A Psalm of David

[A Cup Of Tea]

I think what this discussionis missing is a finite definition of belief. We can try to discuss how 1 = A but A =/= 1. Or we can discuss how the form was always there, but did not materialize until a certain time. Basically I'm saying that unless you pick which Christian you are talking to, it tends to get to, "No it's like this" back and forth...

Yeah, the first part was for you and the last part is what the Catholic position is. I find that Catholic are a well grounded tradition and Thomas understands it very well so I try to get a foundation on which to compare other points of views on.

Did you get was I was trying to say to you?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Yeah, the first part was for you and the last part is what the Catholic position is. I find that Catholic are a well grounded tradition and Thomas understands it very well so I try to get a foundation on which to compare other points of views on.

Did you get was I was trying to say to you?

I do, it is just such a wide open topic. From a Baptist perspective, I believe the going understanding is Jesus (PBUH) always was, but became man as form. Jesus (PBUH) is/was part of God but is not directly God... Very confusing, which is 1 of the reasons I began my search for the truth.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

I know. It becomes doubly ludicrous when people insist on what can and can't be, and yet have no grasp of the meaning of incarnation or hypostatic union.

So basically the argument is opinion, no matter how erroneous, ill-informed or warped by prejudice, is declared as if that trumps a worked-out philosophy.

The subtext being, 'you can't believe in any testimony, except mine'

You can't believe any testimony but your own.

If it isn't your experience, you are going to continue doubting.

Whether you're conscious of it or not.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

I do, it is just such a wide open topic. From a Baptist perspective, I believe the going understanding is Jesus (PBUH) always was, but became man as form. Jesus (PBUH) is/was part of God but is not directly God... Very confusing, which is 1 of the reasons I began my search for the truth.

Tawhid says everything is the expression of Allah.

There is nothing that isn't Allah.

In this respect, the Christian claim can be understood.

He is a Muslim, as far as Islam is concerned.

He lives Tawhid.

Union.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

That expression of union is not universal, but unique.

Hence, God is not limited to Jesus's flesh, but Jesus is God.

Further, Jesus is not limited to any part.

He has no identification with the body.

His experience is unified.

 

[Thomas]

Hi ACOT –

Thomas, it has never occurred to me to ask, what was Jesus nature before he was born, or is it wrong to speak of the trinity before the son?

No, the Trinity is God, God is Trinity. Three in One, One in Three. The Trinity was Trinity before creation, and will be after it.

I tend to stick with the language of the Tradition (East and West) rather than ideas of the more recent Christian denominations, which are sadly short on philosophical rigour and metaphysical and Scriptural insight.

I can understand BigJoeNobody's confusion, there's a lot of ideological nonsense spouted out there about what people think Jesus and/or the Trinity is ...

He is not God 'possessing' a man, or God speaking through a man – a prophet or oracle or avatar – nor is Jesus a man who 'worked it out', or 'evolved', or came from Ursa Minor, or was tutored in some hidden Egyptian temple or Tibetan monastery ... etc., etc.

The key to it all is the phrase 'hypostatic union', the union of two natures in one person, but that's a whole other thread.

I suppose my argument is, if we can talk about man entering into a participative union with the divine, why can't the Divine enter into a participative union with man?

The Incarnate Son, the Word become flesh, is the principle of Divine Union actualised in the most sublime manner!

 

[donnann]

Hi ACOT –

No, the Trinity is God, God is Trinity. Three in One, One in Three. The Trinity was Trinity before creation, and will be after it.

I tend to stick with the language of the Tradition (East and West) rather than ideas of the more recent Christian denominations, which are sadly short on philosophical rigour and metaphysical and Scriptural insight.

I can understand BigJoeNobody's confusion, there's a lot of ideological nonsense spouted out there about what people think Jesus and/or the Trinity is ...

He is not God 'possessing' a man, or God speaking through a man – a prophet or oracle or avatar – nor is Jesus a man who 'worked it out', or 'evolved', or came from Ursa Minor, or was tutored in some hidden Egyptian temple or Tibetan monastery ... etc., etc.

The key to it all is the phrase 'hypostatic union', the union of two natures in one person, but that's a whole other thread.

I suppose my argument is, if we can talk about man entering into a participative union with the divine, why can't the Divine enter into a participative union with man?

The Incarnate Son, the Word become flesh, is the principle of Divine Union actualised in the most sublime manner!

Well said.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I do, it is just such a wide open topic. From a Baptist perspective, I believe the going understanding is Jesus (PBUH) always was, but became man as form. Jesus (PBUH) is/was part of God but is not directly God... Very confusing, which is 1 of the reasons I began my search for the truth.

It is confusing, I don't really understand the trinity, but I don't know that I have put in a lot of effort either. But we could focus on the arguments of why Jesus can't be God and test them without going too deeply into Gods indescribable nature.

As I was saying before, arguments on the nature of God as a whole can't be directed at Jesus as an aspect of God. That don't mean that he has to be divine either but you and I are trying to understand the Christian side of things in this thread, no?

 

[Thomas]

You can't believe any testimony but your own.
If it isn't your experience, you are going to continue doubting.
Whether you're conscious of it or not.

Oh you silly-billy! Subjective experience is the most fallible element of all!

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

For me, hypostatic union denotes the true nature of life.

He has a history and memories thereof.

Yet, he functions from a different place.

That place is unity.

That unity has always existed.

The unique expression is temporary.

The union, eternal.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Oh you silly-billy! Subjective experience is the most fallible element of all!

It is why you must loose yourself from subjectivity.

This subject is not separate from any object, this is the first step.

In seeing this, the process itself as the reality, you start to unite.

Unity is the result.

In the Christian religion, that unity is called God.

Trinity is pointing at the fact that this unity does not exclude parts.

Unity is not complete if it is partial.

Communion is the result of completion.

 

[donnann]

Let's try this distinction. Jesus is God but God is no Jesus. See what I mean?

God was not born on the day Jesus was born, he was there all along, he is not man nor was he born by man. He did however, according to many Christians, have a part of him that was man-shaped.

Thomas, it has never occurred to me to ask, what was Jesus nature before he was born, or is it wrong to speak of the trinity before the son?

God has a body just like everyone else. Adam was created in the image and likeness of god. His body is just much much larger and made up of more light than human beings.

 

[Thomas]

In this respect, the Christian claim can be understood.
He is a Muslim, as far as Islam is concerned.
He lives Tawhid.
Union.

Everyone want to claim Jesus as their own ...

 

[Thomas]

God has a body just like everyone else. Adam was created in the image and likeness of god. His body is just much much larger and made up of more light than human beings.

Er ... just to clarify for ACOT, this is not Catholic nor Orthodox teaching ... God is not a thing, and not a body ...

I don't think any denomination teaches God has a body, other than the Mormons who, I believe, think He's a material being tucked away in some corner of the universe?

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Everyone want to claim Jesus as their own ...

Actually, what I'm saying is towards nullifying his importance.

The expression of another isn't the point, self-discovery is the purpose of your existence.

Perfectly good it is expressed in Jesus.

Where does that get you?

Studying it without actuating it is a waste of time.

 

[donnann]

Everyone want to claim Jesus as their own ...

everyone wants to claim their deity is the one and only savior. The old testament says I have sent ye saviours, plural. I say that all of the religions do have record of a divine being that came to earth for the purpose of salvation. The question is the identity of jesus prehumen incarnation. Was he god or Michael?

 

[Thomas]

It is why you must loose yourself from subjectivity.

Thus loose yourself from your own testimony.

In the Christian religion, that unity is called God.
Trinity is pointing at the fact that this unity does not exclude parts.

Oh dear ... then you don't understand the Trinity, that's not it at all.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Michael means "like God".

The question then, is whether Jesus is God or just like God...

Well, he is like God, but expressed in time.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Thus loose yourself from your own testimony.

I am expressing the actuality.

There is no identification with words, they are just being used to express.

Oh dear ... then you don't understand the Trinity, that's not it at all.

I am not looking at becoming Christian, I wish to understand the universal truth which those like Jesus have gone on expressing. I understand the trinity in that light, if you wish to disagree, it is simply showing your bias.

You are partial to Christian doctrine, mistaking words for truth.

 

[Thomas]

Studying it without actuating it is a waste of time.

Well trying to actuate what you don't understand doesn't really help either.

My point is you're in no position to comment on Christian doctrine, as clearly you don't understand it.

I'd give your own trumpet a rest for a bit ...