Trinity, Trinity, Trinity.

[consiglieri]

While I am waiting for Rhino to get back to me in addressing some of my concerns, may I say what a delightful and cordial fellow Rhino seems to be? It appears evident from the manner in which he handles himself, that even though he is entering into a discussion with some others who disagree with him, he is nevertheless secure enough in his faith to treat all with dignity and respect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[T-Shirt]

While I am waiting for Rhino to get back to me in addressing some of my concerns, may I say what a delightful and cordial fellow Rhino seems to be? It appears evident from the manner in which he handles himself, that even though he is entering into a discussion with some others who disagree with him, he is nevertheless secure enough in his faith to treat all with dignity and respect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ditto.

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

While I am waiting for Rhino to get back to me in addressing some of my concerns, may I say what a delightful and cordial fellow Rhino seems to be?

Well, thank you very much, you guys. I appreciate your compliments! I think my amiable nature is only enhanced by like attitudes from you all, so credit undoubtedly goes to you.

By the way, could you refresh my memory as to what concerns of yours you would like me to address? I remember some from early on, but I thought I'd answered them at least somewhat clearly. Care to jog my memory?

And I'll look into the whole "Jesus' body" issue over the next few days, and see what I can come up with. More later, take care. And I am enjoying the friendly discussion, as well.

[Doctor Steuss]

And I'll look into the whole "Jesus' body" issue over the next few days, and see what I can come up with. More later, take care. And I am enjoying the friendly discussion, as well.

A few more questions in regards to Jesus' body:

Do all of mainstream Christian religions believe that the person of Christ still has a glorified body, or do some believe that He didn

[rhinomelon]

Thank you for the effort you're putting into this Rhino, I appreciate it (I'm sure you've got better things to do than to school a Marmen on the Trinity).

Better things, perhaps (after all those bills won't pay themselves!), but few that are more fun and challenging for me. This is my bread and butter!

Here is a short article I found regarding the issue of Jesus' body and the Trinity. I have a feeling it may raise more questions than it answers (like hypostatic union and incommunicable/communicable attributes), but that's okay. I'll try to find a better response during lunch.

Jesus' Body and the Father and Spirit

I will try to sum it up quickly. Mainstream Christianity affirms what is technically called the "hypostatic union", which is just a fancy way of saying that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man, without mixing the two into some new different kind of being. So the Son, being God, took on a human body, but did not change the essence of his divinity. It's like putting oil and water into a jar; they don't mix, (the water remaining water and the oil remaining oil), but they do coexist in the same form. So the divinity of the Son never changed, even though it was found in human likeness, along with a human nature. This would also answer your question about the view of an unchanging God.

This is another one of the so-called "mysteries" of the Christian faith, not because it is not understandable, but because it can't be understood completely, as Catholic Guy said earlier.

Do all of mainstream Christian religions believe that the person of Christ still has a glorified body, or do some believe that He didn

[Doctor Steuss]

You

[Cold Steel]

President Wilford Woodruff perhaps gave the best advice about this:

[rhinomelon]

You

[Doctor Steuss]

Although it appears an unnecessary action due to the fact that this thread hasn

[Tanyan]

Tanyan,

Last line "Still" Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism again !.

Does the Book of Mormon "Reads/Smells/Feels like Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism"?

The Book of Mormon says ... It is God himself .. being the Father and the Son.

Mosiah

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son

[Tanyan]

Tanyan and/or Jerubaal,

Last part Looks, Feels, Smells Absolute Modalism/Sabellianism.

Please defend your statment ... define Modalism/Sabellianism ... please provide some scriptures to support your statment.

I said:

The Son of God Has A Father And A God.

Jesus said, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. [Jn 20:17]. Jesus came from God [Jn 13:3]. Jesus' prayed to the Father. The Son did as the Father commanded [Jn 10:17; 14:31]. Christ has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ's human will does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.

Christ Is Not A Second God. God Was Manifest, God Was In Christ.

God was made manifest among us, the Word became flesh. The Son of God was manifested in the flesh [1 Tim 3:16]. In Christ's humanity "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" [Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:19]. The Word of God dwelt in man and became the Son of man. The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

One in "The Same GOD" ?, hummm my modalism/sabellian alarm went off again.

[Doctor Steuss]

Bringing back this old thread because I have another question. As a reminder, this thread IS NOT FOR DEBATE OR CRITICISM!

In the NT, it seems evident (at least to me) that Christ is subordinate to G-d the Father. In the concept of the Trinity, has the person of Christ always been subordinate and subject to the commands and will of the Father, or was this something that only applied while Christ was in human form?

[Zakuska]

I don't think the "in human form" argument works here...

1 Cor 15 (KJV)

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 15:28 (New American Standard Bible)

28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 15:28 (Darby Translation)

28 But when all things shall have been brought into subjection to him, then the Son also himself shall be placed in subjection to him who put all things in subjection to him, that God may be all in all.)

[rhinomelon]

In the NT, it seems evident (at least to me) that Christ is subordinate to G-d the Father. In the concept of the Trinity, has the person of Christ always been subordinate and subject to the commands and will of the Father, or was this something that only applied while Christ was in human form?

Good question! You are correct in that the New Testament (mainly the gospel accounts) paint Jesus as subordinate to the Father. We would see that as part of the reality of the incarnation, as laid out in Philippians 2 quite well. The Son emptied himself of the form of God, and took on the form of a servant (human being). As a perfect human being he showed perfect subordination to God. But there are other passages that speak of the equality of the Son and the Father, such as Philippians 2 and John 1.

The Trinity reconciles these passages by (A) looking at which ones refer to the Son incarnate ("in the form of a servant"), and ( which ones refer to the Son apart from the incarnation. The conclusion is that the Son is ontologically equal to the Father (meaning that in terms of being, power, glory, etc they are equal), but functionally subordinate. This means that the Son, although equal with the Father in terms of essence and being, voluntarily and willingly subordinates himself to the Father. Not because he has to because he is a different, lower kind of being, but because he wants to. "Not my will, but thine be done."

Make sense? Take care

[Doctor Steuss]

Good question! You are correct in that the New Testament (mainly the gospel accounts) paint Jesus as subordinate to the Father. We would see that as part of the reality of the incarnation, as laid out in Philippians 2 quite well. The Son emptied himself of the form of God, and took on the form of a servant (human being). As a perfect human being he showed perfect subordination to God. But there are other passages that speak of the equality of the Son and the Father, such as Philippians 2 and John 1.

The Trinity reconciles these passages by (A) looking at which ones refer to the Son incarnate ("in the form of a servant"), and ( which ones refer to the Son apart from the incarnation. The conclusion is that the Son is ontologically equal to the Father (meaning that in terms of being, power, glory, etc they are equal), but functionally subordinate. This means that the Son, although equal with the Father in terms of essence and being, voluntarily and willingly subordinates himself to the Father. Not because he has to because he is a different, lower kind of being, but because he wants to. "Not my will, but thine be done."

Make sense? Take care

As always, thank you rhinomelon.

Has the Son always been subordinate to the Father, or was this something that began at the incarnation?

I hope the above makes sense, and Iâ??m glad you were able to interpret my first question. Given that their (Father and Son) wills are the same, I was afraid that my question would be too confusing.

[rhinomelon]

I hope the above makes sense, and Iâ??m glad you were able to interpret my first question. Given that their (Father and Son) wills are the same, I was afraid that my question would be too confusing.

You asked the question quite well. I can see that you are growing more comfortable in this area, which is always good to see! Just one quick correction on the above: In the Trinity, it is believed that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each have their own wills ("Not my will but yours be done, etc"); they are just working in concert in everything the Trinity does.

Has the Son always been subordinate to the Father, or was this something that began at the incarnation?

I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Son has always subordinated himself to the Father, along with the Holy Spirit. I see Catholic Guy lurking around, it would be nice to get a second opinion!

Take care

[Chris Smith]

I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Son has always subordinated himself to the Father, along with the Holy Spirit. I see Catholic Guy lurking around, it would be nice to get a second opinion!

That is also my understanding.

[Zakuska]

Not to debate but... In all the verses where Christ himself or others make him equal with God... its when he is in his Human form. So how exactly does that work unless God is a Glorified Human being?

John 5: 18

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Philip. 2: 6

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

[rhinomelon]

In all the verses where Christ himself or others make him equal with God... its when he is in his Human form. So how exactly does that work unless God is a Glorified Human being?

Not completely. I would put forward John 1 as one example, along with Philippians 2. Both of which speak to the equality before the incarnation. Also, the question is something of a misnomer in mainstream Christian thought, since Christ is both fully divine and fully human, and "divine" and "human" are not the same thing. Jesus was equal with God as to his divinity, and equal with us in terms of his humanity.

Take care

[Zakuska]

Jesus was equal with God as to his divinity, and equal with us in terms of his humanity.

Amen. I can agree 100% to your last sentence. Otherwise he could not have died and raised himself back up again.

[rhinomelon]

Otherwise he could not have died and raised himself back up again.

Just to clarify (I don't want to disturb our newfound state of agreement ), I believe it was the Father that raised Christ from the dead. Not a big point, just wanted to be clear. Take care

[Zakuska]

Well in a round about kind of way... yes I can agree to that too since it was the father who gave him this ability.

So how would you interpret Christs words?

John 10

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

[Doctor Steuss]

I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Son has always subordinated himself to the Father, along with the Holy Spirit. I see Catholic Guy lurking around, it would be nice to get a second opinion!

Take care

This has actually inspired a secondary question.

Is there a definitive hierarchy within the persons of the Trinity? Weâ??ve established that the Son willingly subordinates Himself to the Father. Does the Holy Spirit (aka: Holy Ghost) willingly subordinate himself to both the Father and the Son, or just to the Father?

PS.

Zakuska,

Please tread lightly my brother (and I thank you for doing so thus far)â?¦ I really, really, really, really, donâ??t want this thread to become a debate.

[BCSpace]

Does the Holy Spirit (aka: Holy Ghost) willingly subordinate himself to both the Father and the Son, or just to the Father?

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26

Since the Holy Ghost is sent, it seems obvious to me that he is subordinate. Since he is sent by the Father in Jesus' name, I would posit that he is subordinate to both the Father and the Son.

[Chris Smith]

Doc,

In Eastern Trinitarianism, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. In the West, he proceeds from the Father and the Son. So I'd say that in the West there is probably a sense in which the Son is "higher in the hierarchy" than the Holy Spirit (it is after all the Son who sends the Holy Spirit to his disciples). Not so much in the East.

That's just my take.

-CK

P.S. There are also some hints at a hierarchy of being. Even if the Son is eternally begotten, even if the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds, that still seems to make the Father the fons divinitatis, or "fount of divinity," and to place him ontologically above the other two. This is something that doesn't get much play in modern Western Trinitarianism, probably because it's difficult to reconcile with co-equality. Many of the church fathers wrestled with this question, and none of them came up with a particularly satisfactory answer, though very few seem to have been willing to compromise co-equality. Personally, I tend to think that the substance and divinity of the Son is equal to the Fathers, but that the personhood of the Father is somehow ontologically privileged. At the same time, I recognize the limitations of Trinitarianism: it is a human attempt to understand the nature of God as revealed in the Bible, and it cannot in itself provide all the answers.