totally on the Trinity, it seems, it would be good to just start a new thread on the Trinity...and, so, I have started one (under the "Trinity" section)....see http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5030

[Jose]

After a few years of serious study I concluded that the overall historical and biblical evidence supports a unitarian view and not a trinitarian one. It's not the first time I've gone through a paradigm shift, but this was a big one.

Looks like your with Jesus on this one, Jose! Jesus prayed:

However, I think it is important to recognize Jesus as fully divine, since He is the one and only offspring of the only true God. He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence. (Heb 1:3)

And the Logos was God (in the sense of being divine in essence). (John 1:1)

No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. (John 1:18)

Hi Paidion,

I've read several of your posts and I agree with you on many points. Jesus was indeed the only begotten Son, but I don't know if that means that he was divine in the way you think of it (in essence, or nature). I did a word study on logos and found that it never refers to a person, so that, to me, rules out the need to believe in a literal preexistence. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but as for now, I believe that Jesus began his life in the womb of his mother., which works well considering that he had to be a blood descendant of David, which would not be true if he was begotten and preexisted as a being in heaven. I think as a human being, he was filled with the divine spirit "without measure", but I would be more inclined to think that he is now divine after his resurrection, glorification, immortalization, and "deification" if you will. All of which were accomplished by God for him because of his faithful obedience. He may be considered divine because, as you've said, he "became a life giving spirit", and now, along with the father, indwells believers through the power and presence of God, commonly referred to as the Holy Spirit.

Heb 1:3 could also be translated "express image of his person". In other words, as Jesus said, "if you've seen me, you've seen the father". I believe this verse is talking about his quality of character, not necessarily his metaphysical essence. Jesus is fully transparent, and through him we can see what God is like.

Jose

[BrotherAlan]

Hello, Jose--
You wrote:

I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but as for now, I believe that Jesus began his life in the womb of his mother., which works well considering that he had to be a blood descendant of David...

There are many passages in Scripture which show that Jesus existed before being conceived as a Babe in His Virgin Mother Mary's womb, but one that immediately comes to mind is this one: "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58) This verse shows us that Jesus existed not only before His conception in the Virgin's womb, but even before Abraham lived. And, more than that, many Scriptural commentators will point out that, in this verse, Jesus gives Himself the Name that belongs to God alone, namely, "I AM." (i.e., the Name that God gave for Himself when speaking to Moses in Exod. 3:14) So it is that, in this verse, Jesus teaches us both that He existed before His conception as a man in the Blessed Virgin's womb, and also that He Himself is God, referring to Himself here with the Divine Name.

But, as stated many times already in this thread, His being God does not mean that He could not also be a blood descendant of David; for, though He is, as God, eternally begotten from the Father (and, so, being a TRUE Son of the Father, He, like the Father, possesses the Divine Nature, i.e., He, too, is God), He, as Man, is the Son of the Virgin Mary, a daughter of David, and so, Christ, as Man, is a descendant of David...and, in so being, He fulfills the prophecies (eg., 2 Sam. 7:14, 1 Chron. 17:13, Ps. 2:7).

In Christ, the Eternal "I AM", the Son of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

[Paidion]

I did a word study on logos and found that it never refers to a person...

John 1:14 seems to be referring to the Logos, the pre-existent Jesus, becoming a human being.

And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

[Jose]

There are many passages in Scripture which show that Jesus existed before being conceived as a Babe in His Virgin Mother Mary's womb, but one that immediately comes to mind is this one: "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58) This verse shows us that Jesus existed not only before His conception in the Virgin's womb, but even before Abraham lived. And, more than that, many Scriptural commentators will point out that, in this verse, Jesus gives Himself the Name that belongs to God alone, namely, "I AM." (i.e., the Name that God gave for Himself when speaking to Moses in Exod. 3:14) So it is that, in this verse, Jesus teaches us both that He existed before His conception as a man in the Blessed Virgin's womb, and also that He Himself is God, referring to Himself here with the Divine Name.

Yes, that is the most common interpretation, but I don't think it's the best one. I believe that when Jesus said "I am", he was merely reiterating what he had said before. And what he had said before was that he was the Messiah, not that he was the God who spoke to Moses.

In John 4:26, Jesus said to the woman at the well, 'ego eimi', I am he, the Messiah.

In John 8:24, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "unless you believe that 'ego eimi', I am he, (the Messiah is implied) you will die in your sins". In verse 25 they asked "who are you" and Jesus replied "Just what I have been telling you from the beginning". I doubt Jesus was telling them from the beginning that he was God.

In John 8:28, Jesus said "before Abraham was, 'ego eimi'", I believe that here he meant the same thing; that he is the Messiah. In other words, "Jesus was crucified before the foundation of the world". He was from the very beginning, even before Abraham existed, God's plan to bring about the redemption of mankind.

In John 9:9, the blind man that was healed said "ego eimi" when people were wondering if he was the same one who used to sit and beg. He used the exact same phrase that Jesus did, 'ego eimi', to say, 'yes, it's me'. It doesn't appear to me that Jesus was invoking a divine name from Exodus 3:14 anymore than the beggar was.

The term "ego eimi" simply means "It's me", "I am the one". Jesus was simply claiming that he was the Messiah. The reason the Pharisees picked up stones to kill him was not because he was claiming to be God, but because he was a blue collar carpenter from a backward town who was claiming to be their King, the Messiah, God's anointed! And that drove them insane. In Luke 22, Jesus admitted to being the Christ and the elders condemned him for it. All this correlates perfectly with John's reason for writing his gospel "so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, (the Anointed One, the Messiah) the Son of God.

But, as stated many times already in this thread, His being God does not mean that He could not also be a blood descendant of David; for, though He is, as God, eternally begotten from the Father (and, so, being a TRUE Son of the Father, He, like the Father, possesses the Divine Nature, i.e., He, too, is God), He, as Man, is the Son of the Virgin Mary, a daughter of David, and so, Christ, as Man, is a descendant of David...and, in so being, He fulfills the prophecies (eg., 2 Sam. 7:14, 1 Chron. 17:13, Ps. 2:7).

The problem here as I see it is that you have admitted that Mary provided only a body (human nature) for the "real" Jesus to occupy, thus what ends up happening is that the "real blood relative" who was supposed to inherit the throne of David (one who was to be a prophet, raised up from among his people) is nothing more than a "mortal body", a non-person.

Peace, Jose

[BrotherAlan]

Dear Jose,
Peace to you on this day!

Leaving aside the question, for now, as to whether or not Jesus’ is giving Himself the Divine Name in John 8:58 (despite the objections you raised in your last post, I still have reasons to think that He is doing so, but I would like to simply leave aside that whole question/argument for now), we still have the issue of Jesus’ pre-existence: for, in John 8:58, Jesus still says that He existed before Abraham existed (and the onus of proof is, I think, on the side of those who say that this verse is referring not to Jesus’ existence being before Abraham, but that the PLAN for Jesus’ Messiahship being before Abraham, for the plain sense of the words is that Jesus Himself pre-existed Abraham). This also fits with what John the Baptist said of Jesus, “He was before me,” a statement that seems to point to Jesus’ pre-existence in Mary’s womb (for, it certainly seems that JOHN was in his mother’s womb before Jesus was in Mary’s womb, so it would seem, if Jesus did not exist before His conception in the Holy Virgin’s womb, that He was NOT before John....but, John says He was, and, so, it seems John is implying Jesus’ pre-existence to His existence in Mary’s womb). But, probably more clearly manifesting Jesus’ pre-existence in Blessed Mary’s womb (as well as His Divinity) are other statements from Scripture, such as the “Prologue” of John’s Gospel (Jn. 1:1-18), which states that the Word was in the beginning (of time) with God, and was God, and that THIS Word became flesh....and this Word is, of course, Jesus (and, so, Jesus clearly existed before His conception in Mary’s holy and virginal womb, and He is, in fact, God Himself, as clearly stated in the Prologue). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul states that Jesus Christ is “the same yesterday, today, and forever;” now such a statement can only be truly stated about One Who is God, and so, as this statement is truly stated, it follows that Jesus must be God. And similarly with other Scripture passages which we, for now, can pass over. The conclusion of all this is still the same: Jesus existed before His conception in the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb, and He pre-existed this precisely as God.

And, also note that the idea that the Jews were aiming to kill Jesus ONLY because He claimed to be their King and Messiah, and not ALSO because He claimed to be God surely seems to be contradicted by a number of passages from the Divine Scriptures. For example, John 5:18, which states, “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath, but also called God His Father, making himself equal with God.” And other passages (especially in the Passion accounts) also make this point clear.

___________

You wrote:

The problem here as I see it is that you have admitted that Mary provided only a body (human nature) for the "real" Jesus to occupy, thus what ends up happening is that the "real blood relative" who was supposed to inherit the throne of David (one who was to be a prophet, raised up from among his people) is nothing more than a "mortal body", a non-person.

The claim that I am making is, simply, this: Jesus is eternally Divine, eternally God, eternally and perfectly possessing, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Divine Essence/Nature, as the Son/Word proceeding eternally from the Father. Now, this same and real Jesus, in time, took to Himself a human nature, that is, a body and a soul like ours. This human nature He, of course, received in the womb of that Most Holy of Virgins (the human Body given to Him from His Mom, and the human Soul directly infused into that human Body by God, as is the case with all human souls and their respective bodies). And, so, having a REAL human Body and a REAL human Soul, it follows that Jesus Christ, though Divine, is also, now, a REAL human being; for, the essence of being a real human being is having, precisely, a human body and a human soul (one who has a human body and soul is human; one who does not have these is NOT human...but, Jesus had, and still has, these, so he's a real human being). Furthermore, we can see that He is a REAL human being by recalling the fact that He was conceived as a Baby Boy, and born of a REAL human woman/mother, Mary. Since real human woman/mothers only conceive and give birth to real human beings, and Mary is a real woman/mother, this, too, also shows us that Jesus Christ was, and IS, a REAL human being! So, He has a REAL human nature, JUST like ours (in all things except committing sin, that is!), and even more perfect than ours (so, He's MORE perfectly human than us in terms of acting in accord with the final purposes of human nature). And, so, well, there you have it. He is a real Man, a real human being, a descendant of David, the promised/prophesied Son of David (2 Sam. 7:14, Ps. 2:7, etc.) and the prophesied Son of the Virgin (Gen. 3:15, Isa. 7:14). This facts are not contradicted in any way whatsoever by Him also being, at the same time, the prophesied eternal one born of a woman (Mic. 5:2), a prophesy He fulfills in virtue of the fact that He is, again, God...He is the God-Man.

In short, none of what I have just stated states, or implies, in any way, that the Baby Boy born of the Holiest of Virgins was "nothing more than a 'mortal body', a non-person." No, this-- the claim that Mary gave birth to "nothing more than a 'mortal body', a non-person"-- is not the case, nor is it my (the Catholic) claim. Rather, quite the contrary, Mary gave birth to a REAL, a VERY Real Person, a Person Who is MORE perfectly a person than any other human beings for He is an eternal Divine Person, possessing a Divine Nature (which He, from all eternity, received from the Father), but, not only possessing that eternal Divine Nature but, also, in time, assuming/possessing, just like us, a human nature (which He received from His human mother). And, in fact, it is to this Babe that she, Blessed Mary, with Joseph, gave the Holy Name of Jesus...and, as a Mother, when she name her son, is not naming a "non-person", so, too, Mary, in Naming this Most Perfect and Divine of Babes, a Babe both human and Divine, was Naming a REAL Person, a Perfect Person, a DIVINE PERSON, Who, in His Love for her (Mary), deigned to choose HER to be His Mom, to be the one from Whom He would acquire His Beautiful, Real, and True Human Nature in order that He, through this True Human Nature, might save the world from sin. And, for this reason, great honor be given to the Virgin Mary for giving this Divine Person this human nature, thus "enabling" Him to be, like us, FULLY human, and great glory forever be to Christ, the God-Man, for saving us.

I do hope that makes sense...

In Christ, the Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

[jriccitelli]

I agree with these early Christian writers on the matter of the begetting of the Son before all ages. Indeed, I suspect that this act of the Father marked the beginning of time’ (Paidion, Jan 1)

Being begotten as a single act does NOT imply creation. You and I have been begotten through our parents, but they didn't create us. An artist creates a painting, but that painting differs essentially from the artist. You and I do not differ essentially from our parents. We are human as they are. The Son did not differ essentially from His Father. He is divine as His Father is’ (Paidion, Jan 2)

“… then it would make sense to affirn that the Father begat the Son as a single, eternal act, that is, a single act outside of time” (Paidion, Jan 3)

Just to hurry an understated premise along to it’s unfolding, Paidion’s theology has God giving birth, literally I suppose, since Jesus came out of the Father. Not saying Paidion is wrong per se, but this begs questions such as:
Was Jesus ‘formed’ in The Father?
Did Jesus just reside inside the Father from eternity?
Was Jesus alive before He was begotten, or before He came out from the Father? Etc.

[BrotherAlan]

Again, if you have not checked out the initial statements given by Thomas Aquinas in his Trinitarian theology, I highly advise one does so (as Aquinas addresses most, if not all, of these issues throughout his Trinitarian theology)....Here is a link to a thread I created on that:http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=5030

In Christ, The Second Person of the Trinity and the Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

[Jose]

John 1:14 seems to be referring to the Logos, the pre-existent Jesus, becoming a human being.

Hi Paidion,

If logos is the pre-existent Jesus, and God is the Father, then John 1:1 would read something like this:
In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Father, and Jesus was the Father.
or
In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father.

If God in this verse is the Trinity, then we have the following:
In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Trinity, and Jesus was the Trinity.

I think both of these options are problematic. If however, logos in this verse is what it is in every other verse in which it appears, then we have something like this:

In the beginning was the logos, (the expression, thought, reason, plan, utterance of God), and that logos (expression, etc) was with God (like wisdom was said to be "with God"), and the logos was God (or divine as some translations render it)

If we allow for this option, then in vs 14, we see that the logos of God became a reality in the person of Christ. Jesus, AFTER his birth was the living, breathing, word of God speaking all that the Father commanded. I realize that the personal pronoun "he" is used to refer to the logos, but that is questionable. There are at least 8 English translations prior to the KJV that use "it" instead of "he", Tyndale being one of them and Luther also preferred it. A good commentary on John's prologue is John himself in 1 John when he said, "That" which we have seen, "That" life we proclaim to you.

This is only a very short summary of why I think "logos" is not a person, but became a person. An article that deals with this in much more detail that I think you will find interesting can be found here: http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/w ... 2-Copy.pdf
If you read it, I'd be interested in your thoughts about it.

Peace, Jose