Did God die on the Cross?

[BrotherAlan]

jriccitelli wrote:

With this in mind, the second part of your statement, "Jesus did not come 'from' Mary," I think needs to be clarified. The clarification that needs to be made, I believe, is this: "Jesus, in His Divine Nature, did not come 'from' Mary." (Alan, pg 6, Dec 29)

I agree with your statement; "Jesus (in His human nature) came from Mary.
I think I would much rather say: Jesus’ human nature came from Mary.
But I would not say ‘Jesus came from God, AND Jesus came from Mary’ without adding the some clause or clarification such as: ‘in His human nature’ because ‘Jesus did not come from Mary’.

Fair enough—at least, if there is any chance that one’s listeners could interpret, “Jesus came from Mary” as meaning that Jesus did not pre-exist His birth from Mary (for, of course, He did pre-exist His birth from her). If that is the case then, sure, the qualifier should be added. I suppose it would be clearer to say that “Jesus was born from Mary”, as that phrase is obviously true and obviously refers to Jesus’ birth as a Man (as opposed to His being eternally begotten, as God, from the Father), and so can not, I do not think, be mis-interpreted to mean that He did not also, as God, pre-exist His birth from Blessed Mary.

Speaking of the Virgin Mary, since she did give birth to this Man, who is also God, she can be, properly speaking, honored with the title, “Mother of God” (as she has been so honored by many Christians for many centuries, especially since the Council of Ephesus way back in the year 431-- and she happens to be so honored, in a special way, by many Christians throughout the world on this, and every, New Year’s Day).

Again, Blessed New Year to all!

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

[Paidion]

(as opposed to His being eternally begotten, as God, from the Father)

Brother Alan, the following is the ORIGINAL form of the Nicene Creed. The earliest Trinitarians agreed with it:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father;
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
Through whom all things were made; both things in heaven and things on earth;
Who for us people, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man;
He suffered, and was raised again the third day,
And ascended into heaven
And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead,
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
And in one baptism of repentance for deliverance from sins,
And in one holy universal Church,
And in the resurrection of the flesh,
And in everlasting life.

This was 325 A.D. As you know, many of the second century writers also stated that the Son of God was BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL AGES.
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.

Later Trinitarians realized that the concept of the Son having been BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL AGES contradicted Trinitarian thought, and so they changed the wording of the phrase BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL AGES to ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN. To me "eternally begotten" is a nonsense phrase. Although today's Roman Catholics and also Eastern Orthodox, I think, hold that the Son is "eternally begotten" rather than the original "begotten before all ages". I guess they think it was changed on the authority of the Catholic Church which was supposedly founded by Peter and given the power and authority to receive ongoing revelation which superceded that of the early writers. Thus the early universal Church gradually developed into something which was a far cry from the Church which Messiah Jesus founded.

I believe in the Church as it existed in the first and second century—its teachings and its practices. I think the later development of the Church is an aberration.

I know you can point out from the writings attributed to Ignatius, teachings and practices which were practised in the fourth century and beyond, but many historians regard them ALL as forgeries. If they are not forgeries, they are at least heavily interpolated by later writers.

[BrotherAlan]

Dear Paidion,
You wrote:

Later Trinitarians realized that the concept of the Son having been BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL AGES contradicted Trinitarian thought, and so they changed the wording of the phrase BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL AGES to ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN. To me "eternally begotten" is a nonsense phrase. Although today's Roman Catholics and also Eastern Orthodox, I think, hold that the Son is "eternally begotten" rather than the original "begotten before all ages". I guess they think it was changed on the authority of the Catholic Church which was supposedly founded by Peter and given the power and authority to receive ongoing revelation which superceded that of the early writers. Thus the early universal Church gradually developed into something which was a far cry from the Church which Messiah Jesus founded.

Surely-- in my Church, we still recite "begotten before all ages" (understanding that that means "eternally begotten"). While I would need to verify this from historical research, my suspicion as to why the phrase "begotten before all ages" is sometimes modified to "eternally begotten" is simply to give more precision to the Faith (since "begotten before all ages" could leave open the possibility that the Son is not eternal, but was simply created before the rest of creation, which is contrary to Trinitarian Faith). And this is nothing new; the whole purpose of the development of doctrine, creeds, etc. is to state more precisely in later formulae of doctrines what is less precise in previous formulae (as is easily seen when comparing, say, the ancient "Apostles' Creed" with the Nicean Creed).

One important point of clarification, though, on an (incorrect) statement you put down concerning the Catholic Church's beliefs. The Catholic Church does NOT believe that that she receives "ongoing (public) revelation", as you put it-- that is decidedly not the Catholic Faith! The Catholic Church believes that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (John). This public revelation, now closed, is considered by the Church to be the "deposit of faith", and the Church does not "add" to it, per se. What the Catholic Church believes she can do, however, through her Popes and the bishops (since they are successors to Peter and the other Apostles), is not "add" to this deposit of Faith but, rather, she believes the Pope/bishops have the authority to interpret and develop doctrinally what has already been revealed in this deposit of Faith. There is actually a big difference between the two ideas. The Pope can infallibly declare something to have been revealed publicly by God; but, he can not, himself, say that he has received new public revelation. The Pope's writings can be infallibe (and so without error), but they are not considered to be DIVINELY INSPIRED, as are the Scriptures (for, the Scriptures are said to be inspired in that every word written in the Scriptures is affirmed to be written by God Himself; this is NOT the case with a Papal document, even if that document may be infallible...difference between saying something is not mistaken (eg., an infallible Papal or Conciliar interpretation of Scripture), and saying that it was written by God Himself (eg., the Scriptures)!). This is a very common misconception, but I hope that difference is clear now.

God bless...

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

[BrotherAlan]

First, one other quick reply: The claim that Ignatius' of Antioch's letters are all frauds is, as far as I know, something seriously debated (and, if those who claim they are frauds are actually incorrect in their claims, then that just goes to show how Catholic the early Church really was-- for Ignatius' letters are seriously Catholic; his teachings on the Incarnation, the Church, and the Eucharist fit perfectly with what the Catholic Church has taught for a long time now on those topics). And, even if some of them are not authentic (although, I can, I think a lot of serious scholars seriously challenge that claim), how much later were the supposed interpolations? 100 years later? 200 years later? I think we're still talking, even in that (questionable) case, a writer from the early Church (still showing that ideas which, today, are distinctively Catholic were clearly present in the early Church). Anyways, I would have to research that issue more to know more about all the different evidence and arguments taking place there, but those are, at least for now, my '2 cents' on that whole issue...

But, now, I just wanted to alert any who are still engaged in this thread that I have re-opened the discussion on the Trinity, as that is where this whole topic has led us (and, not surprisingly, since the question of "God dying on the Cross" is closely related to the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is, of course, closely related to the doctrine on the Trinity)...Skimming through that long threaded post, I did not seem to find any discussion on what is, in my mind, the fundamental question on the Trinity, namely, "Is there procession and generation within God?" If that question is not asked (and answered), I don't see how any headway can be made on the question of the Trinity. And, so, I went to that old thread and raised that question (and introduced some verses in Scripture which seem to reveal to us an answer to that question). So, if you're interested in re-engaging that topic, see http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=400

In Christ, God's Son and Mary's Son,
BrotherAlan

[Paidion]

Thank you BrotherAlan for correcting me concerning my misapprension that the Roman Catholic Church believes in ongoing revelation. I hereby accept your explanation that it does not. It merely claims to have the authority to interpret correctly what has already been revealed.

(since "begotten before all ages" could leave open the possibility that the Son is not eternal, but was simply created before the rest of creation, which is contrary to Trinitarian Faith).

That is correct. Indeed Arius did hold that belief, since in his letter to Eusebias, he wrote that before the Son was begotten, He did not exist.

However, I believe that "begotten before all ages" DOES imply that He was begotten (or "generated")as a single act of the Father, rather than a continuous "eternal" begetting (whatever that means) If that single act marked the beginning of time, then there was not a previous time at which the Son did not exist, since there was no "before".

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.

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.) understood the begetting of the Son as a single act. In his dialogue with Trypho and his companions, Justin stated:

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, a certain rational power from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; ... just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: ‘If Ishall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From of old, He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begat me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging..." (from Dialogue with Trypho, ch LXI)

So it seems clear that Justin regarded the begetting or generation of the Son as a single act, and not an ongoing process (which "eternal begetting" seems to suggest).

Oh, by the way, Brother Alan, are you a monk? I am not aware of Catholics calling any of their people "Brother so-and-so" except he be a monk, or "Sister so-and-so" except she be a nun.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[Paidion]

It seems to me Brother Alan's idea of "procession and generation within God" seems to equate to your understanding that "The Son did not differ essentially from His Father [but was begotten] divine as His Father is." Do you see a difference?

Yes, the RC concept of the generation (or "begetting") of the Son is that it is an eternal process, whereas my understanding of what the early Christians taught about it, is that it was an event which occurred "before all ages".

[BrotherAlan]

I will need to double- check the theology on all this, but my initial thought is that I don't think it is quite accurate to say that, according to sound Catholic theology, the generation of the Word from the Father is a "process"-- my initial gut instinct, which I *think* is in-line with sound Catholic theology, is that "process" is a poor choice of a word to accurately describe the Catholic theology on this Mystery of the generation of the Son/Word from the Father. We can, perhaps, go into the Catholic theology on all this later (looking especially at Thomas Aquinas' articulation of the Catholic doctrine on the Trinity), but my initial "stab" right now to summarize my understanding of Catholic theology on this Mystery of the generation of the Son from the Father is that it is a single and eternal act of generation: the Father, knowing Himself perfectly in, from, and for all eternity, generates, by a single and eternal act of self - understanding, a perfect Thought, or Word, reflecting/imaging His own Being-- a single Word/Thought that, in, from and for all eternity, is so perfect an Image of His own Being, that It actually IS His own Being/Substance....and, yet, since It is generated BY the Father, is really *distinct* from the Father-- but, most importantly to note, not distinct in *nature or substance* from the Father (for, again, the Word, being the most perfect Image of the Father, is the same Divine "substance"/essence as the Father), but rather distinct in *Person*, being distinguished from the Father by His eternal relationship to the Father as One generated in relation to One generating (as the great 16th century Spanish mystic , St. John of the Cross, said, "In the eternal silences of the Trinity, God the Father has spoken one Word, His Eternal Word, and He has no more to say!")

But, again, these are somewhat "off the cuff" explanations of rather sophisticated Catholic theology on the most lofty of Christian Mysteries--- so, while I am pretty sure what I write here is at least not contrary to sound Catholic theology (though I will try to let you know if I find out later if I am mistaken in anything I just wrote on this most lofty and sacred of Mysteries, and thus a Mystery in which theological correctness is of the utmost importance), don't take this as necessarily being the best way to explain the Catholic understanding of this Mystery, as it certainly could be stated much more precisely and, perhaps, more accurately (or, perhaps, even more correctly)...if I get time later, I'll try to show forth more clearly the best way that Catholic theologians have spoken about this Holiest of Mysteries (in the meantime, I would simply recommend reading the account of the Trinitarian doctrine given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the teachings of Thomas Aquinas on this Mystery of the Trinity).

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

[Paidion]

...my initial "stab" right now to summarize my understanding of Catholic theology on this Mystery of the generation of the Son from the Father is that it is a single and eternal act of generation.

To me a "single act" and an "eternal act" are contradictions UNLESS by "eternal" one means "outside of time". I know that "outside of time" is a common concept, but it makes no sense to me. However, if there are such things as timeless acts or acts "outside of time", 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.

However, my understanding of the Catholic view (and I think I've heard this said in Catholic teaching) is that the Son was begotten, is being begotten, and will continue to be begotten in the future. That sounds like a process to me.

[Jose]

Hi Jose,

I would encourage you to read the link JR offered, though you will not find a satisfactory answer to your question, despite the fact JR believes it was so answered. Unfortunately, that thread is 40 pages long, as this one will become since it all goes back to the trinity, and trinitarians and non-trinitarians, well, the twain shall never meet. I didn't even stir the pot this time and look what's happened JR!

Regards, Brenden.

Hi Brenden,

Thank you for your suggestion, I truly appreciate it. I had begun reading that thread in the past, and it is long, but I do hope to finish it someday. I did follow JR's link immediately after he posted it, but you're right, the question isn't answered or discussed at all really, only a passing reference to the verses by JR (I don't know if it's discussed elsewhere in the thread).

I've been reading this forum on and off for a few years but have only recently decided to join. At times I feel like I have much that I'd like to say, but I'm not gifted at writing and it takes me a long time to compose my thoughts into something intelligible, which is probably why I was hesitant to join. Well anyway, I feel like I know many of you from reading your discussions. I appreciate many of the comments you yourself have made; they are clear, to the point, and you usually have some relevant scripture to support your statements. I think there's a tendency for conversations (especially on this topic) to drift away from scripture and evolve into nothing more than speculation. I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself, but its probably wise to avoid it if we hope to truly understand the bible. For many years I accepted the common explanations for trinitarian proof texts; after all, what else could those verses mean? What I could not accept was St Augustine's axiom that "If you deny the Trinity you lose your soul and if you try to explain it you lose your mind.” Even questioning the trinity is taboo in Christendom, so it was with great fear of "apostatizing" that I ventured into looking for a better understanding. 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.

You said the two camps shall never meet, and that's probably true, but I believe that if one is willing to approach the scripture from a Jewish unitarian perspective instead of a post apostolic trinitarian one, they would see the majority of "apparent contradictions" disappear and then there would be less to argue about.

Thanks again, Jose