What a rich discussion this is.
I subscribe to orthodox Trinitarian belief. I think it is important therefore to acknowledge that this belief is not stated directly in scripture, but is the outcome of three centuries of reflection on the relationship of Jesus of Nazareth to God the Father. And even then the debate was cut short by political exigencies and genuine consensus was never achieved.
Nevertheless, within its limitations, I feel the Trinity makes as much sense as possible of the experience of the early church.
Some further comments:
Mr Ecumenical said:
Jesus Christ represents the struggle of the human versus the Divine. He was both Human and God. Can you imagine that?
This would not be a Christian point-of-view and certainly not a Trinitarian one. The Council of Chalcedon, which defined the dual nature of Christ, explicitly recognized that the dual nature formed one integral person. Christ was not in conflict with himself. On the contrary, as the model of true humanity in communion with God, Christ was the epitome of spiritual wholeness.
DeaconJustin said:
Many believe that Christ was born as the Christ, already annointed with the Holy Spirit(Ruach ha Kodesh in Hebrew). However, they conveniently ignore the descent of the dove(often a symbol of the descent of the Holy Spirit) at Jesus's baptism in the river Jordan. In Judaism a ritual bath called a mikveh is given to new converts to symbolize a change in their status as well as ritual purity; it is also administered at times of significant change in a person's life, much like baptism marks a change from your previous life to a Christian life.
Indeed, there was (is?) a whole school of thought that held Jesus was "adopted" as the Son of God at his baptism, and that the Logos or Christ-spirit entered him at that time. The festival of Epiphany was originally associated with the baptism of Jesus (Epiphany=manifestation and the baptism was the manifestation of the divine in Jesus). After the Trinitarian view became official, the "manifestation" associated with the baptism was shifted to the visit of the wise men from the east, and the first manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles, while the remebrance of Jesus' baptism was shifted to the following Sunday and given lesser importance.
Trinitarians object to the adoptionist stance on the grounds that it divides the personality of Jesus. It suggests the repression of Jesus' human personality by the divine personality of Christ. So that the human is a mere tool of the divine, not a willingly obedient Son of God.
Alan_G said:
However, he also said when asked when the end of the world would come that "even the Son of Man does not know this and it is known only to the Father" (paraphrasing). Therefore he and God MUST logically be two different "beings" (for lack of a better word).
The "better word" chosen by the theologians of Nicaea was "hypostasis" which was translated into Latin as "persona" and thence into English as "person". It is important to remember that in Trinitarian thinking the Father is not a synonym for God, but is one person of God, just as the Son and Holy Spirit are.
So it is not a matter of God=Father and we find a way to shoehorn in Jesus and the Holy Spirit as other divinities. It is a matter of God=God and God = the totality of Father, Son and Spirit. Yet each person is also wholly God, not one-third of God.
In short, whether one's experience of the divine is an experience of the Father, of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, it is an experience of God in God's fullness. And it is always one and the same God. So the Father should not be thought of as being "more fully God" than the other two persons.
Alan_G said:
So I think we can look to Jesus (his teachings, etc.) when we find ourselves wondering "What is God like anyway?", because he did represent God perfectly, and even was God in the flesh -- However, there was and remains a separate being as well who is God now and was God before Jesus was born...
Not quite. The Logos or 2nd person of the Trinity is not a separate being from Jesus. Jesus is the Logos in human form. The Father and the Spirit are both different persons of the Trinity, but not different beings. However, incarnation is an attribute of the Son only, not the other persons.
Alan_G said:
Jesus, in the flesh, showed people of the day what God, who is Spirit, was like.
Exactly. And he also showed people of the day what humanity was created to be.
Arthra said:
Baha'is have a concept called the Manifestation of God and we believe that Jesus Christ was a Manifestation.
We believe a Manifestation is a pure mirror that reflects perfectly the attributes of God.
So if we were alive at the time of Jesus we wold turn to Him to see what God would be like as reflected in Him.
This is quite close to the way the writer of the letter to the Hebrews described Jesus. "He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being." Hebrews 1:3
This is one of many pre-Trinitarian descriptions of Christ. The imprint referred to here is that of a signet ring or seal. So we see the writer expressing the relationship of God's very being impressed into the human form of Jesus as the image on a signet ring is impressed onto the sealing wax of a document.
sachetm said:
Personally, I do not believe that Jesus was God and certainly do not believe that the Bible is the word of God. I think His creation does that and is his "word."
If by word of God one means a document dictated by God, then orthodox Christian teaching would agree that description does not fit the bible. In Christian thinking the Word of God revealed to humanity is Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnation of the Logos. The bible is not a direct word of God, but a witness to the primary Word of God, as written by humans who had been moved/inspired to write it by the Spirit. As a witness to the primordial Word of God, it is also referred to, secondarily, as the Word of God.
The sectarian versions of Christianity which give to the Bible the place which belongs to Christ are seen by orthodox Christians as idolators in that they place what is a human (though divinely-inspired) creation in the place of God.
In that vein, I think Jesus was a man who so completely experienced his connection to God that he became something "more" (whatever that is) than just an ordinary man. But if that's true, then that same ability resides within everyone.
And actually, this is quite orthodox Christianity, for we are all, upon redemption, adopted by the Spirit, and become children of God, so that Jesus may be the "first-born among many brethren" (Romans 8:29)
Adamante said:
God does not understand why we do what we do. He does not know why we have such trouble with temptations and the like. (Yes, I siad God does not know...that could land me into trouble!) In an effort to understand his creation, he tried to be one! Was it flawed? Well, perhaps it was. Jesus knew he was divine, and therefore would not have to face the judgement. Jesus did not have to have faith in any matter like we do, b/c he knew already what existed in the heavens, and of who he was of course. In an extremely limited way, he felt what it was like to be a man, to better understand his creation. Notice that in Genesis, he did at least seem surprised that Adam and Eve ate what they were told not to.
So...long winded answer! I think Jesus did know he was God. But in an way we can not understand, he was very limited and specialized...b/c he loved us and so he could see what our life was like in the form of a man.
Limiting God's knowledge won't get you into trouble with me. But the idea that God was "trying on" humanity in order to understand it falls afoul of Chrstian scripture in two respects.
You say, for example that since Jesus knew he was divine, he knew he would not have to face the judgement. Nor id he need to have faith in any matter like we do. But, from a Christian perspective Jesus' humanity was so complete that he was tested in every way like one of us. He did need faith to sustain the agony of Gethsemane and submit to the will of God.
The key text is the "kenosis" (=emptying) passage of Philippians 2:6-8
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but
emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himslef and became obedient to the point of death---even death on a cross."
So I disagree that Jesus knew himself to be divine, for he could not incarnate in human form without emptying himself of divine form, thus placing limits on his divine attributes.
16