The Nicene Creed

[Teo9969]

I offer my own analogy:

Think of three circles which represent the the Personages, colored rainbow...the color represents the characteristics/functions of God. Now print 1, 2, and 3 on the circles respectively, the numbers represent Father, Son, and HS. Next, fuse the three circles together, (but in some, mystical way, keeping them seperate) forming One circle, or one God.

Now what you have are 3 circles (persons) all with the same characteristics fused together as one circle, but the numbers 1, 2, and 3 are still there which act as 3 different persons. The different numbers lie in different planes of color, representing the fact that the Father has primary characteristics or functions different from the primary functions of the Son and of the HS, etc., but are all still apart of their own circle which contain all the colors or characteristics/functions.

That's a fairly decent one....but it's still in no way able to express the Glory that is God.

[Teo9969]

, because technically while Jesus was on the earth he was 100%human and 100%God...That's why Jesus could not have sinned, but at the same time, he was tempted, because God cannot be tempted, but Jesus was tempted in the desert by satan, Yet Jesus is God. It's kind of like that.

On another post a person or two stated that Jesus emptied Himself of his glory . . (and apparently wisdom as well since He grew in wisdom). He was tempted because He put Himself in a position susceptible to being tempted. That is why He was able to suffer for us and pay our debt because He was better than us AND did so freely.

IMO, God didn't play a little charade with Himself to fulfill justice AND mercy. Justice was fulfilled because Jesus by His own will emptied Himself and carried through to bear our sins under a plan accepted by the Father of His own separate and free will. Mercy was provided when Jesus fulfilled His promise to sacrifice for us and the Father accepted Jesus' sacrifice as valid for our resurrection by Him. It's (not kinda) like that.

Actually the Kenosis theory (the Jesus emptying himself theory), which is derived from Phillipians 2:7 where there original greek uses the verb kenoo, which generally means to empty. However, when you take the verb in context:

"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

first off, it doesn't actually say that he emptied himself of divine attributes (or any wording similar to), second, the scripture actually describes what Jesus was emptying or more what emptying is equal to in meaning, and in this case emptying means "humbling himself". It should also be known that this was a theology formed in the late 1800s, and before it, there was no theory like this held by any of the teachers in the church, including those who natively spoke Greek and understood the meaning of ekenwsen.

So I do agree with you that it was the choice of Jesus to die for our sins, but I do believe that he came fully human, and fully God. It might also be noted that in the mid-late chapters (40's) of Isaiah, God speaks and calls himself the redeemer, which we all know to be Christ. Therefore, if Jesus emptied himself of divinity on this earth, he would not be a sufficent sacrafice for our sins.

[TrespassersW]

Thank you Teo. I think that really helps.

Erros Have Come By DEnying Any of the Three Statements Summarizing the Biblical Teaching

I understand this, and can appreciate it's importance. I think it's a very good statement about why you feel the concept of the Trinity is necessary. But I don't want to respond to it here (not in this thread) because right now I just want to understand, not explain why I disagree.

Essence, Substance, Being, is like God's "body"...that's the best I can explain that, but it's not really a body, it's his, form, his anatomical make-up...for lack of better words.

Thank you for the very specific answer. But this sounds to me like you're making even less distinction between "essence" and "person". If I had to point out the most obvious difference separating the Father from the Son (for Trinitarians) I'd say it is that the Son had a mortal body, while the Father does not. So, if the "essence" is the anatomical makeup, then in what way is Christ's essence shared with the others?

Let me state my understanding of what you've said, and you tell me how far off I am, K?

God has a presence. Whether this is an actual physical substance (not a body, I understand, but perhaps something to some degree tangible), pure energy, pure consciousness (whatever that is), or something that lies completely outside of the universe as we know it (having no discernable manifestation to us)--whether God's presence is one of these is not well understood. But we call this "the essence of God."

Jesus had a physical body (perhaps still has one?). Presumably, He also had a spirit inhabiting this body, and this spirit and body constituted a human identity that we call the "person" of Christ. This "person" of Christ is distinct from the "person" of the Father. Christ has (another?) presence, not his human identity, that is the presence of God ("the essence of God" described in the last paragraph).

Now, my questions:

To what extent is the "presence" described in my first paragraph understood? Do we understand it well enough to clearly define a distinction between it and the "person" or "identity" of God? If so, what is it? If not, then how can we be sure that such a distinction even exists?

[1dc]

When trying to understand anything, it always helps to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten your mind. Your understanding may not come overnight; but if you sincerely seek it, understanding will come.

When understanding comes by the Spirit it becomes easier to explain . .

[1dc]

Actually the Kenosis theory (the Jesus emptying himself theory), which is derived from Phillipians 2:7 where there original greek uses the verb kenoo, which generally means to empty. However, when you take the verb in context:

"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

first off, it doesn't actually say that he emptied himself of divine attributes (or any wording similar to), second, the scripture actually describes what Jesus was emptying or more what emptying is equal to in meaning, and in this case emptying means "humbling himself". It should also be known that this was a theology formed in the late 1800s, and before it, there was no theory like this held by any of the teachers in the church, including those who natively spoke Greek and understood the meaning of ekenwsen.

So I do agree with you that it was the choice of Jesus to die for our sins, but I do believe that he came fully human, and fully God. It might also be noted that in the mid-late chapters (40's) of Isaiah, God speaks and calls himself the redeemer, which we all know to be Christ. Therefore, if Jesus emptied himself of divinity on this earth, he would not be a sufficent sacrafice for our sins.

A nice explanation but you ignored the "grew in wisdom" verse . . . As the Firstborn Son of God and with His birthright that He was fully God enough to be a sufficient sacrifice for the Father by humbling Himself however much He did.

[1dc]

Thank you Teo. I think that really helps.

Erros Have Come By DEnying Any of the Three Statements Summarizing the Biblical Teaching

I understand this, and can appreciate it's importance. I think it's a very good statement about why you feel the concept of the Trinity is necessary. But I don't want to respond to it here (not in this thread) because right now I just want to understand, not explain why I disagree.

So, if the "essence" is the anatomical makeup, then in what way is Christ's essence shared with the others?

Jesus had a physical body (perhaps still has one?).

To what extent is the "presence" described in my first paragraph understood?

Do we understand it well enough to clearly define a distinction between it and the "person" or "identity" of God?

If so, what is it?

If not, then how can we be sure that such a distinction even exists?

Good questions and discussion here . .

perhaps we could add:

If Jesus no longer has a physical body . . where did it go?

What is the point of His and our resurrections if Jesus shed's His body?

If Jesus does still have a body, why would he have one and the Father not?

What is the role of the person of the Holy Ghost versus the role of the Father if He is pure spirit with no body?

[Teo9969]

1dc -

Jesus Had A Human Mind: The fact that Jesus "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52) says that he went through a learning process jusat as all other children do - he learned how to eat, how to talk, how to read and write, and how to be obedient to his parents (see Heb 5:. This ordinary learning process was part of the genuine humanit of Christ

[Zakuska]

Why is Christ called a spirit yet he still has a body? (1 Cor. 15: 45)

I thought Spirits dont have bodies? (Luke 24:39)

Yet,

1 Cor. 15: 44

44 It is own a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

[Teo9969]

Good questions and discussion here . .

perhaps we could add:

If Jesus no longer has a physical body . . where did it go?

What is the point of His and our resurrections if Jesus shed's His body?

If Jesus does still have a body, why would he have one and the Father not?

What is the role of the person of the Holy Ghost versus the role of the Father if He is pure spirit with no body?

I'll start with this post because it's a lot less confusing to say, and it is 11:42 on a school night.

Jesus still has a body, but it is not a mortal body, it is a redeemed body. 1 Cor. 15:42-44 says that Jesus rose in a new body that was "imperishable... raised in glory...raised in power...raised a spiritual body"...so again, it's not a mortal body, it's a spiritual body...And we'll just go ahead and stipulate our ignorance to what all is pertained in this new spiritual body, because none of us know...it could look exactly like our body now, and be completely different, so...Just because Jesus has a body, doesn't mean a whole lot as far as the essence of God.

Interestingly enough, the bible says that God is love...and I've always pondered how this ties into the essence of God.

I'm going to quickly say that, just because Jesus has a resurrected body, doesn't mean he doesn't exist outside of that body...this is where it becomes INSANELY hard to understand this doctrine...so....

I will meditate, and pray on this more...and do some more study...so I'm not giving up, I'm just wanting to make this as clear as possible

Sorry I can't be immediate Tresspasser...I think not only are you learning in this process of explaination...but all of who are Trinitarins are learning ourselves some specifics.

Any trinitarions who can jump off of my points and help me explain...I would be much obliged

[Zakuska]

So what precludes God the Father from having one of these super neat glorified bodies?

Christ has one and yet still is Spirit.

[Tanyan]

SOOOOO, which Model/Form of the Trinity is the correct Biblical one: Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Monarch, Social, Modalistic/Sabellian, Tritheistic, ?.

And which Church Authority from the past or present has gotten it 100% correct ?.

[Rtifs]

I will attempt to define essence/nature.

First essence/nature is not a physical thing. Think of it in terms of a way of thinking about something, or a way of defining it. In other words it answers the question "what is something?" Think beyond physical descriptions to answer. For instance, what is the essence of beauty? You could say a human is beautiful. But is a diamond or a waterfall or a star not also beautiful? How can they all be beautiful? What is the essence/nature of beauty? They all share in this essence and yet are completely different things. When we talk about the Divine Essence we are asking what is God, or what makes God God? We answer that He is uncreated, eternal, inconceivable, ineffable, perfect, etc. In this way there are three, and only three people, who fit this description. Thus we say that there are three people who are God, but there is only one God (because there is only one Divine Essence). Does this make sense to you?

To follow on, there was a debate in the early church (5th century) regarding the person of Jesus that sought to answer the question of His essence/nature. I think it may help to give a real world example how essence/nature has played out in Church theology. One school incorrectly taught that when Jesus was born there two essences, human and divine in Him; yet these essences were completely separate (enough that you could say that Jesus was really two people in the same body). The other school taught, also incorrectly, that since the Divine Essence was infinitely greater that the human essence, that the human essence became irrelevant to the point of not existing in Him. The Church, in a series of councils stated that the person of Jesus has both essences, that He is both fully God and fully man. That they are united in Him, but not mixed into one, or confused in any way. It can be confusing to think about, but if you read the documents it is easier to understand.

Anyway I hope that helped.

[Rtifs]

I should have added this paragraph after my first.

In this way there are three, and only three people, who fit this description. Thus we say that there are three people who are God, but there is only one God (because there is only one Divine Essence).

There are three people (hypostasis in Greek) that 'have' the Divine Essence. Since they are separate people they have different attributes relating to their personhood/hypostasis. For instance the Father is the source of the Trinity. The Son is begotten by, and the Spirit proceeds from Him. The Son became man, and redeemed us etc. So while each person of the Trinity has different attributes relating to who they are (personhood/hypostasis), they are identical in what they are (essence/nature).

[Tanyan]

Rtifs, are you Roman Catholic , Eastern Orthodox, Protestant ?. Which Model/Form of the Trinity do you adhere to in my list above and what individual has correctly gotten it right ?, thanks. In His Debt, Tanyan.

[Rtifs]

I am of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion. But I'm won't debate the validity of the doctrine in this thread. I find that debates about the Trinity go nowhere. So I'm restricting my replies to explanations of the doctrine.

[1dc]

1dc -

Jesus Had A Human Mind: The fact that Jesus "increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52) says that he went through a learning process jusat as all other children do - he learned how to eat, how to talk, how to read and write, and how to be obedient to his parents (see Heb 5:. This ordinary learning process was part of the genuine humanit of Christ

[TrespassersW]

Rtifs:

So while each person of the Trinity has different attributes relating to who they are (personhood/hypostasis), they are identical in what they are (essence/nature).

Thank you. I think that is what I was looking for. The difference is between who and what. I like this explanation. It isn't as incomprehensible as I was imagining. I'll chew on that and get back to you if I have any more questions.

Thanks.

[Fiat Lux]

Not sure I understand how Jesus was fully God (100%, which implies omniscience) and yet also grew in wisdom.  Can you clarify?  Are you saying his body provided some knowledge/experience he didn't have as a human child (which I would agree with)?

Wouldn't one also correctly assume that the Father as 100% God also encompasses that same knowledge that Christ grew with?  (If so, it certainly seems possible He also has a body.)

I'm not well-versed in philosophy, so I can't throw out ideas about hypostatic unions and so forth (which may be a blessing), but my layman's understanding is that Christ was 100% God and 100% man at the same time. His human and divine natures were united but remained exactly what they are, not commingled, operating distinctly.

Christ had two intellects, a human and a divine, and He possessed various types of knowledge. His divine intellect had perfect knowledge, but that perfect knowledge wasn't wide open for the use of His human intellect. I believe His human intellect was as great as a human intellect can be, with some special infused knowledge gifted to Him, but as man He also gained experimental knowledge through his body, and thus, as a man, He grew in wisdom.

I would agree that His body provided some knowledge/experience in a human way that He didn't have as a human child. That kind of learning is part of the human experience He went through. But, he didn't learn anything that his divine intellect didn't already know.

I would agree that the Father possess all of the knowledge that Christ's divine intellect possesses, but I also believe that Christ's divine intellect possessed the same knowledge even when He was a human child.

[Teo9969]

Fiat Lux pretty much nailed it on the head...It wasn't his divine nature that grew in wisdom, it was his human nature.

Draw a circle, that is God draw a stick figure...label the God circle as divine nation, the stick figure has human nature, and draw a dotted circle around the both of them, kind of like a vinn diagram, and the dotted circle is the person of christ.

[Teo9969]

Rtifs, that is a GREAT explanation, I'm not quite sure if I agree yet...I need to do more research. But it seems to be biblically sound...

Big Dogger, does that match up Catholicaly?

[Big Dogger]

Rtifs, that is a GREAT explanation, I'm not quite sure if I agree yet...I need to do more research. But it seems to be biblically sound...

Big Dogger, does that match up Catholicaly?

That definition is very close to what we believe as Catholics.

There are three people (hypostasis in Greek) that 'have' the Divine Essence. Since they are separate people they have different attributes relating to their personhood/hypostasis. For instance the Father is the source of the Trinity. The Son is begotten by, and the Spirit proceeds from Him. The Son became man, and redeemed us etc. So while each person of the Trinity has different attributes relating to who they are (personhood/hypostasis), they are identical in what they are (essence/nature).

Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son.

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

We both agree that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God.

Rtifs does an excellent job defining the three persons of the Trinity. I, as a Catholic, am certainly not opposed to the Eastern Orthodox view...however I do officially subscribe to the Catholic view.

Peace be with you.

[TrespassersW]

Rtifs:

OK, I've thought about it and I think I get it. Just one clarification, though.

So while each person of the Trinity has different attributes relating to who they are (personhood/hypostasis), they are identical in what they are (essence/nature).

By "what," you don't mean a definition or type. Otherwise we would say that the Father's "type" is "God," but his identity is "the Father," and that would be three different persons all of the type "God" -- and I think that wouldn't be that much different from saying "three Gods". So, that's obviously not what you're referring to. So, by "what" we mean something more substantial than just a definition of kind.

For us ordinary humans, there isn't really a distinction between our what and our who. Is that right? If there was, then it wouldn't be so difficult to come up with an appropriate analogy. For me, both my "person" and my "essence" are the same thing, is that about right?

[Teo9969]

Rtifs:

OK, I've thought about it and I think I get it. Just one clarification, though.

So while each person of the Trinity has different attributes relating to who they are (personhood/hypostasis), they are identical in what they are (essence/nature).

By "what," you don't mean a definition or type. Otherwise we would say that the Father's "type" is "God," but his identity is "the Father," and that would be three different persons all of the type "God" -- and I think that wouldn't be that much different from saying "three Gods". So, that's obviously not what you're referring to. So, by "what" we mean something more substantial than just a definition of kind.

For us ordinary humans, there isn't really a distinction between our what and our who. Is that right? If there was, then it wouldn't be so difficult to come up with an appropriate analogy. For me, both my "person" and my "essence" are the same thing, is that about right?

I know that you're truly seeking this answer man, but the understanding of the Trinity only goes so far...At some point in your questioning, it's going to come back to the inability to comprehend.

[Fiat Lux]

By "what," you don't mean a definition or type. Otherwise we would say that the Father's "type" is "God," but his identity is "the Father," and that would be three different persons all of the type "God" -- and I think that wouldn't be that much different from saying "three Gods".

It is not "type" in that sense. In the trinity, there are three, but there is no division of substance.

[Tanyan]

SOOOOO, which Model/Form of the Trinity is the correct Biblical one: Western, Eastern, Economic, Essential, Monarch, Social, Modalistic/Sabellian, Tritheistic, ?.

And which Church Authority from the past or present has gotten it 100% correct ?.

Sooooo, which one is it ?.