Fwd: "Why Jews Can't Be For Jesus"
ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk
The following article is on a direct link from the "Church's Ministry
to the Jews"'s web site (that's where I got it from). As soon as I
saw it I thought that it just had to be posted in alt.messianic.
Enjoy. Lloyd.
====================================================
Why Jews Can't Be For Jesus
By Rabbi Shmuel Arkush, Head of Operation Judaism, fighting
missionaries nationwide.
IN BRITAIN today there are various groups energetically targeting
Jews. They especially look for those who feel a lack of fulfilment in
their lives. They assert that the answer to all problems is belief in
Jesus, something which they claim makes you a better Jew! What's so
terrible? They seem happy enough. I am not going to stop any of the
Jewish things I was doing before, I may even keep a few more! Even if
I end up believing in a false Messiah I will still be Jewish.
At the time Jesus lived, prior to the destruction of the second
Temple, there were various sects within Judaism. Some say that there
could have been as many as several dozen. One of these was a sect led
by Jesus.
He was rejected by the Jews of his time, a generation which included
some of our greatest Rabbis. The Christian response to the rejection
of Jesus by his own people has been nearly two thousand years of
efforts to convert Jews to their beliefs. When a Jew accepts Jesus he
not only rejects the history of his people but, by adopting Christian
faith he places himself outside the Jewish religion.
Christians believe in the Trinity, that G-d consists of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Ghost. They say that this three-part G-d is the
same as the G-d worshipped by the Jews.
The Torah says, "Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d the L-rd is One."
This we say in the Shema, we have it on our doors in the mezuzah and
on our hearts and minds in the tefilin. Christians believe that one
cannot approach G-d except through Jesus. All prayers must therefore,
be in his name. This is called Mediation.
The Torah starts the Ten Commandments with, "I am the L-rd your G-d,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.
You shall have no other gods before me". Simply G-d does not want us
to have any other deities even if we still believe in Him. Limiting an
all knowing G-d by claiming He needs a mediator is a violation of this
commandment.
Christians say that Jesus was a Prophet who came to change the way it
used to be. The Torah warns us about this, "If there arise among you a
prophet or a dreamer and he gives you a sign or a miracle. And the
sign or miracle comes to pass and he calls you saying 'Let us go after
other gods, whom you have not known and let us worship them.' You
shall not listen to that prophet or dreamer. For G-d is testing you,
to see whether you love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with
all your soul." (Deut. 13:2)
So are you a better Jew, a fulfilled Jew by accepting Jesus? No. By
accepting a Christian god you commit a cardinal sin. You become a
traitor to your people and cannot be counted a Jew.
The Torah teaches, "It is enough that you carefully observe everything
that I am prescribing to you. Do not add to it and do not subtract
from it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was first published by UJS as part of the "50 Days for 50
Years" project. For your copy of the revised edition of the book
contact the UJS office. (Hopefully the whole book will be on the
internet in the near future).
=======================================================
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the
Jews as a 'race.'"
Roth, C., Oxford University Reader in Jewish Studies, 1939-1964,
in: "Jews", "Collier's Encyclopedia", 13: 574, 1991.
====================================================
Randolph Parrish
lo...@bgnet.bgsu.edu (Louis Lomasky) wrote:
>In a previous article, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) says:
>> Tell it to the compilers of the Oral Torah. (If that isn't adding,
>>what is?)
>No, compiling the Oral Tradition is not adding to the commandments. The
>Oral Torah was given at Siani. You will have to give some examples of
>additions before you can make this accusation stand.
"These people come near to me with their mouth,
and honor me with their lips
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me is made up only of 'mitzvath' made by men.'
(Isaiah 29:13)
(And the rest of the passage is interesting as well.)
If the Oral Torah was given at Sinai, then why wasn't it
accepted by all the sects of Judaism like the written Torah? (I'm not
saying that there were NO traditional rules governing Jewish
practices; but there was not an acceptance of the concept of 'The Oral
Torah' as a twin to the Written Torah like there was in the Pharisaic
tradition.)
Randolph Parrish
men...@torah.org (Yaakov Menken) wrote:
>An oft-repeated false claim does not become true. Even J. told his
>followers to see how few of the learned were among them.
Paul was a pupil of Gamaliel. Do you know anyone with a better
education than that? Nicodemus is probably the same Nicodemus
mentioned in the Talmud--the one for whom the sun shone. Joseph of
Arimathea was apparently a member of the Sanhedrin. Gamaliel was at
least practical, almost downright friendly. (And you might think hard
on his advice--if the followers of Jesus were wrong, nothing would
come of their movement; but if they were of God, then it would wrong
to oppose them--you might even find yourself fighting against God.)
As for the common people--there were so many of them that the
Amidah had to be changed on account of them. (That wouldn't have been
done for an insubstantial number.)
>What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
>trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
one God.
Randolph Parrish
ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk wrote:
>He was rejected by the Jews of his time, a generation which included
>some of our greatest Rabbis.
He was also accepted by many thousands--including some of the
greatest rabbis.
>. The Torah warns us about this, "If there arise among you a
>prophet or a dreamer and he gives you a sign or a miracle. And the
>sign or miracle comes to pass and he calls you saying 'Let us go after
>other gods, whom you have not known and let us worship them.' You
>shall not listen to that prophet or dreamer. For G-d is testing you,
>to see whether you love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with
>all your soul." (Deut. 13:2)
Jesus didn't say go after other gods. When asked, he said the
greatest commandment is 'You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart and all your soul and all your mind.' (That passes the
above test, BTW-- it's just what is required in Deut.). After his
miracles, the people praised the God of Israel--not other gods.
>So are you a better Jew, a fulfilled Jew by accepting Jesus? No. By
>accepting a Christian god you commit a cardinal sin. You become a
>traitor to your people and cannot be counted a Jew.
'Traitor'??? How does choosing one messiah-candidate over
another make one a 'traitor'? (Are we still pushing for Bar Kochba
here? )
>The Torah teaches, "It is enough that you carefully observe everything
>that I am prescribing to you. Do not add to it and do not subtract
>from it."
Tell it to the compilers of the Oral Torah. (If that isn't adding,
what is?)
Yaakov Menken
On 27 May 1997 12:48:01 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
wrote:
>ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk wrote:
>>He was rejected by the Jews of his time, a generation which included
>>some of our greatest Rabbis.
>
> He was also accepted by many thousands--including some of the
>greatest rabbis.
An oft-repeated false claim does not become true. Even J. told his
followers to see how few of the learned were among them.
>>. The Torah warns us about this, "If there arise among you a
>>prophet or a dreamer and he gives you a sign or a miracle. And the
>>sign or miracle comes to pass and he calls you saying 'Let us go after
>>other gods..." (Deut. 13:2)
>
> Jesus didn't say go after other gods.
What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
YM
Nrb
On Tue, 27 May 1997 08:25:09 GMT, ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk wrote:
>The following article is on a direct link from the "Church's Ministry
>to the Jews"'s web site (that's where I got it from). As soon as I
>saw it I thought that it just had to be posted in alt.messianic.
>Enjoy. Lloyd.
>
>====================================================
>
> Why Jews Can't Be For Jesus
Thankfully there have been many many senior Jewish persons in Great
Britain who were "for Jesus" over the past 100 years, including my
dear friends Simon and Evelyn Anvoner among others.
Can you supply us the web address of the CMJ Web Site please??
I am sure that they have many good articles, and it IS amusing that
you found a link to a group that is "FIGHTING" the CMJ, right off
their own web page.
I guess they do not fear opposition like you do!
For great Ham Radio resources on the web, VISIT:
http://www.mnsinc.com/bry/hamfiles.htm
Joshua Moss
On 27 May 1997, Randolph Parrish wrote:
> "These people come near to me with their mouth,
> and honor me with their lips
> but their hearts are far from me.
> Their worship of me is made up only of 'mitzvath' made by men.'
> (Isaiah 29:13)
> (And the rest of the passage is interesting as well.)
This is a misapplication of the OT passage by the NT (actually by Jesus
himself). Isaiah's point was not that "men" were making up new mitsvot.
His point was that the performance of the mitsvot was, for his hearers,
no longer motivated by the awe of God and consisted *merely* of following
traditional practices. The mitsvot themselves were not in dispute; the
motivation was.
For the reader's convenience, I reproduce Isa. 29 in the RSV.
ISA.29
[1] Ho Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped!
Add year to year;
let the feasts run their round.
[Ariel is here a name for the "city of David" in Jerusalem.]
[2] Yet I will distress Ariel,
and there shall be moaning and lamentation,
and she shall be to me like an Ariel.
[3] And I will encamp against you round about,
and will besiege you with towers
and I will raise siegeworks against you.
[4] Then deep from the earth you shall speak,
from low in the dust your words shall come;
your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost,
and your speech shall whisper out of the dust.
[5] But the multitude of your foes shall be like small dust,
and the multitude of the ruthless like passing chaff.
And in an instant, suddenly,
[6] you will be visited by the LORD of hosts
with thunder and with earthquake and great noise,
with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire.
[7] And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel,
all that fight against her and her stronghold and distress her,
shall be like a dream, a vision of the night.
[8] As when a hungry man dreams he is eating
and awakes with his hunger not satisfied,
or as when a thirsty man dreams he is drinking
and awakes faint, with his thirst not quenched,
so shall the multitude of all the nations be
that fight against Mount Zion.
[9] Stupefy yourselves and be in a stupor,
blind yourselves and be blind!
Be drunk, but not with wine;
stagger, but not with strong drink!
[10] For the LORD has poured out upon you
a spirit of deep sleep,
and has closed your eyes, the prophets,
and covered your heads, the seers.
[11] And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a
book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying,
"Read this," he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
[12] And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, "Read
this," he says, "I cannot read."
[The accusation is that the people hear the warnings of the prophets but
respond as if they cannot understand what is being said.]
[13] And the Lord said:
"Because this people draw near with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
while their hearts are far from me,
and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote;
[14] therefore, behold, I will again
do marvelous things with this people,
wonderful and marvelous;
and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hid."
[15] Woe to those who hide deep from the LORD their counsel,
whose deeds are in the dark,
and who say, "Who sees us? Who knows us?"
[16] You turn things upside down!
Shall the potter be regarded as the clay;
that the thing made should say of its maker,
"He did not make me";
or the thing formed say of him who formed it,
"He has no understanding"?
[17] Is it not yet a very little while
until Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field,
and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest?
[18] In that day the deaf shall hear
the words of a book,
and out of their gloom and darkness
the eyes of the blind shall see.
[19] The meek shall obtain fresh joy in the LORD,
and the poor among men shall exult in the Holy One of Israel.
[20] For the ruthless shall come to nought and the scoffer cease,
and all who watch to do evil shall be cut off,
[21] who by a word make a man out to be an offender,
and lay a snare for him who reproves in the gate,
and with an empty plea turn aside him who is in the right.
[22] Therefore thus says the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning
the house of Jacob: "Jacob shall no more be ashamed,
no more shall his face grow pale.
[23] For when he sees his children,
the work of my hands, in his midst,
they will sanctify my name;
they will sanctify the Holy One of Jacob,
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
[24] And those who err in spirit will come to understanding,
and those who murmur will accept instruction."
[The point of the chapter is that Israel should (and one day shall)
receive prophetic teaching with awe and understanding, rather than as a
"tradition of men learned by rote." It is not the content of the teaching
but the reception given to it which is being criticised.]
Andrew Getter
ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk writes:
>
> "A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the
> Jews as a 'race.'"
> Roth, C., Oxford University Reader in Jewish Studies, 1939-1964,
> in: "Jews", "Collier's Encyclopedia", 13: 574, 1991.
>
This is great, but it seems that Israel as fallen prey to that myth
since they will not allow a Jewish couple to designate their
adopted child as Jewish. I posted this before and if you already
responded, I am sorry that I missed it.
Bry C
On 27 May 1997 21:15:39 GMT, lo...@bgnet.bgsu.edu (Louis Lomasky)
wrote:
>
>In a previous article, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) says:
>
>>>The Torah teaches, "It is enough that you carefully observe everything
>>>that I am prescribing to you. Do not add to it and do not subtract
>>>from it."
>>
>> Tell it to the compilers of the Oral Torah. (If that isn't adding,
>>what is?)
>>
>
>No, compiling the Oral Tradition is not adding to the commandments. The
>Oral Torah was given at Siani.
Siani? Is that near Miami (grin!) - but seriously, Louis, if you
believe that, I DO have some land in Florida that I would like to talk
with you about!
Stephen Bayzik
On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
wrote:
> No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
>one God.
ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
"scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
--
Steve sba...@idirect.com
Bry C
More pathetic propaganda but no substace in reality whatsoever.
Bozo the Clown could do better as a theologian than this, Steve!
Bry C
Josh I thin kI am with the Red Team.
Whoever told you that the writings of the Nevi'im are "Oral Torah."
(Or Toros if you are Spanish (grin!)) is a little mixed up.
The Nevi'im are WRITTEN Torah in anyone's book!
Suzanne Fortin
On 31 May 1997, Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>
> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> wrote:
>
> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
> >one God.
>
> ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians believe in more than
one God. It's like when FEC say that Catholics worship Mary, which we
don't. It's a means to slander a belief when in fact that's not the belief
at all.
Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
exactly the same.
"Polytheism" is a false accusation. We only have one God. At most, we
disagree greatly about the nature of this God, but not his existence, nor
that he is the only God.
Suzanne Fortin
Quebec City, Canada
Visit the pro-life webring: http://www.gargaro.com/webring
Email: sfo...@bigfoot.com
WARNING!
DO NOT send me email promoting your product, service, cause get-rich-quick
scheme. I DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH SPAMMERS!!! If you send me unsollicited
e-mail, I will track you down, no matter how forged your header is, and I
will complain to your server or your feeder. You have been warned.
Tim 'Spock' Larson
Stephen Bayzik wrote:
> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> wrote:
> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
> >one God.
> ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
Proverbs 30 speaks of God having a son. How could the son be less than
God? How could God be two when God says He is one? Confusing, eh?
Many many people get confused on the concept of Trinity. Any true
Christian will say there is only one God, just as the shema states. Yet
any true Christian will say that Jesus is God. These are not
contradictory, it's just a case of 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. God created our
logic, and can therefore be beyond it if He wants.
Tim
Moshe Shulman
>From: Tim 'Spock' Larson <sp...@courtave.net>
>Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph
Parrish)
>> wrote:
>> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more
than
>> >one God.
>> ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
>> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences
and
>> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
>> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
>Proverbs 30 speaks of God having a son. How could the son be less
than
Proverbs 30 DOES NOT speak of G-d having a son.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Moshe Shulman
Miriam Wolfe
In article <5mgiok$b...@nntp02.primenet.com>, rbp...@primenet.com wrote:
?men...@torah.org (Yaakov Menken) wrote:
?
?>An oft-repeated false claim does not become true. Even J. told his
?>followers to see how few of the learned were among them.
?
? Paul was a pupil of Gamaliel. Do you know anyone with a better
?education than that?
Ezra
Jeremiah
Isaiah
ELiyahu
ELisha
Samuel
Hillel
Shammai
Aron haKohen
Joshua
Yitzchak ben Avraham
The Vilna Gaon
The Maharal of Prague
The Ari Zal
just to name a few
Miriam Wolfe
********************
O L-RD, my strength and my fortress,
my refuge in the day of affliction,
THE GENTILES shall come to YOU
from the ends of the earth and say:
SURELY our fathers have inherited
LIES, VANITY, and Things of NO BENEFIT!"
Jeremiah 16:19
Jerry
Suzannactly the same.
>
> "Polytheism" is a false accusation. We only have one God. At most, we
> disagree greatly about the nature of this God, but not his existence, nor
> that he is the only God.
Monotheism is merely a false Jewish concept. God is heterogeneous and
appears to many different peoples in many different ways. If you consider
polytheism a false accusation, then you consider truth to be false.
Unfortunately twisted concepts have brought religious thought to the
sorry state of present affairs.
Suzanne Fortin
On 1 Jun 1997, Joe Slater wrote:
> Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> writes:
> >It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians believe in more than
> >one God. It's like when FEC say that Catholics worship Mary, which we
> >don't. It's a means to slander a belief when in fact that's not the belief
> >at all.
>
> >Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
> >same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
> >in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
> >exactly the same.
>
> My response to this is that to whatever extent your god is one, your
> doctrine is superfluous;
Nothing about the nature of God is superfluous. Everything which God says
about himself is pertinent in knowing him and loving him.
> and to whatever extent your god is three it is
> polytheistic.
Can't be polytheistic-- there's only one divine nature, not two or three.
> Furthermore, even your theologians are unable to make sense
> of this doctrine, and it is for that reason that it is called a great
> mystery.
You're somehow implying that Christians decided to cop out into trying to
explain it by "making it" a mystery. As if God is completely comprehendable
to our puny little minds. God is greater than our finite minds, and there
are just parts of him we will never grasp, this being one of them. Who
knows what else he hasn't bothered to reveal about himself?
Suzanne Fortin
Quebec City, Canada
Visit the pro-life webring: http://www.gargaro.com/webring
Email: sfo...@bigfoot.com
WARNING!
Miriam Wolfe
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970531...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
sfo...@bigfoot.com wrote:
?It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians believe in more than
?one God. It's like when FEC say that Catholics worship Mary, which we
?don't. It's a means to slander a belief when in fact that's not the belief
?at all.
?
?Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
?same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
?in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
?exactly the same.
?
?"Polytheism" is a false accusation. We only have one God. At most, we
?disagree greatly about the nature of this God, but not his existence, nor
?that he is the only God.
On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
hence the trinity is polytheistic.
Suzanne Fortin
On 2 Jun 1997, Miriam Wolfe wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970531...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> sfo...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>
> ?It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians believe in more than
> ?one God. It's like when FEC say that Catholics worship Mary, which we
> ?don't. It's a means to slander a belief when in fact that's not the belief
> ?at all.
> ?
> ?Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
> ?same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
> ?in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
> ?exactly the same.
> ?
> ?"Polytheism" is a false accusation. We only have one God. At most, we
> ?disagree greatly about the nature of this God, but not his existence, nor
> ?that he is the only God.
>
>
> On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
> the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
> hence the trinity is polytheistic.
Poly= more than one. We have one God. Hence we are monotheistic. You
understand the trinity as meaning "more than one". It's not. It's the
exact same meaning.
It's like water. Water can be liquid, gas, or solid. But it's the same
molecules. That is what the trinity is like, except that it's liquid, gas
and solid at the same time.
Bry C
On Mon, 2 Jun 1997 17:44:08 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
<aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>
>On 2 Jun 1997, Miriam Wolfe scribbled:
>> On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
>> the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
>> hence the trinity is polytheistic.
>
>Poly= more than one. We have one God. Hence we are monotheistic. You
>understand the trinity as meaning "more than one". It's not. It's the
>exact same meaning.
>
>It's like water. Water can be liquid, gas, or solid. But it's the same
>molecules. That is what the trinity is like, except that it's liquid, gas
>and solid at the same time.
>
You are wasting your time with Ma Wolfe, she already has her mind made
up and she sees what SHE wants to see about this matter.
A closed mind, if ever there was one!
Bry C
>On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
>wrote:
>
>>men...@torah.org (Yaakov Menken) wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
>>>trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
>>
>> No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
>>one God.
>
>The trinity is polytheistic.
Lloyd, you are so dense! Like there is nothing that is a "mystery"
in Judaism? Puhleeze!
>The only way you can get around this
>charge is by claiming that the trinity is a mystery. If I claimed
>that I had invented a spherical ball that is also a cube that too
>would be a mystery.
There are many mysteries in life. We do not even understand some basic
things that are contradictory about the universe, YET you claim to
know better than God when it comes to His own nature?
Wow, Lloyd you must be a VERY clever little man!
>The reason that it is a mystery is because it is
>self-contradictory rubbish.
Then in that case Lloyd, ALL of your posts on Usenet must be
"mysteries" since they are SUCH rubbish indeed!
>Same with the trinity. The biggest
>mystery is how anyone can be taken in by it. Lloyd.
The biggest mystery is how someone can be so arrogant and pompous that
they don't know when to shut up about it, and continue to reveal their
ignorance.
Suzanne Fortin
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Lloyd James wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 1997 20:50:19 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
> <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >
> >On 31 May 1997, Stephen Bayzik wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
>
> >Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
> >same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
> >in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
> >exactly the same.
>
> Pure nonsense. How can they "differ in relationship to one another"
> and be "exactly the same" at the same time? As I understand it
> the trinity was a pure invention of early Roman Catholic theological
> speculation and it shows.
The Trinity is part of the Catholic "oral tradition" which is called
Sacred Tradition. We believe however that our Tradition is protected from
error from the Holy Spirit.
You've asked the ultimate question about the Trinity. Nobody will ever
understand. Our minds are simply too limited. It doesn't mean it isn't true.
>
> I think that this "mystery" is in place to patch over one mighty
> contradiction at the very heart of Christianity.
There is only a contradiction if you accept the notion that God has to
exist according to our preconceptions and logic.
> If JCs's "sacrifice"
> on the cross was to have any effect he had to be God. Only the
> death of God would suffice. On the other hand he also had to be man
> because, as I think Augustine said, that which was not nailed to the
> cross was not saved. However, how can the infinite God be contained
> in the finite body of a mere man? Bring on the mystery.
Well, if anyone could do it, God could. You mean God can't make himself man?
> An interesting question asked by the early Church but never resolved
> is as follows. If only that which was nailed to the cross was saved
> and Jesus was obviously a man and not a woman, how can you
> Suzanne be sure that *you* are saved? Lloyd.
Frankly, I'm not even sure the question is crucial to Catholic theology.
Augustine may have said that. So what? We know that from the Bible that
God intends all people to be saved, from the first to the last.
Bry C
>On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
>wrote:
>
>>men...@torah.org (Yaakov Menken) wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>>What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
>>>trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
>>
>> No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
>>one God.
>The trinity is polytheistic.
>Lloyd.
In YOUR not-so-humble OPINION, yes! In reality - NO!
Suzanne Fortin
Posted to a.r.c.r-c .
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Lloyd James wrote:
> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> wrote:
>
> >men...@torah.org (Yaakov Menken) wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> >>What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
> >>trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
> >
> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
> >one God.
>
> The trinity is polytheistic. The only way you can get around this
> charge is by claiming that the trinity is a mystery.
So you agree that we believe in one God?
> If I claimed
> that I had invented a spherical ball that is also a cube that too
> would be a mystery.
But if God himself imparted that knowledge to you and said "there is such
thing as a cube which is a sphere", you would believe him, wouldn't you?
> The reason that it is a mystery is because it is
> self-contradictory rubbish. Same with the trinity. The biggest
> mystery is how anyone can be taken in by it. Lloyd.
"Self-contradictory" to our finite minds. That's human logic-- it
doesn't fit human logic, therefore it's not true. God works beyond our logic.
Jeffrey Bolden
Miriam Wolfe wrote:
>
> On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
> the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
> hence the trinity is polytheistic.
Could not a muslim or even worse a pantheist make the same claim about
judaism? Monotheism is a scale not a binary attribute.
Jeffrey Bolden
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
> You're somehow implying that Christians decided to cop out into trying to
> explain it by "making it" a mystery. As if God is completely comprehendable
> to our puny little minds. God is greater than our finite minds, and there
> are just parts of him we will never grasp, this being one of them. Who
> knows what else he hasn't bothered to reveal about himself?
The orthodox creeds are a cop out. Up to Nicean creed the ideas could
be reconciled via. something like an economic trinity. A statement
which is permanently ununderstandable to man is essentially a
non-statement. The later orthodox creeds argue something which is
inherently contradictory and claim that this contradiction resolves
itself through "mystery". that is nonsense.
Jeffrey Bolden
Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>
> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> wrote:
>
> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
> >one God.
>
> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
Can you find one evangelical who claims to believe in 3 seperate and
distinct Gods?
Jeffrey Bolden
Lloyd James wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 May 1997 20:50:19 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
> <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
> >same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
> >in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
> >exactly the same.
>
> Pure nonsense. How can they "differ in relationship to one another"
> and be "exactly the same" at the same time?
Think of subatomic particles. They differ in their relationship but all
protons are the same.
> As I understand it
> the trinity was a pure invention of early Roman Catholic theological
> speculation and it shows.
> I think that this "mystery" is in place to patch over one mighty
> contradiction at the very heart of Christianity. If JCs's "sacrifice"
> on the cross was to have any effect he had to be God. Only the
> death of God would suffice. On the other hand he also had to be man
> because, as I think Augustine said, that which was not nailed to the
> cross was not saved.
He was refering to sin, not man.
> However, how can the infinite God be contained
> in the finite body of a mere man?
What is "containment" for a non-material being?
> Bring on the mystery.
>
> An interesting question asked by the early Church but never resolved
> is as follows. If only that which was nailed to the cross was saved
> and Jesus was obviously a man and not a woman, how can you
> Suzanne be sure that *you* are saved? Lloyd.
Your "if" is incorrect.
Jeffrey Bolden
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
> Frankly, I'm not even sure the question is crucial to Catholic theology.
> Augustine may have said that. So what? We know that from the Bible that
> God intends all people to be saved, from the first to the last.
Suzanne the RCC agrees with Calvin and takes the non-Arminian position.
Steve Walker
In article <mawolfe-2708...@legume186136.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
>On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
>the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
>hence the trinity is polytheistic.
There is only one me. My body is me, but not all of me, my mind is me,
but not all of me, my spirit is me, but not all of me. Can't be
separated from one another (without killing me, anyway), but each has
different function and can to some extent, although not completely, be
recognised apart from the other. Taken all together, they make the one
"me" - not three "me"s.
'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
along the ground." '
The comparison is not perfect, because I am much simpler and more
limited than God, but I find it helpful in understanding what I believe
to be the nature of God as revealed by the bible.
God bless,
--
Steve Walker
http://www.skwalker.demon.co.uk
*************************
*God has provided the lamb*
*To be offered up in your place*
*What Abraham was asked to do, God has done*
*He's offered his only Son*
*************************
Stephen Bayzik
On Sat, 31 May 1997 22:44:43 -0800, Tim 'Spock' Larson
<sp...@courtave.net> wrote:
>Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
>> >one God.
>> ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
>> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
>> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
>> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
>Proverbs 30 speaks of God having a son. How could the son be less than
>God? How could God be two when God says He is one? Confusing, eh?
>Many many people get confused on the concept of Trinity. Any true
>Christian will say there is only one God, just as the shema states. Yet
>any true Christian will say that Jesus is God. These are not
>contradictory, it's just a case of 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. God created our
>logic, and can therefore be beyond it if He wants.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but there is no indication in Proverbs
30 of God having a son.
The text indeed is cryptic (but perhaps you may get a reasonable
rendition of it meaning from the Rabinniate).
The beginning of the proverb from the Vulgate has the following:_
"Here are the words of Agur, son of Jace. Here is revalation made
known by one who had God with him, as he spoke"
Notice that in the subsequent riddles of Agur (for want of a better
term) the speaker is Agur, and there are actually no proper names of
Ithiel and Ucal introduced. Now a translation into the Latin from the
Hebrew indicates that the said translated names of Agur and Jace have
the followin connotations; Agur "he who gathers" while Jace would be
"he wo vomits". He4nce we have "here are the words of he who gathers
being the son of he who vomits."
It would appear to reflect a revelation of the character of people
prior to Moses; ie. those who have been gatherers in life (the
righteous and thoughtful) nonetheless being offspring of people who
vomited (the pagan/unrightious.
Again, that is just my initial reflections on looking at this proverb,
and in no way implies a sound exegesis. On the other hand, I am sure
that this Proverb can never refer to "God having a son" as some
evangelicals whish to draw from the said text.
As to what any true Christian would say, I wouldn't say. Christ is
"begotten", God is "unbegotten". And there be the difference which
most Christians (especially of the evangelical variety) forget when
they define what they mistakenly believe to be the concept of the
trinity. There is a "qualifier" in the phrase "Jesus IS God".
Forget that and one sinks into polytheistic perceptions.
--
Steve sba...@idirect.com
Stephen Bayzik
On Sat, 31 May 1997 20:50:19 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
<aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>> ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
>> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
>> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
>> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
>It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians believe in more than
>one God. It's like when FEC say that Catholics worship Mary, which we
>don't. It's a means to slander a belief when in fact that's not the belief
>at all.
>Christians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the
>same God-- that's one God, not three. They are three persons who differ
>in relationship to one another, but not in any other way. They are
>exactly the same.
Agreed. Unfortunately, (though it may be innocent in the attempt to
articulate) the word "person" does not connotate the idea of the
original term "hypostasis". Your use of the term "relationship" (from
an analogical perspective) is one of the best (though it too may be
frought with many new unanswered questions) ways to describe the
trinitarian perception of God
>"Polytheism" is a false accusation. We only have one God. At most, we
>disagree greatly about the nature of this God, but not his existence, nor
>that he is the only God.
Your point is well taken Suzanne. Again, unfortunately many
"articulations" of the "nature of God" lend themselves to the charge
of "polytheism". Again it may be innocent harmless perceptions
expressed in these articulations. At the risk of being accused of
being modelistic in thought (the three modes of God) I would opt to
your perception of God vis a via the Christ and the Holy Ghost as but
a beautiful and hopefully fruitful human recognition expressing man's
relation to the ineffable Creator of life.
As to those rambling fools who play on the word "mediator" with the
equally foolish denigration of the place of the Theotokos within the
trinitarian model of God's relationship with mankind I can only
chuckle. For the idea of a Theotokos is defacto an essential element
within the unique "orthodox" expression of the relationship with God.
There is no God of the Christian, God of the Muslim, God of whatever
religious group (or for that matter non-god of those who deny the
existance of a Creator). God (the One and only God) was discovered and
brought to recognition in a definitive manner in the "relationship"
between God and man as expressed in the history of the Jewish people
over the last 3500+ years.
It is not your God is a false god, mine is the "right god" - but a
single God who is the Creater and "father/analogical" of all men and
all creation. Men can be right or wrong (in most cases a combination
of both), sin makes up a part of the human psyche as well as
righteousness, else we would not be "responsible beings".
--
Steve sba...@idirect.com
Joe Slater
>Miriam Wolfe wrote:
>> On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
>> the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
>> hence the trinity is polytheistic.
Jeffrey Bolden <jbo...@math.ucla.edu> writes:
>Could not a muslim or even worse a pantheist make the same claim about
>judaism? Monotheism is a scale not a binary attribute.
Monotheism may be a scale, but I can't see how anything could be more
monotheistic than Judaism.
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Email not accepted from rogue sites including: AOL, Moneyworld, Interramp,
Airmail, Earthstar and Winternet.
Stephen Bayzik
On Sat, 31 May 1997 15:32:10 GMT, b...@ix.netcom.com (Bry C) wrote:
>On 31 May 97 00:31:21 UTC, sba...@idirect.com (Stephen Bayzik) wrote:
>>On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
>>wrote:
>>> No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
>>>one God.
>>ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
>>"scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
>>recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
>>former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
>More pathetic propaganda but no substace in reality whatsoever.
>Bozo the Clown could do better as a theologian than this, Steve!
From your favourite clown: :-)
The orthodox definition of the Christ is given in the terms of the
tomes of the first three Ecumenical Councils. Christology defines Him
as a"hypostasis" of the triune structure of of God. The latter is
quite obviously a a philosophical offspring of neo-platonic thought.
Your "Jeeeesus" is a distortion (a form of polytheism at its worse, or
a misunderstanding of the stoic concept of a "universal soter" at its
best) of the Greek word term "Jesu". That is a historical reality
(accepting it or rejecting it is not my concern). There is no way one
can reconstruct the logical development of the decisions of the
Ecumenical by playing with words in canonical liturgical Scripture
(ie. NT). The more the evangelical, Bible Babblers try, the more asine
they make themselves appear in any futile attempt to describe the
Christ vs. a via the Creator.
--
Steve sba...@idirect.com
Mark Medovich
JDS wrote:
:My response to this is that to whatever extent your god is one, your
:doctrine is superfluous; and to whatever extent your god is three it is
:polytheistic. Furthermore, even your theologians are unable to make sense
:of this doctrine, and it is for that reason that it is called a great
:mystery.:
Are the words that come from your mouth indifferent from your will which upholds
them as you speak them?
Do your words communicate to others your wishes desires, thoughts, feelings,
and hence a reveal something of yourself to those outside yourself?
God is incomprehensible and Uncreated. The human experience,
the limited human mind, the soul, the body, the universe, etc., are created.
Creation is maintained by the Love (Will) of God and is a manifestation of
His unlimited energy. The energy of God is indifferent and inseperable from God
just as a speaker's voice is inseperable and indifferent that the speaker's will
which upholds it during the speech.
The Word therefore is indifferent from God, but it exists as an aspect in creation.
God made this so. This concept of the Word being indifferent from God is NOT a
christian concept but was believed and taught both in Israel by the keepers
of Hebrew scriptures, as well as in the east by the keepers of Vedic scripture.
Hence the Word being manifest as flesh indicates that within the Life of Christ
(His Flesh ) is the Truth. The scriptures are present in the life of
Jesus and are revealed to any sincere seeker.
Illumination comes when one is willing to surrender his or her pride and stop
pretending that they can comprehend the incomprehensible by listening to
the speculative logical conclusions of their own spinning mind.
Thus the realization of the early church fathers :
"Through Him, In Him and With Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, All Glory
and Honor is Yours Almighty Father, Forever and Ever", which is recited everyday
in every Catholic church throughout the world. Therefore it is conclusive,
in conjunction with John 15, that the line of thinking of God's will and It's
manifestation in Creation is Divine and inseperable from Him.
The human being has the freedom to be an instrument of the Divine Word, i.e., the
Will of God, and experience a new birth. A birth from the darkness of lust, pride,
self centereness, and pain, and sacrifice themselves to go beyond one's personal
experience. Then foremost in the heart and mind of that one is God Alone.
God Alone Is.
Your servant,
Mark
Chuck Coen
Lloyd James wrote:
>
> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> wrote:
>
> >
> <snip>
>
> >>What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
> >>trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
> >
> >one God.
>
> that I had invented a spherical ball that is also a cube that too
> self-contradictory rubbish. Same with the trinity. The biggest
> mystery is how anyone can be taken in by it. Lloyd.
You are correct when you say that the doctrine of the trinity is
polytheistic. It was formulated to defend the idea that Jesus was
of the same substance as the father.
As for being 'taken in' ...
I'm not sure that this is true in all cases
Belief plays a role in Christianity much as in Judaism. The extent
to which one 'believes' is always dependent on the individual and
the circumstances in which they find themselves.
Chuck Coen
Syed Yusuf
Thus spake Bry C (please don't post email addresses):
> No one can still adequately fathom how space is curved. How it is
> affected by time, and how MATTER and TIME actually interact and affect
> one another! It is truly a WONDER!
actually it's that time and space are one concept "time-space"
like matter and energy are two aspects of the same phenomina (neither
can be created or destroyed, only one transformed into the other)
> Same way with the Three-In-One God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus.
> They can't deal with it because their puny minds are too limited and
> their inner man is too stubborn.
But you have yet to transindental meditate to the third order of
enlightenment (that god is not only simultaniously 1 and 3, but 14-in-1
as well as established in John 17:21 and that he LOVES sinners like
YOU because he IS Judas).
Bry, what will you answer when Jesus asks you worshiped him when he told
you to worship his God and your God? (cf Matt 7:22)
> Bry
> http://www.mnsinc.com/bry/xianlynx.htm
--
My reply-to: is altered to avoid junkmailers. Delete everthing after ".edu"
--
,
_ __/|
\`O.o' Core| This has been a test; If this had been an actual life
=(_ _)= Dump| you would have revieved further instructions
-- U http://www.uidaho.edu/~yusuf921
Joshua Moss
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Suzanne Fortin wrote:
> > Who do you pray to? G-d or Jesus?
>
> This is a rhetorical trap. If I say 'God' then Jesus is irrelevant. If I
> say Jesus, then I am not a monotheist.
You're smart and street-wise.
> To me, they are the exact same being. Jesus is God and God is Jesus. When
> I address my words to Jesus; when I address to God, my words are
> addressed to Jesus.
I wonder, would a Roman Catholic Theologian consider your statement above
to be an acceptable expression of Catholic Faith? (Neither confounding
the Persons, nor dividing the Substance?) As I understand it "Jesus is
God" is a licit expression ("confess each person by himself to be both
God and Lord") and "God is Jesus" an illicit expression ("the Father is
neither created nor begotten nor proceeding; the Son is of the Father
alone, neither creating nor preceding but begotten"). Read
the Nicene Creed again, phrase by phrase, comparing with what you wrote
above -- I wonder if you would say it the same way. It seems to me both
in this and in your previous post that "The Father" is not being
expressed by the Son, but rather swallowed up by him.
This is, it seems to me, a cultural difference between various kinds of
Christians -- while all profess the same Trinity, it seems to me that
Presbyterians are Father-centered; Baptist types Jesus-centered;
Pentecostals either spirit-centered or Jesus-monists; and Catholics true
Trinitarians. It seems to me that you have a Jesus-only sort of piety and
I wonder what influences have shaped that. Of course all the above is
stereotypes and I don't know if people see themselves in that or not.
It is interesting to notice, also, that in the earlier creeds the word
"God" standing unqualified means "the Father;" in the later creeds "God"
means "the Trinity" and "the Father" is the consistent expression used
for the Father. Those who believe that dogma is unchanging have to see
this as merely a change in language whereas it certainly does *appear* to
be a change in concept.
Circling back around to rephrase Moshe's question but now in a Catholic
vocabulary -- do you address your prayers to the Person to whom Jesus
prayed, or to Jesus himself. You *cannot* say that they are the same
*Person* because that is clearly Catholic heresy; and if you say "it
doesn't matter because the three Persons are one Being" -- well then, why
would the church go to so much trouble to distinguish something that
doesn't matter, and to pronounce anathemas on those who fail to
distinguish the Persons?
IOW any way you slice it, it's a fair question, whether as an interfaith
question or as an intra-Catholic question.
Joe Slater
>JDS wrote:
>:My response to this is that to whatever extent your god is one, your
>:doctrine is superfluous; and to whatever extent your god is three it is
>:polytheistic. Furthermore, even your theologians are unable to make sense
>:of this doctrine, and it is for that reason that it is called a great
>:mystery.:
medo...@Eng.Sun.COM (Mark Medovich) writes:
>Are the words that come from your mouth indifferent from your will which
>upholds them as you speak them?
I don't know what that means, if anything.
>Do your words communicate to others your wishes desires, thoughts, feelings,
>and hence a reveal something of yourself to those outside yourself?
>God is incomprehensible and Uncreated. The human experience, the limited
>human mind, the soul, the body, the universe, etc., are created. Creation
>is maintained by the Love (Will) of God and is a manifestation of His
>unlimited energy. The energy of God is indifferent and inseperable from
>God just as a speaker's voice is inseperable and indifferent that the
>speaker's will which upholds it during the speech.
I don't think indifferent means what you think it means. In any event, the
speaker's voice - and the speaker's gestures and the speaker's facial
expressions and so forth - are clear physical manifestations. I'm not sure
what "will" is, but I don't think it's the same as the buzzes, clicks and
groans which emanate from my mouth to produce speech.
>The Word therefore is indifferent from God, but it exists as an aspect in
>creation. God made this so. This concept of the Word being indifferent
>from God is NOT a christian concept but was believed and taught both in
>Israel by the keepers of Hebrew scriptures, as well as in the east by the
>keepers of Vedic scripture.
This is argument by assertion.
>Illumination comes when one is willing to surrender his or her pride and stop
>pretending that they can comprehend the incomprehensible by listening to
>the speculative logical conclusions of their own spinning mind.
Right. If I abandon reason I'll be able to understand you. This in itself
convinces me that your argument is faulty.
Moshe Shulman
>From: Jeffrey Bolden <jbo...@math.ucla.edu>
>Miriam Wolfe wrote:
>> On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
>> the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
>> hence the trinity is polytheistic.
>judaism? Monotheism is a scale not a binary attribute.
My understanding is that the Muslims have a similar if not identical
concept of 'monotheism.'
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Miriam Wolfe
In article <B31ULHAP...@skwalker.demon.co.uk>, Steve Walker
<s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
?In article <mawolfe-2708...@legume186136.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
?Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
?>On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
?>the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
?>hence the trinity is polytheistic.
?
?There is only one me. My body is me, but not all of me, my mind is me,
?but not all of me, my spirit is me, but not all of me. Can't be
?separated from one another (without killing me, anyway), but each has
?different function and can to some extent, although not completely, be
?recognised apart from the other. Taken all together, they make the one
?"me" - not three "me"s.
True, HOWEVER,
1. if your brain was removed could your body
continue to exist independently?
2. Could your brain exist as a living thing outside
your body (and sans medical tech or sci fi)?
3. According to xian theology, can yeshu exist a part from
the HS or the father?
The answers to #1 and #2 are NO
The answer to #3 is yes, ergo your analogy
fails.
?'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness........
As a Briton you must be familiar with the royal "we" as referring
to a single being.
Michael Shoshani
Miriam Wolfe (maw...@hardknox.edu) wrote:
: 1. if your brain was removed could your body
: continue to exist independently?
Of a certainty. Remove a man's brain, and he will remain as fit a
candidate for Congress as he ever was. It might actually improve his
chances for election, too.
[Steve Walker]
: ?'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness........
: As a Briton you must be familiar with the royal "we" as referring
: to a single being.
"We are not amused" -- Queen Victoria
--
shos...@wwa.com // In the beginning, God made idiots;
Michael Shoshani // This was for practice
Chicago IL, USA // Then he made school boards.
http://miso.wwa.com/~shoshani/ // --Mark Twain
Suzanne Fortin
On 4 Jun 1997, Miriam Wolfe wrote:
> In article <B31ULHAP...@skwalker.demon.co.uk>, Steve Walker
> <s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ?In article <mawolfe-2708...@legume186136.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
> ?Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
> ?>On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
> ?>the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
> ?>hence the trinity is polytheistic.
> ?
> ?There is only one me. My body is me, but not all of me, my mind is me,
> ?but not all of me, my spirit is me, but not all of me. Can't be
> ?separated from one another (without killing me, anyway), but each has
> ?different function and can to some extent, although not completely, be
> ?recognised apart from the other. Taken all together, they make the one
> ?"me" - not three "me"s.
>
> True, HOWEVER,
>
> 1. if your brain was removed could your body
> continue to exist independently?
> 2. Could your brain exist as a living thing outside
> your body (and sans medical tech or sci fi)?
>
> 3. According to xian theology, can yeshu exist a part from
> the HS or the father?
>
>
> The answers to #1 and #2 are NO
> The answer to #3 is yes, ergo your analogy
> fails.
That's just it, he can't exist apart from his Father. The answer to #3 is no.
> ?'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness........
>
>
> As a Briton you must be familiar with the royal "we" as referring
> to a single being.
Yep, even Catholics recognize that one.
Steve Walker
In article <339689b4...@news.bournemouth-net.co.uk>, Lloyd James
<ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 4 Jun 1997 08:21:51 +0100, Steve Walker
><s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <mawolfe-2708...@legume186136.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
>>Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
>>
>
>"persons" of the trinity supposedly are. You could for example, "loss
>your mind" (heaven forbid) and conceivably live on in a vegetative
>state. However, without your body the other two cannot exist. This
>is not a co-equal relationship.
Quite - but I am not God.
>Also the three "persons" of the trinity are said to be "of one
>substance". Your body, mind and spirit are clearly not"of one
>substance".
Correct, but I am not God. You are taking the allegory beyond the point
where it was meant to go (see my post to Miriam this morning).
>Incidentally, the Greek word for "of one substance"
>is homoousios. This word is not scriptural and is found nowhere in
>the NT (nor is anything like it found in the Hebrew Bible).
This doesn't surprise me.
>The
>trinity is a concept without Biblical foundation, even if for your
>benefit we stretch that notion to include the NT.
To say that, because one Greek word doesn't appear in the NT, the
*concept* therefore has no foundation, is to go too far, and seems to
indicate that you don't know the NT very well. I know it reasonably
well, and I find plenty of foundation.
>>'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let
>>them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the
>>livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move
>>along the ground." '
>>
>>The comparison is not perfect, because I am much simpler and more
>>limited than God, but I find it helpful in understanding what I believe
>>to be the nature of God as revealed by the bible.
>
>Here is something with which you can help me out that I have often
>wondered about. In Mt 12:32 it says:
>
>"Even blasphemy against Me (Jesus - LJ) or any other sin, can be
>forgiven - all except one: speaking against the Holy Spirit shall
>never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come."
>"The Living New Testament".
>
>Does this not mean that the HS is different (i.e. more privileged) in
>this respect than the other two "persons" of the trinity. How can
>they be co-equal, when one is more privileged than the other two,
>even by NT standards? Lloyd.
Off the top of my head (since I don't have time to look at this in too
much depth at the moment, and would never expect to understand it fully
even if I could spend a lifetime doing so), I would say this is a
question of function rather than nature, which is what the "co-equal"
applies to.
Quite clearly, based on the NT, there is function/role within God's
nature, so that the Son-nature is sub-ordinate to the Father etc. I
guess you could compare that to the way in which, say, my emotions can
(albeit imperfectly) be controlled by my mind, or vice versa. Neither
option means that one is superior in its essence to the other, just that
they interact with one another in a certain way that could be understood
as subordination.
But I wouldn't push the analogy too far - it wasn't meant to cover the
deep (and they are very deep) ways in which the whole thing works, just
to illustrate that one-and-three-at-once is *not* a nonsense concept
without any comparison in this world. And since God made us in His
image, I find that the fact that the comparison exists in us quite
helpful.
Lloyd James
On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:13:28 GMT, b...@ix.netcom.com (Bry C) wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:41:49 GMT, ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk (Lloyd
>James) wrote:
>
>>On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>men...@torah.org (Yaakov Menken) wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>What _he_ said is up for debate. What his disciples said, is not. A
>>>>trinity isn't G-d, no matter how many miracles might be performed.
>>>
>>> No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
>>>one God.
>
>>The trinity is polytheistic.
>
>>Lloyd.
>
>In YOUR not-so-humble OPINION, yes! In reality - NO!
I understand that the Hindus also have a trinity and they do not even
pretend to be monotheistic.
====================================================
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the
Jews as a 'race.'"
Roth, C., Oxford University Reader in Jewish Studies, 1939-1964,
in: "Jews", "Collier's Encyclopedia", 13: 574, 1991.
====================================================
Andrew James Thornbury
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 23:05:47 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
<aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>> If I claimed
>> that I had invented a spherical ball that is also a cube that too
>> would be a mystery.
>
>But if God himself imparted that knowledge to you and said "there is such
>thing as a cube which is a sphere", you would believe him, wouldn't you?
>
Even the fruit of human reason or the workings of physics don't always
make "sense" and can be apparently contradictory. If a physicist told
you he had an object which was both a particle and a wave at the same
time you might ridicule him - indeed physicicsts last century would
have done the same - or that he had an object which could instantly
jump out of a closed box without ever physically passing through the
intervening wall you might ridicule him too. Both these things happen
in an area of physics called quantum mechanics. These effects do
happen and we can predict them with some certainty but, along with
much of Quantum physics, exactly why or how is a mystery and perhaps
even meaningless.
Just (particularly?) because something doesn't make sense or because
we can't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
Regards,
Andrew Thornbury
X-NO-ARCHIVE: YES
---------------------------------------------------------------
A J Thornbury Any opinions expressed are the author's
Senior Consultant own and do not necessarilly represent
Energy and Utilities the opinion of Logica.
Logica
2 Queen's Gardens Tel. +44 (0) 1224 643575
Aberdeen AB15 4YD Fax. +44 (0) 1224 632089
SCOTLAND Thorn...@logica.com
http:\\www.logica.com\
Suzanne Fortin
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Lloyd James wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:04:27 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
> <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >The Trinity is part of the Catholic "oral tradition" which is called
> >Sacred Tradition. We believe however that our Tradition is protected from
> >error from the Holy Spirit.
>
> By "oral traditional" I understand you to mean RC scholastic
> speculation.
That's: whatever is not in the Bible, taught authoritatively by the
Church, or teachings which have been universally taught by the Catholic
Fathers.
> The trinity is a human invention, some people might even
> say a clever human invention, but human nonetheless, to patch over the
> problems I have already mentioned.
The Church believes that divine revelation is not entirely contained in
the Scripture; there is what is called a deposit of faith-- that is,
teachings not necessarily contained in Scripture, but which were believed
by the apostles, and therefore constitute the basis for *all* Catholic
teaching. This deposit of faith is a divine foundation upon which
Catholic writers and theologians build.
> Two similar doctrines are those of the immaculate conception of Mary
> and Mary's bodily assumption into heaven.
And they are based on the deposit of faith.
> You might believe that the HS protects your beliefs or whatever from
> error, but that does not impress me, nor indeed the countless millions
> of non-trinitarian Christians who have existed down through the ages.
> Some of these are still with us today, e.g. the Christidelphians, the
> Unitarians, etc.
Well, their beliefs do not conform with the early Christians. I know
Clement (who lived around 90 AD and who probably knew Peter) taught that
people should be baptized in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost. I
am also fairly certain that the Didache (dated 65 AD) also taught the
trinitarian formula for Baptism.
> The trinity is by your own admission extra-biblical (i.e. "Catholic
> 'oral tradition'). In fact all denominations of trinitarian
> Christianity (RC., Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc) are
> extra-biblical faiths because they all share in the same human
> speculation (this is because the Reformation and the Eastern Orthodox
> schism came after the trinity was invented). That includes your
> denomination Bry.
The Trinity is not mentioned by name in the Bible-- but it is assumed.
T
> >You've asked the ultimate question about the Trinity. Nobody will ever
> >understand. Our minds are simply too limited. It doesn't mean it isn't true.
>
> Neither does it mean that it is.
True, but you can't use its incomprehensibleness as an argument that it's
false.
> >
> >>
> >> I think that this "mystery" is in place to patch over one mighty
> >> contradiction at the very heart of Christianity.
> >
> >There is only a contradiction if you accept the notion that God has to
> >exist according to our preconceptions and logic.
>
> I am not saying that he does. If we could fully understand God
> presumably we would be His equals or something like that. However I
> can recognize a fix when I see one. Considering that not even all
> Christians accept the trinity, nor do Jews, nor do Muslims, etc., I
> should be worried if I were you.
There has always been heresy in the Christian faith. There has been
"heresy" in the Jewish fatih. Even in Islam. Heresy does not mean that
something is not true.
> >> If JCs's "sacrifice"
> >> on the cross was to have any effect he had to be God. Only the
> >> death of God would suffice. On the other hand he also had to be man
> >> because, as I think Augustine said, that which was not nailed to the
> >> cross was not saved. However, how can the infinite God be contained
> >> in the finite body of a mere man? Bring on the mystery.
> >
> >Well, if anyone could do it, God could. You mean God can't make himself man?
>
> I read a leaflet once entitled "Did God Wear Diapers?". This really
> brought home to me the full impact of the sort of claim you are making
> above. God is infinite - agreed? Jesus was finite. He was born, had
> his diapers changed (or whatever they used), was potty trained and
> eventually died a cruel death at the hands of the Romans. How can
> an infinite being be born and die?
The Logos, while still retaining his divine soul, created for himself a
human soul and a human body. His human body and soul were connected to
his divine soul, but they were distinct. It was the human body and soul
which died.
> Until they were silenced by the Church, there were even some Greek
> and Roman pagan philosopherss who virtually made a career out of
> poking fun at the god-man Jesus idea.
> >
> >> An interesting question asked by the early Church but never resolved
> >> is as follows. If only that which was nailed to the cross was saved
> >> and Jesus was obviously a man and not a woman, how can you
> >> Suzanne be sure that *you* are saved? Lloyd.
> >
> >Frankly, I'm not even sure the question is crucial to Catholic theology.
> >Augustine may have said that. So what? We know that from the Bible that
> >God intends all people to be saved, from the first to the last.
> >
> Really don't know, but it is an interesting question all the same.
> Let us take this a little further. Supposing instead of Jesus a dog
> had been crucified. How would that have redeemed mankind, even if the
> dog was in all respects perfect?
I don't think so. Because it was humanity which sinned, so humanity had
to pay the price. And Jesus, as a human and God, did it on our behalf.
> In like manner, Jesus was not a
> woman so how could *he* be a perfect sacrifice for *you*? Maybe he
> was not. Lloyd.
Because humanity doesn't differ in nature.
Moshe Shulman
>From: Joshua Moss <mos...@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>
>> To me, they are the exact same being. Jesus is God and God is Jesus.
When
>> I address my words to Jesus; when I address to God, my words are
>> addressed to Jesus.
>I wonder, would a Roman Catholic Theologian consider your statement
above
>to be an acceptable expression of Catholic Faith? (Neither confounding
>the Persons, nor dividing the Substance?) As I understand it "Jesus is
>God" is a licit expression ("confess each person by himself to be both
>God and Lord") and "God is Jesus" an illicit expression ("the Father
is
>neither created nor begotten nor proceeding; the Son is of the Father
>alone, neither creating nor preceding but begotten"). Read
>the Nicene Creed again, phrase by phrase, comparing with what you
wrote
>above -- I wonder if you would say it the same way. It seems to me
both
>in this and in your previous post that "The Father" is not being
>expressed by the Son, but rather swallowed up by him.
Josh, this is, in fact, the problem most Christians can not discuss
what they believe without showing that they are pure polytheists.
(BTW I am emailing her the correct answer.)
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Jeffrey Bolden
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------286A64AF2A48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lloyd James wrote:
>
> I understand that the Hindus also have a trinity and they do not even
> pretend to be monotheistic.
Hindus would consider themselves monotheistic, though more weakly
monotheistic then Jews. Here is an old post
________________________________________-
--------------286A64AF2A48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="hindu_creed"
Path: newsstand.tc.umn.edu!newshub.tc.umn.edu!mr.net!news.mid.net!newsfeeder.gi.net!news.dra.com!feed1.news.erols.com!news.idt.net!nntp.farm.idt.net!not-for-mail
From: sbha...@styx.ios.com (Shankar Bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Are the Hindus going to Hell?
Date: 1 Dec 1996 23:49:02 -0500
Organization: Internet Online Services
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <57tn3u$q...@styx.ios.com>
References: <57dcgt$e...@news.nyu.edu> <57fejt$s...@nnrp1.farm.idt.net> <57ng37$l...@epx.cis.umn.edu> <57tftc$l...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: styx.ios.com
Xref: newsstand.tc.umn.edu soc.culture.jewish:265598
In article <57tftc$l...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
Micha Berger <ais...@haven.ios.com> wrote:
>Jeffrey Bolden <bol...@math.umn.edu> wrote:
>: I must say I'm suprised by this statement. You are not normally
>: so judgemental. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who is educated
>: cannot be a polytheist?
>
>As I say earlier in the post, Hinduism teaches that all of these "gods"
>are different aspects of a singular Deity. It is only the uneducated
>masses who think otherwise.
Well, if you are going to discuss Hindu thought, permit a Hindu to
throw in a couple of cents' worth.
Hinduism, at its core, is as abstract in its approach to truth as is
any religion and more so than most. The core belief in Hinduism is
that there is a truth and that truth is singular. The uniqueness of
that truth precludes a secondary standard of measurement (a point of
view formally articulated by the original Shankaracharya, in the system
of Vedanta). Absent a secondary standard, that truth cannot be known
or, to be more precise, one cannot know that one knows the truth. We
refer to that one supreme truth as the Brahman. That is not a proper
noun or a common noun or a concept articulatable in any other way. It
is simply the Brahman. We describe the Brahman as not possessing a
series of attributes, as formless, for instance, with the sense that
we mean of unknowable form. We do not use pronouns for the Brahman. we
have no other name for the Brahman.
Understanding of the Brahman is a matter of faith, not of knowledge.
The Hindu life is a search for that truth. Hinduism does not have any
further dogma, even as there is a certain consensus of opinion that
approximates dogma. You can be a Hindu and an atheist at the same
time. It is entirely acceptable that the truth is that there is no
deity.
The problem with so abstract a cosmology is that the cosmos remains
unexplained. The limited aspect of the Brahman to which we attribute
responsibility for the universe is Ishwar, approximately equivalent to
the Christian concept of the divine.Pronouns are not commonly used
here either but we attribute attributes to Ishwar. Ishwar creates and
destroys. In a sense Ishwar is the manifestation of the Brahman that
we see in cosmic processes.
We accept that as humans we are limited. It is sufficient that we do
what we can do. Our inability to do what we cannot do, the
impossibility of doing what cannot be done, these are not held against
us. The impossibility of knowing the Brahman and knowing that one
knows the Brahman is not held against us. We each must do what we, as
individuals, can do. That is all.
So, as hindus, we know what we can know. We see some small aspect of
the divine. To these aspects we give names, the names of our gods.
Brahma the creator, VP of manufacturing; Vishnu the preserver, VP of
maintenance; Shiva the destroyer, VP of recycling. That's our
trinity.
We may see smaller aspects yet. Ganesha, god of good beginnings;
Saraswati, goddess of learning; Lakhsmi, goddess of wealth; Indra,
king of the gods, a minor deity who just runs the place, in charge of
operations; thousands of others, too.
The images, however, are not even aspects of these deities. The
images, the so-called hindu idols, are aids to concentration. We do
not worship idols, we use them to focus our attention. In a sense
hindus are approximately as idolatrous as are Catholics with a
crucifix. In principle, anyway.
In practice most Hindus are quite idolatrous. In practice we believe
in personal gods, for that matter in essentially personalized gods.
And yet any Hindu with even a faint smidgen of familiarity with the
core of Hindu belief knows the difference.
Indeed, if we regard the idols as the divinities themselves, that's
OK, too. In an almost quantum mechanical sense, our deity is
everywhere and yet nowhere. The Brahman is not localizable and is not
knowably completely omnipresent either. The Brahman merely is. If the
divine is instantiated in the act of observation, in the act of
concentration on an image, that's fine with us. Or, hey, if it's just
a hunk of stone that we see, that's fine, too.
- Shankar
--------------286A64AF2A48--
Andrew Getter
ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk (Lloyd James) writes:
> >>The only way you can get around this
> >>charge is by claiming that the trinity is a mystery. If I claimed
> >>that I had invented a spherical ball that is also a cube that too
> >>would be a mystery.
No, that is not the same. We define cube and we define sphere, so
obviously, they cannot be the same thing. G-d exists independent
of our definitions. Furthermore, G-d is supposed to be
infinite and well beyond our understanding. The word "trinity"
is used to express that we don't know what is going on and that
G-d does not fit into our conventional definitions.
> >
> >There are many mysteries in life. We do not even understand some basic
> >things that are contradictory about the universe,
>
> Can you give us a few examples of these contradictions you speak of?
Science is always running across contradictions, that
is how advances are made. Right now, people wonder
about the idea of singularities (such as black holes).
This sort of thing generates interest in exploring
the issue more deeply and from different angles, ie
quantum gravity.
> Nope. All that I am saying is that the trinity is a human
> speculation. In fact the RC's invented the idea and an RC (Suzanne)
> has admitted to this in this ng.
It is not really a speculation so much as a broad term
used so that we don't stay stuck on the problem.
That Jesus is G-d is evident in John and in Paul's
epistles.
> >>The reason that it is a mystery is because it is
> >>self-contradictory rubbish.
You know, I think it is just as well that G-d remains a bit
above our comprehension. If we could understand G-d, then
we would have a problem.
> Support cultural genocide
> Convert a Jew to Christianity
Are they lost to Jewish culture if they convert?
I converted, my brothers did not.
I still celebrate Passover, my brothers do not.
Culturally, I am the same person I was before I converted.
If I pass the traditions which my parents gave me
to my children, what has been lost?
There is much more that goes into defining a Jew than simply
not believing in Jesus.
Andrew
Jeffrey Bolden
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
>
> On 4 Jun 1997, Miriam Wolfe wrote:
> > 1. if your brain was removed could your body
> > continue to exist independently?
>
> > 2. Could your brain exist as a living thing outside
> > your body (and sans medical tech or sci fi)?
> >
> > 3. According to xian theology, can yeshu exist a part from
> > the HS or the father?
> >
> >
> > The answers to #1 and #2 are NO
> > The answer to #3 is yes, ergo your analogy
> > fails.
>
> That's just it, he can't exist apart from his Father. The answer to #3 > is no.
Just to throw my $.02 (I miss the old fashioned cents key) suzanne is
correct.
SHEPHDD
There are already more then 500,000 wonderful Jewish people who greatly
love Yeshua HaMoshiach the true King of Israel, HALLELUJAH !!!
Moshe, It is great foolishness to fight against the truth, you will only
be destroyed in your effort. I love you my yiddish friend and do not want
to see this happen to you. Yeshua gave his life for those just like you.
show a little courage mishpucha, I did, and have never been sorry.
Sholom Alechem Yakov
Suzanne Fortin
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
> Suzanne Fortin wrote:
>
> > You're somehow implying that Christians decided to cop out into trying to
> > explain it by "making it" a mystery. As if God is completely comprehendable
> > to our puny little minds. God is greater than our finite minds, and there
> > are just parts of him we will never grasp, this being one of them. Who
> > knows what else he hasn't bothered to reveal about himself?
>
> The orthodox creeds are a cop out. Up to Nicean creed the ideas could
> be reconciled via. something like an economic trinity. A statement
> which is permanently ununderstandable to man is essentially a
> non-statement.
When it's the *what* that is not understandable, then it's cop out. The
what is understandable: God is one Divine Nature with 3 persons: One
mind, One action, One will. The *how* is impossible to understand. But
not understanding the *how* is not a cop out.
The Trinity is not a non-statement. It is not static. By delving into the
mystery, Catholics get a more intimate picture of God. Therefore, it has
its function.
> The later orthodox creeds argue something which is
> inherently contradictory and claim that this contradiction resolves
> itself through "mystery". that is nonsense.
"Inherently contradictory"-- by what standard? Presuming that it is a
divine revelation, you cannot claim that it is inherently contradictory
because God cannot be inherently contradictory. The Trinity cannot be
known by philosophy. It is a revealed mystery and can only be accepted
because it is revealed by God.
Steve Walker
In article <mawolfe-2708...@pine009200.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
>In article <XeXBhXAG...@skwalker.demon.co.uk>, Steve Walker
><s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>?In article <mawolfe-2808...@pine009199.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
>?Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
>?>In article <B31ULHAP...@skwalker.demon.co.uk>, Steve Walker
>?><s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>?>
>?>?In article <mawolfe-2708...@legume186136.nuts.nwu.edu>, Miriam
>?>?Wolfe <maw...@hardknox.edu> writes
>?>?>On the contrary Suzanne, the xian deifntion of
>?>?>the trinity is outside the bounds of strict monotheism,
>?>?>hence the trinity is polytheistic.
>?>?
>?>?There is only one me. My body is me, but not all of me, my mind is me,
>?>?but not all of me, my spirit is me, but not all of me. Can't be
>?>?separated from one another (without killing me, anyway), but each has
>?>?different function and can to some extent, although not completely, be
>?>?recognised apart from the other. Taken all together, they make the one
>?>?"me" - not three "me"s.
>?>
>?>True, HOWEVER,
>?>
>?>1. if your brain was removed could your body
>?>continue to exist independently?
>?
>?Yes, but not live.
>
>so your answer is "no" exist = lives/life
I was trying to be very precise. A rock exists, but doesn't live. If
you took out my brain [and who would notice? :) ], it would continue to
exist as an object, but not as a living thing.
>?>2. Could your brain exist as a living thing outside
>?>your body (and sans medical tech or sci fi)?
>?
>?Yes, but not live.
>
>Again your naswer is really "no" since you agree
>that life would cease.
I changed that to a "no" straight after I sent the first reply, since
when I was writing it I had overlooked that you had specified "as a
living thing" in point 2.
>?>3. According to xian theology, can yeshu exist a part from
>?>the HS or the father?
>?
>?Yes, but... Depends how you define "apart from", anyway. "Distinct
>?from", yes, which was the point of my illustration. But AIUI when Jesus
>?*was* separated from God [by our sin that he took upon him] - he did
>?die.
>[.......]
>
>?>The answers to #1 and #2 are NO
>?>The answer to #3 is yes, ergo your analogy
>?>fails.
No - at least according to my understanding of the bible, Jesus didn't
exist "apart from" the Father and the HS - not in the sense of
"separated from". He was distinct, much as my body is distinct from my
mind, but the two are connect and independent. Separation only occurred
on the cross ("my God, my God, why have you forsaken me"), when he took
our sins, and then Jesus did die. Once the sins were dealt with, the
separation was ended and Jesus rose from death.
But in any case, the fact that my body, mind etc die if separated from
one another doesn't kill the analogy. All analogies fail if taken too
far, but I think mine works as far as it was intended to go - which was
simply to illustrate that "one and three simultaneously" is not
impossible nonsense, or even without a parallel within reach of our
thought/experience. And since God made us in His likeness, I am not
surprised to find it in us.
But since we are not God, it is no surprise that I have limitations in
my "3-in-oneness" that God doesn't. I am finite, and He is infinite. I
would expect God's nature to be much more complex than mine.
Moshe Shulman
>From: Jeffrey Bolden <jbo...@math.ucla.edu>
>Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph
Parrish)
>> wrote:
>> > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more
than
>> >one God.
>> "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences
and
>> recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
>> former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
>distinct Gods?
Jeff,it is not that they say they are polytheists, but that when they
explain what they believe they state beliefs that are polytheistic.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Moshe Shulman
>From: gues...@zog.gov (guess who)
>>To me, they are the exact same being. Jesus is God and God is Jesus.
When
>>I address my words to Jesus; when I address to God, my words are
>>addressed to Jesus.
as two
>different beings. the vast majority do. (notice i did not say all)
>after the world series last year they went to joe girardi in the
locker room.
>he said "i want to thank god" then he paused and said "i want to also
thank
>jesus." two distint different beings
This is the problem.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com
Miriam Wolfe
?
?>
?>2. Could your brain exist as a living thing outside
?>your body (and sans medical tech or sci fi)?
?
?Yes, but not live.
Again your naswer is really "no" since you agree
that life would cease.
?
?>
?>3. According to xian theology, can yeshu exist a part from
?>the HS or the father?
?
?Yes, but... Depends how you define "apart from", anyway. "Distinct
?from", yes, which was the point of my illustration. But AIUI when Jesus
?*was* separated from God [by our sin that he took upon him] - he did
?die.
[.......]
?>The answers to #1 and #2 are NO
?>The answer to #3 is yes, ergo your analogy
?>fails.
Miriam Wolfe
********************
They have built the high places of Topheth,
which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom,
to burn their sons and their daughters in
the fire, which I did not command, and it
did not come into My mind."
Jer 7: 30-31
Joshua Moss
Oh thou who dost not answer direct questions ... Why dost thou not do so?
Perhaps it is because you are not prepared to have intellectual
discussions. Perhaps it is because you have discovered that intellectual
arguments are irrelevant to people "coming to faith." Perhaps you have
discovered that those who come tend to come more through sugary
testimonials, spiritual posturing, and emotional manipulation. That's why
you offer those things in your posts. You think what works in a person to
person encounter will work on the internet. Unfortunately, in a "words
only" environment the same dynamics don't come into play.
The pentecostal movement cannot spread via computer.
Chuck Coen
Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
>
> Stephen Bayzik wrote:
> >
> > On 27 May 1997 23:19:00 -0700, rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No Christian has ever taught or believed that there is more than
> > >one God.
> >
> > ROTFL! From my observations of the paucity of Evangelical
> > "scholarship" over the last six years on the Echo Mail Conferences and
> > recently on Internet Newsgroups - thats all I have observed from the
> > former. Jeeesus this, Jeesus that; polytheism at its best.
>
> Can you find one evangelical who claims to believe in 3 seperate and
> distinct Gods?
Probably ... but what would that prove?
Joshua Moss
On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
> The orthodox creeds are a cop out. Up to Nicean creed the ideas could
> be reconciled via. something like an economic trinity. A statement
> which is permanently ununderstandable to man is essentially a
> non-statement. The later orthodox creeds argue something which is
> inherently contradictory and claim that this contradiction resolves
> itself through "mystery". that is nonsense.
That's a switch. Last week you were saying it was elegantly systematized
doctrine, and how shameful it was that Judaism didn't have something like it.
Michael Shoshani
Steve Walker (s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I was trying to be very precise. A rock exists, but doesn't live.
As they say in Yeshivish, that's not so pashut (clear). There are a good
many opinions that all creation lives, even if they are not sentient.
There is a work called "Perek Shira" that takes scriptureal passages about
rocks and stars and whatnot singing, then attributes the songs sung to G-d
by rocks, trees, grass, birds, animals, stars, water, sun, moon, etc etc.
guess who
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.9706061...@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>,
mos...@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU says...
but because he enjoys a good debate with another intelligent person. you cant
hold him to consistency the way those of us who believe in a position can be
held to consistency
-----------Chagiga 16a--------------
If the evil inclination says to you
"Sin and the Holy One Blessed be He
will forgive you" do not heed it.
------------------------------------.
Miriam Wolfe
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.97060...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
Suzanne Fortin <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
?On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
?
?> Suzanne Fortin wrote:
?>
?> > You're somehow implying that Christians decided to cop out into trying to
?> > explain it by "making it" a mystery. As if God is completely
comprehendable
?> > to our puny little minds. God is greater than our finite minds, and there
?> > are just parts of him we will never grasp, this being one of them. Who
?> > knows what else he hasn't bothered to reveal about himself?
?>
?> The orthodox creeds are a cop out. Up to Nicean creed the ideas could
?> be reconciled via. something like an economic trinity. A statement
?> which is permanently ununderstandable to man is essentially a
?> non-statement.
?
?When it's the *what* that is not understandable, then it's cop out. The
?what is understandable: God is one Divine Nature with 3 persons: One
?mind, One action, One will.
Nope. Wrong. Bzzt.
yeshu suffering second thoughts, prays in the garden and says...........
My father if it is possible, let this cup pass
from me. Yet not as ****I will*, but as *you** will.
Mt 26:39, Mark 14:35-36
Ed Form
In article <5n9qog$d...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
jrd...@ix.netcom.com (guess who) wrote:
with jeff things are different. he is not
arguing from a position of believe but
because he enjoys a good debate with
another intelligent person. you cant hold
him to consistency the way those of us
who believe in a position can be held to
consistency
In our dreams...
Ed Form
Ed Form
In article <memo.970607...@eform.compulink.co.uk>,
ef...@btinternet.com (Ed Form) wrote:
> The very verse in John from which this foolish notion is taken,
> condemns it absolutely. The words...
>
> ...And the word WAS MADE flesh...
>
> ...are passive voice, indicating that someone else, other than
> 'the word', did it. Greek is a wonderful language, having
> tenses and grammatical structures to cover every contingency.
> If 'the word' had done the thing then the Greek would have been
> written in second aorist, which, to save you looking it up, is
> that verbal usage in which the doer of the deed is the
> recipient of the result.
One of those days when you drop real clangers.
This paragraph should have said...
If 'the word' had done the thing then the
Greek would have been written in second
aorist MIDDLE VOICE, which, to save you
looking it up, is that verbal usage in
which the doer of the deed is the
recipient of the result.
John 1:14 IS actually second aorist at the verb 'was made', but
it is MIDDLE DEPONENT which is active. In other words the verse
might be paraphrased...
...and the word was made flesh by God...
An example of the use of the second aorist middle form is...
Heb 9:12
Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by his own blood he entered in once
into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption [for us].
This translation is WRONG. It can only be properly rendered...
"having obtained eternal redemption for himself.", which version
further contradicts the ideas which your post advanced.
Ed Form
Bry
On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 10:09:11 GMT, ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk (Lloyd
James) wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 12:03:34 GMT, b...@ix.netcom.com (Bry C) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>Lloyd, you are so dense! Like there is nothing that is a "mystery"
>>in Judaism? Puhleeze!
>
>Hye Bry. I see that you are in your usual combative mood. Why don't
>you give us one of the mysteries to which you are referring? One
>mystery of Judaism that is equivalent to the trinity.
OK - what was there BEFORE the creation?
ALSO - if you o out into space, what do you come to eventually at the
edge of the universe? You don't know whether it is finite or infinite.
There are many other mysteries that are beyond the human ken, not just
within Judaism. The "Trinity" is hardly even dealt with at all in the
New Testament. People make much of it for religious arguments, but I
really don't think G-d is too worried about it!
>>>The only way you can get around this
>>>charge is by claiming that the trinity is a mystery. If I claimed
>>>that I had invented a spherical ball that is also a cube that too
>>>would be a mystery.
>>
>>There are many mysteries in life. We do not even understand some basic
>>things that are contradictory about the universe,
>
>Can you give us a few examples of these contradictions you speak of?
See above.
>>YET you claim to
>>know better than God when it comes to His own nature?
>Nope. All that I am saying is that the trinity is a human
>speculation. In fact the RC's invented the idea and an RC (Suzanne)
>has admitted to this in this ng.
OK
>>Wow, Lloyd you must be a VERY clever little man!
>
>On a personal note, why do you feel the need to bluster so much? It
>makes you sound desperate. Like you are short on answers.
Why do you feel the need to post the same message several times a
week? I t makes you look far more limited.
>>>The reason that it is a mystery is because it is
>>>self-contradictory rubbish.
>>
>>Then in that case Lloyd, ALL of your posts on Usenet must be
>>"mysteries" since they are SUCH rubbish indeed!
>
>More bluster.
Yet true!
>>>Same with the trinity. The biggest
>>>mystery is how anyone can be taken in by it. Lloyd.
More bluster, buster!
>>The biggest mystery is how someone can be so arrogant and pompous that
>>they don't know when to shut up about it, and continue to reveal their
>>ignorance.
>
>Truth has a habit of hurting Bry.
Is that why you have so much pain? I am fine thanks! I welcome truth.
Not myths about Jews and your racism against them...
You provide evidence once again for all to see, of your complete lack
of knowledge or understanding about Messianic Jews.
I bet you have never talked with more than a few of them, and only
then for a few minutes.
Am I correct?
To reply to this message, you MUST IGNORE my shown address.
It is there to fool those annoying unsolicited e-mail advertising idiots!
Send replies ONLY to: bry AT mnsinc 'DOT' com
Bulk e-mail robot food:
root@localhost, ab...@cyberpromo.com, postm...@bstgrlsss.com,
remo...@answerme.com, hostm...@solnet.co.uk,
postm...@potters.com, postm...@rovers.com, postm...@www.goldnet.co.uk,
postm...@goldnet.co.uk, postm...@rovers.com,
postm...@www.goldnet.co.uk,
postm...@summerfun.com, postm...@goldnet.co.uk
postm...@cyberpromo.com, mgiw...@primenet.com,
cons...@strutyourstuff.com, postm...@carbow.com,
bu...@rocketmail.com, clea...@spica.net,
gi...@global-merchants.com,bru...@stbbs.com,
wal...@cyberpromo.com,ab...@cyberpromo.com,
sa...@agis.net
SEND US SOME E-MAIL ADS!!!
Suzanne Fortin
On 7 Jun 1997, Ed Form wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970605...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> aaa...@spammers.buzz.off (Suzanne Fortin) wrote:
>
> > The Church believes that divine revelation is not entirely
> > contained in the Scripture; there is what is called a deposit
> > of faith-- that is, teachings not necessarily contained in
> > Scripture, but which were believed by the apostles, and
> > therefore constitute the basis for *all* Catholic teaching.
> > This deposit of faith is a divine foundation upon which
> > Catholic writers and theologians build.
>
> The existence from the earliest days of a state sponsored Roman
> church of those who disagreed with the teachings of Rome, to the
> death, which death was inflicted by the Romans, is evidence
> enough that the thing you call 'a deposit of faith' is not what
> those martyrs would have called by that name.
Prove it.
> > The Trinity is not mentioned by name in the Bible-- but it is
> > assumed.
>
> No it is not. It is assumed by those who are of a mind to import
> it from pagan sources.
So am I to understand that you don't believe Jesus is God or did not
claim to be God?
> > True, but you can't use its incomprehensibleness as an
> > argument that it's false.
>
> It is small wonder that the Jews laugh at you. This statement is
> a dissimulation of the worst kind.
Well it's true-- to say that something is false because you can't
understand it is intellectually dishonest.
> > The Logos, while still retaining his divine soul, created for
> > himself a human soul and a human body. His human body and soul
> > were connected to his divine soul, but they were distinct. It
> > was the human body and soul which died.
>
> The very verse in John from which this foolish notion is taken,
> condemns it absolutely. The words...
>
> ...And the word WAS MADE flesh...
>
> ...are passive voice, indicating that someone else, other than
> 'the word', did it. Greek is a wonderful language, having tenses
> and grammatical structures to cover every contingency. If 'the
> word' had done the thing then the Greek would have been written
> in second aorist, which, to save you looking it up, is that
> verbal usage in which the doer of the deed is the recipient of
> the result.
So of course that means you discard the rest of the literal references in
which Jesus says he's God, right?
Ed Form
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970605...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
aaa...@spammers.buzz.off (Suzanne Fortin) wrote:
> The Church believes that divine revelation is not entirely
> contained in the Scripture; there is what is called a deposit
> of faith-- that is, teachings not necessarily contained in
> Scripture, but which were believed by the apostles, and
> therefore constitute the basis for *all* Catholic teaching.
> This deposit of faith is a divine foundation upon which
> Catholic writers and theologians build.
The existence from the earliest days of a state sponsored Roman
church of those who disagreed with the teachings of Rome, to the
death, which death was inflicted by the Romans, is evidence
enough that the thing you call 'a deposit of faith' is not what
those martyrs would have called by that name.
> The Trinity is not mentioned by name in the Bible-- but it is
> assumed.
No it is not. It is assumed by those who are of a mind to import
it from pagan sources.
> True, but you can't use its incomprehensibleness as an
> argument that it's false.
It is small wonder that the Jews laugh at you. This statement is
a dissimulation of the worst kind.
> The Logos, while still retaining his divine soul, created for
> himself a human soul and a human body. His human body and soul
> were connected to his divine soul, but they were distinct. It
> was the human body and soul which died.
The very verse in John from which this foolish notion is taken,
condemns it absolutely. The words...
...And the word WAS MADE flesh...
...are passive voice, indicating that someone else, other than
'the word', did it. Greek is a wonderful language, having tenses
and grammatical structures to cover every contingency. If 'the
word' had done the thing then the Greek would have been written
in second aorist, which, to save you looking it up, is that
verbal usage in which the doer of the deed is the recipient of
the result.
Ed Form
Bry
>SHEPHDD wrote:
>>
>> There are already more then 500,000 wonderful Jewish people who greatly
>> love Yeshua HaMoshiach the true King of Israel, HALLELUJAH !!!
>
>And where are these 1/2 million Jewish people?
>
>Yakov try more like 50,000.
JFJ estimated 100,000 ten years ago, worldwide. Perhaps there were
50-80,000 in the USA at that time. There are more now.
Don't forget that there are Messianic Congregations springing up in
South America, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Australia
- really anywhere that there are Jews!
I think Yakov may have been speaking EVANGELASTICALLY when he said
1/2 million!
Otherwise I expect him to provide some reference for where he got the
figure.
Shlomi tov todah!
Mark Hartman
In article <3395C5...@math.ucla.edu>, Jeffrey Bolden
<jbo...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Suzanne Fortin wrote:
>
>
>> "Self-contradictory" to our finite minds. That's human logic-- it
>> doesn't fit human logic, therefore it's not true. God works beyond our logic.
>
>If any two contradictory statements (and I do mean any) are true then
>either our logic is entirely false or all statements are true.
>
>Contradiction is unacceptable, even for God.
Let me put the following statements to you:
1) "I was talking to him as though he was standing right there."
2) "I was in London, and he was in Paris."
In th 1500's - or, in fact, up until the late 1800's - these two statements
were obviously contradictory, and no one then envisioned a way that they
could both possibly be true. Today, however, it's a different story.
Simply because you can't envision how something could be true, you can't
brand it "self-contradictory" without granting that you are placing your
own limits on the situation.
==========================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
C C++ 4th Dimension Networking System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030
Remove "spam-supressor" from my address in order to reply.
==========================================================================
I don't configure networks; the computer does. I have a Mac, not a hobby
Randolph Parrish
miry...@aol.com (MIRYAMBK) wrote:
>It is OBVIOUS that the concept of a trinity does not constitute belief in
>One G-d.
>Jews believe in One G-d. Trinitarians know that Jews believe in One G-d,
>yet they say that Jews have to accept Jesus as G-d.
Jews already accept the idea of the Spirit of God, who sometimes
comes upon men (like prophets)--and yet not all that God is was
encompassed in those men. And they also accept that sometimes God
appears in human-like form (as he did to Isaiah); and yet also that
not all that God is was encompassed in that form. To remain
monotheists, we have to say this is one God, revealing himself in
three Persons, NOT three gods.
Jeffrey Bolden
You think so? My point was that I don't think he could. That is
evangelicals don't believe themselves to be polytheists -> they do not
hold to polytheism as a belief. In effect disproving Stephen's claim.
Jeffrey Bolden
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
>
> >
> > > You're somehow implying that Christians decided to cop out into trying to
> >
> When it's the *what* that is not understandable, then it's cop out. The
> what is understandable: God is one Divine Nature with 3 persons: One
> mind, One action, One will.
I didn't criticise any of the things in this last sentence. Remember I
agreed that up to Nicea you don't have a problem. Its the post Nicean
creeds that create a problem.
>The *how* is impossible to understand. But
> not understanding the *how* is not a cop out.
Agreed, but not my complaint.
> The Trinity is not a non-statement. It is not static. By delving into the
> mystery, Catholics get a more intimate picture of God. Therefore, it >
> has
> its function.
????
> > The later orthodox creeds argue something which is
> > inherently contradictory and claim that this contradiction resolves
> > itself through "mystery". that is nonsense.
>
> "Inherently contradictory"-- by what standard?
A statement which both true and not true.
> Presuming that it is a
> divine revelation, you cannot claim that it is inherently
> contradictory
> because God cannot be inherently contradictory.
I disagree there, but that is a minor point. If we assume we properly
understand revelation and that God gives accurate information then I'll
agree. In any case its minor. I would certainly disagree (and did as a
Christian) that the later creeds are divine revelation.
> The Trinity cannot be
> known by philosophy. It is a revealed mystery and can only be accepted
> because it is revealed by God.
I'm not even discussing whether then trinity IS true. I am only arguing
whether the orthodox trinity CAN be true. A much weaker standard for
your side to prove.
P.S. Nice debating you again Suzanne.
Jeffrey Bolden
Moshe Shulman wrote:
> >Can you find one evangelical who claims to believe in 3 seperate and
> >distinct Gods?
>
> Jeff,it is not that they say they are polytheists, but that when they
> explain what they believe they state beliefs that are polytheistic.
I don't think so. IMHO they state beliefs which are less monotheistic
then judaism but far short of polytheism. If they were simply
polytheists why bother with the trinity at all? Simply make Jesus a
demi-god and solve the whole problem.
Jeffrey Bolden
Joshua Moss wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
>
> > The orthodox creeds are a cop out. Up to Nicean creed the ideas could
> > be reconciled via. something like an economic trinity. A statement
> > which is permanently ununderstandable to man is essentially a
> > inherently contradictory and claim that this contradiction resolves
> > itself through "mystery". that is nonsense.
>systematized
> doctrine, and how shameful it was that Judaism didn't have something
>like it.
Look at the first line "up to the Nicean creed...." What I liked about
the creeds was what was held by the early church, and to a great extent
what is used by evangelicals. IMHO the church got into trouble by
asking way too much in the later creeds. It wasn't enough for Jesus to
be fully human and fully divine. He had to have both a human nature, a
divine nature, a single unified nature and humanity is not divine.
Blech. garbage.
OTOH I still think some attempt at a systematic theology even if as
flawed as the orthodox is better then none at all.
Jeffrey Bolden
Bry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 17:40:40 -0700, Jeffrey Bolden
> <jbo...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> >SHEPHDD wrote:
> >>
> >> There are already more then 500,000 wonderful Jewish people who greatly
> >> love Yeshua HaMoshiach the true King of Israel, HALLELUJAH !!!
> >
> >And where are these 1/2 million Jewish people?
> >
> >Yakov try more like 50,000.
>
> JFJ estimated 100,000 ten years ago, worldwide. Perhaps there were
> 50-80,000 in the USA at that time. There are more now.
I still think 100k 10 years ago is high. However more importantly what
makes you believe there are more now then 10 years ago?
> Don't forget that there are Messianic Congregations springing up in
> South America, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Australia
> - really anywhere that there are Jews!
I know. But except for Israel the movements in those countries isn't
kicking in lots of numbers.
> I think Yakov may have been speaking EVANGELASTICALLY when he said
> 1/2 million!
What does speaking evangelastically mean?
Jeffrey Bolden
guess who wrote:
> with jeff things are different. he is not arguing from a position of believe
> but because he enjoys a good debate with another intelligent person. you cant
> hold him to consistency the way those of us who believe in a position can be
> held to consistency
Ask Josh. He's argued more stuff with me then most here. My positions
are consistent over time, just different. Also I often argue on the
form (assume A and B then C) even if I don't hold A and B to be true.
My base arguement with Suzanne is of this type.
Ed Form
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970607041...@hermes.ulaval.ca
>, aaa...@spammers.buzz.off (Suzanne Fortin) wrote:
>
> On 7 Jun 1997, Ed Form wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Pine.SOL.3.91.970605...@hermes.ulaval.ca>,
> > aaa...@spammers.buzz.off (Suzanne Fortin) wrote:
> >
> > > The Church believes that divine revelation is not entirely
> > > contained in the Scripture; there is what is called a
> > > deposit of faith-- that is, teachings not necessarily
> > > contained in Scripture, but which were believed by the
> > > apostles, and therefore constitute the basis for *all*
> > > Catholic teaching. This deposit of faith is a divine
> > > foundation upon which Catholic writers and theologians
> > > build.
> > The existence from the earliest days of a state sponsored
> > Roman church of those who disagreed with the teachings of
> > Rome, to the death, which death was inflicted by the Romans,
> > is evidence enough that the thing you call 'a deposit of
> > faith' is not what those martyrs would have called by that
> > name.
>
> Prove it.
Prove what? That Rome was resisted? I don't have to, it's common
knowledge. Get yourself a history of the Italick christians of
Northern Italy (Valdesi), Switzerland, and Southern France
(Vaudois). Look up the attempts to suppress their Latin version
of the Scriptures (aka The Italick, origin 157CE), culminating in
the burning of the Rome's own libraries in order to eliminate
their literature (approx 600CE?). A rather more successful method
of attack upon them was perpetrated in the middle ages when they
were falsely called 'newly risen', under the name Waldenses, and
the leadership of Peter Waldo. This sect, which held itself
separate from either Arian or Athanasian philosophies, both of
which it declared false, was persecuted with an increasing degree
of ferocity from its inception. The persecution began with name
calling and grew to murder on a large scale by 454-500.
Look up the origin of the idea that the Roman church was the
whore of Revelation. It is traceable by 400CE. After the loss of
temporal power by the Papacy in 1869, the beginning may be seen
of a careful, determined effort to divert attention from this
element of the reputation of the church. Look up the book... 'The
Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty', which bears the byline
'Rabbi bin Abrahim', but was actually written by the Chilean
Jesuit Lacunza. By putting forward, for the first time, the idea
that revelation was a prophecy of events wholly future to that
time, and by skullduggery causing this idea to infiltrate
protestant christianity, the modern ecumenical movement back to
Rome was made possible.
Ask why the development of the doctrine of the trinity should
require the banishment of Arius, Secundus, and Theonas, then
Eusabius. Why should a change have then occurred, which put
Arianism in control (check up on Constantia the emperor's
sister), then try to figure out why Arianism took a reverse and
Trinitarian doctrine came to be prescribed by law on pain of
death, with all Arian bishops banned from holding office and
banished from their homes. Look particularly at the kind of man
the emperor Theodosius was. His edict of 28th February 380 is
worth looking at...
It is our pleasure that all the nations which
are governed by our clemency and moderation
should steadfastly adhere to the religion
which was taught by St Peter to the Romans...
According to the discipline of the apostles,
and the doctrine of the gospel, let us
believe the sole deity of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, under an equal
majesty and a pious Trinity. We authorise
the followers of this doctrine to assume the
title of Catholic Christians, and we do judge
that all others are extravagant madmen, we
brand them with the infamous name of
Heretics, and declare that their conventicles
shall no longer usurp the respectable
appellation of churches. Besides the
condemnation of Divine justice, they must
expect to suffer the severe penalties which
our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom,
shall think proper to inflict upon them.
Following this edict a situation existed of which Gibbon says
censure was directed especially against...
...Those who rejected the doctrine of
the Trinity...
The actions taken began with large fines, exclusion from office,
closing of meeting places with any building or ground used for
worship being forfeit to the state, and if none of these things
dissuaded the 'Heretics', the capital penalty was inflicted.
Within 100 years of these events active military persecution of
'Heretic' sects had commenced, and the removal of the right to
read Scripture was being enforced.
In simple summary, since I have no wish to go on speaking of
something so gross... The Roman Catholic Church is the most evil
institution which has ever existed upon the earth. It is stained
with blood like no charnel house could ever be, and its doctrines
are false, with no support in Scripture whatever.
[This paragraph is the kind of thing for which I]
[have acquired a harsh reputation here in alt.messy,]
[but it is also the truth. There is no point in]
[compromising for the sake of comfort.]
> > > The Trinity is not mentioned by name in the Bible-- but it
> > > is assumed.
> >
> > No it is not. It is assumed by those who are of a mind to
> > import it from pagan sources.
> So am I to understand that you don't believe Jesus is God or
> did not claim to be God?
Absolutely. Jesus of Nazareth was (and is described in Scripture
as) a human being, one whose nature was capable of sin exactly as
ours. He overcame that nature and lived a life wholly without
sin, and, when he had been murdered God raised him from the dead
because death had no right to him.
He was the son of God in three ways...
1. Because he was caused to come into existence by the power of
God acting upon an Israelite woman called Mary, with no part
being taken in the affair by a human male father.
2. Because he was the total reflection of God's nature and
character in a human being. By which is meant he had the
behaviour and character of God by DELIBERATE imitation.
3. Because he was raised from the dead to eternal life and given
the same constitution as an angel, but with a status above that
of all other created beings EXCEPT God Himself.
No other ideas than these are taught of Jesus by Holy writ. The
opinions of your church in this matter which you call 'a deposit
of faith', are derived from Greek and other pagan philosophy, and
were supported during the final stages of their gestation by the
murderous power of the Roman empire.
> > > True, but you can't use its incomprehensibleness as an
> > > argument that it's false.
> >
> > It is small wonder that the Jews laugh at you. This
> > statement is a dissimulation of the worst kind.
>
> Well it's true-- to say that something is false because you
> can't understand it is intellectually dishonest.
This would have been better said as...
To say that something is true when
you cannot understand it, and when
you know it to be disputed is
dishonest.
> > > The Logos, while still retaining his divine soul, created
> > > for himself a human soul and a human body. His human body
> > > and soul were connected to his divine soul, but they were
> > > distinct. It was the human body and soul which died.
> > The very verse in John from which this foolish notion is
> > taken, condemns it absolutely. The words...
> >
> > ...And the word WAS MADE flesh...
> >
> > ...are passive voice, indicating that someone else, other
> > than 'the word', did it. Greek is a wonderful language,
> > having tenses and grammatical structures to cover every
> > contingency. If 'the word' had done the thing then the
> > Greek would have been written in second aorist, which, to
> > save you looking it up, is that verbal usage in which the
> > doer of the deed is the recipient of the result.
>
> So of course that means you discard the rest of the literal
> references in which Jesus says he's God, right?
I trust you saw the correction to that last paragraph which I
posted an hour or two later. The passage would have been 'second
aorist middle voice' if the 'word' had done the creating of the
man.
However, to answer you question, I deny emphatically that Jesus
ever said he was God. The standard passages which are dredged up
to support this are misused. Perhaps you would like to go round
the loop of quoting them?
Ed Form
Lloyd James
On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 09:01:58 GMT, b...@ix.netcom.com (Bry) wrote:
>On 4 Jun 1997 21:04:31 GMT, maw...@hardknox.edu (Miriam Wolfe) wrote:
>
>>?'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness........
>>
>>As a Briton you must be familiar with the royal "we" as referring
>>to a single being.
>>
>>Miriam Wolfe
>
>Excellent Miriam! You JUST gave support to the Biblical view of the
>so-called "Trinity" nature of the One True and Living God!
Brilliant Bry. You mean that the Queen of England is a trinity? I'll
tell her next time she drops round for tea and muffins. Lloyd.
====================================================
"A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the
Jews as a 'race.'"
Roth, C., Oxford University Reader in Jewish Studies, 1939-1964,
in: "Jews", "Collier's Encyclopedia", 13: 574, 1991.
====================================================
Lloyd James
On Wed, 28 May 1997 13:31:17 GMT, b...@mosinc.com (Nrb) wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 1997 08:25:09 GMT, ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk wrote:
>
>>The following article is on a direct link from the "Church's Ministry
>>to the Jews"'s web site (that's where I got it from). As soon as I
>>saw it I thought that it just had to be posted in alt.messianic.
>>Enjoy. Lloyd.
>>
>>====================================================
>>
>> Why Jews Can't Be For Jesus
>
>Thankfully there have been many many senior Jewish persons in Great
>Britain who were "for Jesus" over the past 100 years, including my
>dear friends Simon and Evelyn Anvoner among others.
>
>Can you supply us the web address of the CMJ Web Site please??
>
>I am sure that they have many good articles, and it IS amusing that
>you found a link to a group that is "FIGHTING" the CMJ, right off
>their own web page.
>
>I guess they do not fear opposition like you do!
I think that it is because they are at last beginning to see the
light.
Lloyd James
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 14:17:43 +0100, Steve Walker
<s...@skwalker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>To say that, because one Greek word doesn't appear in the NT, the
>*concept* therefore has no foundation, is to go too far, and seems to
>indicate that you don't know the NT very well. I know it reasonably
>well, and I find plenty of foundation.
My comment about the lack of foundation was not just based on one
word, although interestingly enough it caused a major upset in the
early Church. Homoousios means "of one substance" and homoiousius
means "of like substance but not of the same". Thus the accusation
that the early Church was torn apart over a diphthong as the debate
about the nature of God raged on.
Anyway, would you like to quote some of that foundation you feel there
is in the NT for the trinity. I am sure that I can find my way around
the NT sufficiently well to find any verses you quote and I would be
interested to hear your case.
When you have thought some more about the co-equal versus the
privileged status of the Holy Ghost I would be interested to discuss
it further. Lloyd.
Lloyd James
On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 16:42:26 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
<aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Lloyd James wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:04:27 -0400, Suzanne Fortin
>> <aaa...@spammers.buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >The Trinity is part of the Catholic "oral tradition" which is called
>> >Sacred Tradition. We believe however that our Tradition is protected from
>> >error from the Holy Spirit.
>>
>> By "oral traditional" I understand you to mean RC scholastic
>> speculation.
>
>That's: whatever is not in the Bible, taught authoritatively by the
>Church, or teachings which have been universally taught by the Catholic
>Fathers.
You know Suzanne, this last sentence I find so ironic. I see so much
anti-RC stuff on the net and elsewhere written by Evangelicals and
their ilk. Always these people boast of being so superior because
their version of Christianity is purely biblical (unlike they say
those terrible RCs). To think that all the time they are depending
in reality on a Trinity that is actually an authoritative teaching of
the RC church. Don't yah just love it?
>
>> The trinity is a human invention, some people might even
>> say a clever human invention, but human nonetheless, to patch over the
>> problems I have already mentioned.
>
>The Church believes that divine revelation is not entirely contained in
>the Scripture; there is what is called a deposit of faith-- that is,
>teachings not necessarily contained in Scripture, but which were believed
>by the apostles, and therefore constitute the basis for *all* Catholic
>teaching. This deposit of faith is a divine foundation upon which
>Catholic writers and theologians build.
OK and its your business what you believe. However, can't you see
how this moves Christianity away from being just a simple extention of
Judaism? It simply is not fair to go to a Jew and tell him or her
that the Messiahship of Jesus is all there in our Hebrew Bible.
Christianity is not "the Jewish thing" to believe as some people say.
It is not just a matter of interpretation but it also includes those
insights provided by an extra-biblical "deposit of faith". At least,
unlike some people I have debated with you have the good grace
to be honest.
>
>> Two similar doctrines are those of the immaculate conception of Mary
>> and Mary's bodily assumption into heaven.
>
>And they are based on the deposit of faith.
And some Protestant will lambast the RC Church about these without
apparently knowing that their own trinity is also based on the same
deposit of faith.
>
>> You might believe that the HS protects your beliefs or whatever from
>> error, but that does not impress me, nor indeed the countless millions
>> of non-trinitarian Christians who have existed down through the ages.
>> Some of these are still with us today, e.g. the Christidelphians, the
>> Unitarians, etc.
>
>Well, their beliefs do not conform with the early Christians. I know
>Clement (who lived around 90 AD and who probably knew Peter) taught that
>people should be baptized in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Ghost.
>I am also fairly certain that the Didache (dated 65 AD) also taught the
>trinitarian formula for Baptism.
As I am sure you know the formula "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" is a
doxology. One could quote it without intending to suggest that the
three "persons" mentioned are in fact co-equal and of one substance.
In fact I can think of NTverses that would be difficult to explain if
the early Church did indeed hold to a conventional trinitarian belief.
For example 1 Peter 1: 3 reads, "All honor to God, the God and Father
of our Jesus Christ". How can Jesus have equal honour with his God?
>
>> The trinity is by your own admission extra-biblical (i.e. "Catholic
>> 'oral tradition'). In fact all denominations of trinitarian
>> Christianity (RC., Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc) are
>> extra-biblical faiths because they all share in the same human
>> speculation (this is because the Reformation and the Eastern Orthodox
>> schism came after the trinity was invented). That includes your
>> denomination Bry.
>
>The Trinity is not mentioned by name in the Bible-- but it is assumed.
With respect Susanne, Christiantity assumes it. Jews never have.
>T
>
>> >You've asked the ultimate question about the Trinity. Nobody will ever
>> >understand. Our minds are simply too limited. It doesn't mean it isn't true.
>>
>> Neither does it mean that it is.
>
>True, but you can't use its incomprehensibleness as an argument that it's
>false.
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think that this "mystery" is in place to patch over one mighty
>> >> contradiction at the very heart of Christianity.
>> >
>> >There is only a contradiction if you accept the notion that God has to
>> >exist according to our preconceptions and logic.
>>
>> I am not saying that he does. If we could fully understand God
>> presumably we would be His equals or something like that. However I
>> can recognize a fix when I see one. Considering that not even all
>> Christians accept the trinity, nor do Jews, nor do Muslims, etc., I
>> should be worried if I were you.
>
>There has always been heresy in the Christian faith. There has been
>"heresy" in the Jewish fatih. Even in Islam. Heresy does not mean that
>something is not true.
Nor that it is not false. A friend more knowledgable than myself (a
non-Jew incidentally) recently pointed out that a number of pivital
points in Christian history were made for reasons other than simply
the spiritual. Have you ever thought that Christianity might have
throw kept the heresy and thrown away the truth?
>
>> >> If JCs's "sacrifice"
>> >> on the cross was to have any effect he had to be God. Only the
>> >> death of God would suffice. On the other hand he also had to be man
>> >> because, as I think Augustine said, that which was not nailed to the
>> >> cross was not saved. However, how can the infinite God be contained
>> >> in the finite body of a mere man? Bring on the mystery.
>> >
>> >Well, if anyone could do it, God could. You mean God can't make himself man?
>>
>> I read a leaflet once entitled "Did God Wear Diapers?". This really
>> brought home to me the full impact of the sort of claim you are making
>> above. God is infinite - agreed? Jesus was finite. He was born, had
>> his diapers changed (or whatever they used), was potty trained and
>> eventually died a cruel death at the hands of the Romans. How can
>> an infinite being be born and die?
>
>The Logos, while still retaining his divine soul, created for himself a
>human soul and a human body. His human body and soul were connected to
>his divine soul, but they were distinct. It was the human body and soul
>which died.
You know if I were a Christian the words that I would to be a great
stumbling block are those spoken by Jesus on the cross when near to
death. My God my God why have you forsaken me? Those are the
words of a defeated man. The are full of pain and emptiness. For me
they could never be the words of the universal savior about to
successfully complete his divine work.
>
>
>> Until they were silenced by the Church, there were even some Greek
>> and Roman pagan philosopherss who virtually made a career out of
>> poking fun at the god-man Jesus idea.
>> >
>
>> >> An interesting question asked by the early Church but never resolved
>> >> is as follows. If only that which was nailed to the cross was saved
>> >> and Jesus was obviously a man and not a woman, how can you
>> >> Suzanne be sure that *you* are saved? Lloyd.
>> >
>> >Frankly, I'm not even sure the question is crucial to Catholic theology.
>> >Augustine may have said that. So what? We know that from the Bible that
>> >God intends all people to be saved, from the first to the last.
>> >
>> Really don't know, but it is an interesting question all the same.
>> Let us take this a little further. Supposing instead of Jesus a dog
>> had been crucified. How would that have redeemed mankind, even if the
>> dog was in all respects perfect?
>
>I don't think so. Because it was humanity which sinned, so humanity had
>to pay the price. And Jesus, as a human and God, did it on our behalf.
>
>> In like manner, Jesus was not a
>> woman so how could *he* be a perfect sacrifice for *you*? Maybe he
>> was not. Lloyd.
>
>Because humanity doesn't differ in nature.
Maybe you are correct and maybe you are not. You must admit that it
is an interesting thought. None of the ladies have been saved because
Jesus was a man and thus an inappropriate sacrifice. Lloyd.
Joe Slater
Jeffrey Bolden <jbo...@math.ucla.edu> writes:
>Lloyd James wrote:
>> Pure nonsense. How can they "differ in relationship to one another"
>> and be "exactly the same" at the same time?
>Think of subatomic particles. They differ in their relationship but all
>protons are the same.
Any proton is capable of replacing any other proton. Do you contend that
the various Persons are similarly interchangeable?
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Email not accepted from rogue sites including: AOL, Moneyworld, Interramp,
Airmail, Earthstar and Winternet.
Joe Slater
Jeffrey Bolden <jbo...@math.ucla.edu> writes:
>Joe Slater wrote:
>> Monotheism may be a scale, but I can't see how anything could be more
>> monotheistic than Judaism.
>In judaism God has definite traits and aspects. That is there are
>things which are not God, this other can have properties. Further if
>one considers ideas like Seferot then you have semi-subdivisions.
Jewish philosophy is a very broad church (if you will excuse the
expression), but I don't know recall anyone imputing traits and aspects
to G-d. The Sefirot, for instance, are mapped onto creation, not onto
G-d.
>Jews differ a great deal on their metaphysics, so let me start the
>question this way. What is God's relationship to the material universe:
>is the universe "part of God", is God distinct from the universe,
>etc...?
The first of Maimonides' principles is that G-d alone "made, makes, and
will make everything". That is, G-d is not only the First Cause but the
power behind *every* cause. He holds the universe in creation, as it were.
Without the divine will it would unexist.
The universe is not part of G-d, because G-d has no parts. The only way in
which it could be said to be not distinct from Him is because there is
nothing besides Him. It depends on G-d for its existence.
MIRYAMBK
It is OBVIOUS that the concept of a trinity does not constitute belief in
One G-d.
Jews believe in One G-d. Trinitarians know that Jews believe in One G-d,
yet they say that Jews have to accept Jesus as G-d. And some obscure
bird-like creature as another god. It follows that since Jews already
have ONE G-d, that the acceptance of others cannot be necessary, and that
the result of such acceptance would necessarily be in conflict with the
sum total of ONE.
Similarly, if trinitarians would REMOVE the idea from their thinking that
Jesus is G-d and the HS is G-d, they would quite possibly be left with
One, Complete, Whole G-d, the One who ALONE stretched out the heavens and
spread out the earth (Isaiah 44:24).
Shalom,
Miryam
Bry
On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 13:50:29 EST, Joshua Moss <mos...@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>
wrote:
>
>On 6 Jun 1997, SHEPHDD wrote:
>
>> There are already more then 500,000 wonderful Jewish people who greatly
>> love Yeshua HaMoshiach the true King of Israel, HALLELUJAH !!!
>> Moshe, It is great foolishness to fight against the truth, you will only
>> be destroyed in your effort. I love you my yiddish friend and do not want
>> to see this happen to you. Yeshua gave his life for those just like you.
>> show a little courage mishpucha, I did, and have never been sorry.
>
>Oh thou who dost not answer direct questions ... Why dost thou not do so?
>
>Perhaps it is because you are not prepared to have intellectual
>discussions. Perhaps it is because you have discovered that intellectual
>arguments are irrelevant to people "coming to faith." Perhaps you have
>discovered that those who come tend to come more through sugary
>testimonials, spiritual posturing, and emotional manipulation. That's why
>you offer those things in your posts. You think what works in a person to
>person encounter will work on the internet. Unfortunately, in a "words
>only" environment the same dynamics don't come into play.
>
>The pentecostal movement cannot spread via computer.
>
He hasn't told me why either, Josh. Maybe it is because he sees you as
excercising YOUR intellect like it is an IDOL (in his opinion), and he
doesn't want to participate on that level! Is that a possibility for
why he doesn't answer you?
Suzanne Fortin
On 8 Jun 1997, MIRYAMBK wrote:
> It is OBVIOUS that the concept of a trinity does not constitute belief in
> One G-d.
> Jews believe in One G-d. Trinitarians know that Jews believe in One G-d,
> yet they say that Jews have to accept Jesus as G-d.
Yes, Jews believe in God. But, we are not trying to evangelize *on our
own authority* but on *God's* authority. Therefore, it is not *we* who
demand this, but *God* himself.
> And some obscure
> bird-like creature as another god.
No, the Holy Spirit is not *another* God. He's the One God.
> It follows that since Jews already
> have ONE G-d, that the acceptance of others cannot be necessary, and that
> the result of such acceptance would necessarily be in conflict with the
> sum total of ONE.
Nope. That does not follow. They're all the One God.
It's not necessary to believe in Jesus to be a monotheist. But it's
necessary to partake in God's New Covenant to believe in Jesus.
> Similarly, if trinitarians would REMOVE the idea from their thinking that
> Jesus is G-d and the HS is G-d, they would quite possibly be left with
> One, Complete, Whole G-d, the One who ALONE stretched out the heavens and
> spread out the earth (Isaiah 44:24).
Nope. They're all One God.
Joshua Moss
On 8 Jun 1997, MIRYAMBK wrote:
> So, while both the Unity of G-d and the Seventh Day Sabbath are as plain,
> basic and simple as can be -- so that any 2nd grader could read and
> understand -- there is a miracle going on here which denies these basic
> truths to the deniers of the Torah.
IOW you are ascribing "special spiritual blindness" to Christians, a
notion which -- while I enjoy the irony of it -- I do not accept any more
than their doctrine of "special spiritual blindness" toward Jews.
Joshua Moss
> > JFJ estimated 100,000 ten years ago, worldwide. Perhaps there were
> > 50-80,000 in the USA at that time. There are more now.
Ten years ago we were working with the very imprecise figure of 30,000 -
100,000 in the U.S., 3,000 in Israel. It is hard to come up with accurate
figures because the Jewish agencies which compile these kinds of
demographics define "Jew" and "Christian" differently than the missionary
agencies.
> > Don't forget that there are Messianic Congregations springing up in
> > South America, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Australia
> > - really anywhere that there are Jews!
If there are 200 Messianic Congregations in the world that accounts for
only 3000 or so actual Messianic Jews at a generous estimate. Messianic
congregations are small in size and rarely have even 1/2 Jewish attendance.
In J4J we had to actually disinvite non-Jews from coming to the public
meetings because the "testimony" was getting confused -- lots of
Pentecostals wanted to come hear Jews teach from the NT, not many
Messianic Jews.
IOW the number of Messianic Congregations in the world could quadruple
and have no significant impact on an estimate of 100,000 MJs which in my
opinion is totally inflated. You have 3000 MJs tops if you count all
people who were raised in the practice of Judaism (or their mother's
were) who regularly attend a Messianic Congregation. If you add all Jews
who attend any sort of Church I think you can raise the figure to 30,000
people. In the world.
Michael Scott Armel
Randolph Parrish wrote:
>
> miry...@aol.com (MIRYAMBK) wrote:
>
> >It is OBVIOUS that the concept of a trinity does not constitute belief in
> >One G-d.
>
> >Jews believe in One G-d. Trinitarians know that Jews believe in One G-d,
> >yet they say that Jews have to accept Jesus as G-d.
>
> comes upon men (like prophets)
But, the spirit of G-d is NOT a separate, co-equal member of some G-d
head.
> And they also accept that sometimes God
> appears in human-like form (as he did to Isaiah);
G-d is not a man (Numbers 23:19) and does not appear in any way which
would allow us to visualize him.
and yet also that
> not all that God is was encompassed in that form. To remain
> monotheists, we have to say this is one God, revealing himself in
> three Persons, NOT three gods.
Nonsense. They are different ways of G-d expressing himself to
people. These manifestations are NOT co-equal parts of a triune
godhead.
Be well,
Michael
Joe Slater
>miry...@aol.com (MIRYAMBK) wrote:
>>Jews believe in One G-d. Trinitarians know that Jews believe in One G-d,
>>yet they say that Jews have to accept Jesus as G-d.
rbp...@primenet.com (Randolph Parrish) writes:
> Jews already accept the idea of the Spirit of God, who sometimes
>comes upon men (like prophets)--and yet not all that God is was
>encompassed in those men.
And we also accept the idea of the Spirit of Stupidity, and even this
newsgroup is too small for it to be encompassed.
>And they also accept that sometimes God
>appears in human-like form (as he did to Isaiah); and yet also that
>not all that God is was encompassed in that form.
Why don't you worship G-d the Bush, G-d the Pillar of Fire and G-d the
Soldier?
Joshua Moss
On 8 Jun 1997, Joe Slater wrote:
> Why don't you worship G-d the Bush, G-d the Pillar of Fire and G-d the
> Soldier?
This is exactly the issue.
Joshua Moss
In the earlier part of this century it was common for Christians to
say, "Judaism is a religion of law, but Christianity is a religion of
love." And for Jews to retort, "Christianity is a religion of creed, but
Judaism is a religion of deed."
For all the dangers of stereotypes, all of us who have made some
conscious choice between these two traditions have some distinct,
concrete feelings for the way that one traditions speaks to our souls in
a way that the other does not. The religions have different dynamics, and
souls have different dynamics, and the two dynamics interact in
fascinating ways.
For myself, it has been very significant that *as I respond to it* the
Christian message is a religion of salvation for the impotent; whereas
Judaism is religion of growth. The posture of the soul in Christian faith
is prostrate, casting itself at the feet of the Lord when all other hope
is gone. The posture of the soul in Judaism is ascending a ladder,
partnered with God.
Immediately I confess these are caricatures. Immediately I confess that
there are texts of Judaism especially mystical texts which rival any
Christian texts for self-abnegation. And that there are activist
Christians is too obvious to mention, who, empowered by the notion of the
indwelling of Christ, become partners with God in redemption of society.
*For me* Christianity touched me most when I was young, uncertain,
unhappy, and could always reverberate to "I am weak, but he is stong," or
"I cannot bear my burdens alone ... I must tell Jesus."
My view of human nature is somewhat different now. I can see the
magnificence of human beings, for all their problems. It is not my path
to continually be weak so I can make Jesus strong; or to be sinful so he
can be forgiving; or to be miserable so he can comfort me. That kind of
piety no longer spoke to me when I became more centered on human
responsibility, human potential.
No doubt there will yet be seasons in my life when my strength will
utterly fail, when there is nothing to do but cry out for "salvation" or
even simply to mourn, and when those kinds of pathetic cries of Psalmists
will be the words I need to hear. Nevertheless I do not see that posture
as the *normal* or *daily* or *regular* posture of a healthy person
before God. All of life is not a crisis; but being "saved" requires
"having a crisis." God is the soil in which I am planted; my task is to
tap deep roots, to grow, and to bear fruit.
Jeffrey Bolden
Joe Slater wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Bolden <jbo...@math.ucla.edu> writes:
>
> >Lloyd James wrote:
> >> Pure nonsense. How can they "differ in relationship to one another"
> >> and be "exactly the same" at the same time?
>
> >Think of subatomic particles. They differ in their relationship but
> all
> >protons are the same.
>
> Any proton is capable of replacing any other proton. Do you contend that
> the various Persons are similarly interchangeable?
First off just for clarity I don't believe in the trinity at all.
Further when I did I believed in the economic trinity (the there parts
of God were differentiated by function).
My point above was simply that things can differ in relationship to one
another but be exactly the same. The more orthodox creed tends to see
the relationship within the God head as being via "spirations", which
AFAIK would imply that the Son could replace the father and so forth, if
they simply altered their "spiration" towards one another.
Jeffrey Bolden
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------198952102AAE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Suzanne Fortin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 1997, Jeffrey Bolden wrote:
> > Look at the first line "up to the Nicean creed...." What I liked about
> > the creeds was what was held by the early church, and to a great extent
> > what is used by evangelicals. IMHO the church got into trouble by
> > asking way too much in the later creeds. It wasn't enough for Jesus to
> > be fully human and fully divine. He had to have both a human nature, a
> > divine nature, a single unified nature and humanity is not divine.
> > Blech. garbage.
> I'd be *really* interested in knowing what you mean by *single unified
> nature*. As far as I know, it's metaphysically impossible to have two
> natures and one nature. The doctrine of hypostatic union makes it very
> clear that Jesus had two natures which were distinct in One Person.
And were perfectly unified into a single nature. (enosin kath
hypostasin, kata physin, kat ousian) vs (synapheia kat authentian,
axian, energeian, anaphoran, schesin).
Here is what you have with Jesus:
1 - He has a fully human nature
2 - He has a fully divine nature
3 - Those natures are perfectly unified into a single nature (a physical
not just a moral unity) c.f. Nestorian controversy
4 - The natures are not "intermingled" because that would imply change
in God (How can they be perfectly unified and not intermingled!?)
So basically what I mean is anti-nestorianism is orthodox. I happen to
agree with the Nestorians.
The remained all comes from the catholic encylopedia a clipping from the
article .
II. THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATION
We have treated the fact of the Incarnation, that is, the fact of the
Divine nature of Jesus, the fact
of the human nature of Jesus, the fact of the union of these two natures
in Jesus. We now take up
the crucial question of the nature of this fact, the manner of this
tremendous miracle, the way of
uniting the Divine with the human nature in one and the same Person.
Arius had denied the fact of
this union. No other heresy rent and tore the body of the Church to any
very great extent in the
matter of this fact after the condemnation of Arius in the Council of
Nicaea (325). Soon a new
heresy arose in the explanation of the fact of the union of the two
natures in Christ. Nicaea had,
indeed, defined the fact of the union; it had not explicitly defined the
nature of that fact; it had not
said whether that union was moral or physical. The council had
implicitly defined the union of the
two natures in one hypostasis, a union called physical in opposition to
the mere juxtaposition or
joining of the two natures called a moral union. Nicaea had professed a
belief in "One Lord Jesus
Christ . . . true God of true God . . . Who took Flesh, became Man and
suffered". This belief was in
one Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the
same time Divine and
human nature. Such teaching was an implicit definition of all that was
later on denied by
Nestorius. We shall find the great Athanasius, for fifty years the
determined foe of the heresiarch,
interpreting Nicaea's decree in just this sense; and Athanasius must
have known the sense meant by
Nicaea, in which he was the antagonist of the heretic Arius.
(1) NESTORIANISM
In spite of the efforts of Athanasius, Nestorius, who had been elected
Patriarch of Constantinople
(428), found a loophole to avoid the definition of Nicaea. Nestorius (q.
v.) called the union of the
two natures a mysterious and an inseparable joining (symapheian), but
would admit no unity
(enosin) in the strict sense of the word to be the result of this
joining (see " Serm.", ii, n. 4; xii, n. 2,
in P. L., XLVIII). The union of the two natures is not physical
(physike) but moral, a mere
juxtaposition in state of being (schetike); the Word indwells in Jesus
like as God indwells in the
just (loc. cit.); the indwelling of the Word in Jesus is, however, more
excellent than the indwelling
of God in the just man by grace, for that the indwelling of the Word
purposes the Redemption of
all mankind and the most perfect manifestation of the Divine activity
(Serm. vii, n. 24); as a
consequence, Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), not the Mother
of God (Theotokos). As
is usual in these Oriental heresies, the metaphysical refinement of
Nestorius was faulty, and led
him into a practical denial of the mystery that he had set himself to
explain. During the discussion
that Nestorius aroused, he strove to explain that his indwelling
(enoikesis) theory was quite enough
to keep him within the demands of Nicaea; he insisted that "the Man
Jesus should be co-adored
with the Divine union and almighty God [ton te theia symapheia to
pantokratori theo
symproskynoumenon anthropon] "(Serm., vii, n. 35); he forcibly denied
that Christ was two
persons, but proclaimed Him as one person (prosopon) made up of two
substances. The oneness of
the Person was however only moral, and not at all physical. Despite
whatsoever Nestorius said as a
pretext to save himself from the brand of heresy, he continually and
explicitly denied the
hypostatic union (enosin kath hypostasin, kata physin, kat ousian), that
union of physical entities
and of substances which the Church defends in Jesus; he affirmed a
juxtaposition in authority,
dignity, energy, relation, and state of being (synapheia kat authentian,
axian, energeian,
anaphoran, schesin); and he maintained that the Fathers of Nicaea had
nowhere said that God was
born of the Virgin Mary (Sermo, v, nn. 5 and 6).
Nestorius in this distortion of the sense of Nicaea clearly went against
the tradition of the Church.
Before he had denied the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus,
that union had been taught
by the greatest Fathers of their time. St. Hippolytus (about 230)
taught: "the Flesh [sarx] apart
from the Logos had no hypostasis [oude . . . hypostanai edynato, was
unable to act as principle of
rational activity], for that its hypostasis was in the Word" ("Contra
Noet.", n. 15, in P. G., X, 823).
St. Epiphanius (about 365): "The Logos united body, mind, and soul into
one totality and spiritual
hypostasis" ("Haer.", xx, n. 4, in P. G., XLI, 277). "The Logos made the
Flesh to subsist in the
hypostasis of the Logos [eis heauton hypostesanta ten sarka]" ("Haer.",
cxxvii, n. 29, in P. G.,
XLII, 684). St. Athanasius (about 350): "They err who say that it is one
person who is the Son that
suffered, and another person who did not suffer ... ; the Flesh became
God's own by nature [kata
physin], not that it became consubstantial with the Divinity of the
Logos as if coeternal therewith,
but that it became God's own Flesh by its very nature [kata physin]." In
this entire discourse
("Contra Apollinarium", I, 12, in P. G., XXVI, 1113), St. Athanasius
directly attacks the specious
pretexts of the Arians and the arguments that Nestorius later took
up,and defends the union of two
physical natures in Christ [kata physin], as apposed to the mere
juxtaposition or joining of the same
natures [kata physin]. St. Cyril of Alexandria (about 415) makes use of
this formula oftener even
than the other Fathers; he calls Christ "the Word of the Father united
in nature with the Flesh [ton
ek theou Patros Logon kata physin henothenta sarki] ("De Recta Fide", n.
8, in P. G., LXXVI,
1210). For other and very numerous citations, see Petavius (111, 4). The
Fathers always explain
that this physical union of the two natures does not mean the
intermingling of the natures, nor any
such union as would imply a change in God, but only such union as was
necessary to explain the
fact that one Divine Person had human nature as His own true nature
together with His Divine
nature.
The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and
defined that Mary was
mother in the flesh of God's Word made Flesh (can. i). It anathematized
all who deny that the
Word of God the Father was united with the Flesh in one hypostasis (kath
hypostasin); all who
deny that there is only one Christ with Flesh that is His own; all who
deny that the same Christ is
God at the same time and man (can. ii). In the remaining ten canons
drawn up by St. Cyril of
Alexandria, the anathema is aimed directly at Nestorius. "If in the one
Christ anyone divides the
substances, after they have been once united, and joins them together
merely by a juxtaposition
[mone symapton autas synapheia] of honour or of authority or of power
and not rather by a union
into a physical unity [synode te kath henosin physiken], let him be
accursed" (can. iii). These twelve
canons condemn plecemeal the various subterfuges of Nestorius. St. Cyril
saw heresy lurking in
phrases that seemed innocent enough to the unsuspecting. Even the
co-adoration theory is
condemned as an attempt to separate the Divine from the human nature in
Jesus by giving to each a
separate hypostasis (see Denzinger, "Enchiridion", ed. 1908, nn.
113-26).
(2) MONOPHYSITISM
The condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius saved for the Church the
dogma of the Incarnation,
"the great mystery of godliness" (I Tim., iii, 16), but lost to her a
portion of her children, who,
though dwindled down to insignificant numbers, still remain apart from
her care. The union of the
two natures in one Person was saved. The battle for the dogma was not
yet won. Nestorius had
postulated two persons in Jesus Christ. A new heresy soon began. It
postulated only one Person in
Jesus, and that the Divine Person. It went farther. It went too far. The
new heresy defended only
one nature, as well as one Person in Jesus. The leader of this heresy
was Eutyches. His followers
were called Monophysites. They varied in their ways of explanation. Some
thought the two natures
were intermingled into one. Others are said to have worked out some sort
of a conversion of the
human into the Divine. All were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon
(451). This Fourth
General Council of the Church defined that Jesus Christ remained, after
the Incarnation, "perfect
in Divinity and perfect in humanity . . . consubstantial with the Father
according to His Divinity,
consubstantial with us according to His humanity . . . one and the same
Christ, the Son, the Lord,
the Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures not intermingled,
not changed, not divisible,
not separable" (see Denzinger, n. 148). By this condemnation of error
and definition of truth, the
dogma of the Incarnation was once again saved to the Church. Once again
a large portion of the
faithful of the Oriental Church were lost to their mother. Monophysitism
resulted in the national
Churches of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia. These national Churches are still
heretic, although there
have in later times been formed Catholic rites called the Catholic
Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian
rites. The Catholic rites, as the Catholic Chaldaic rite, are less
numerous than the heretic rites.
(3) MONOTHELITISM
One would suppose that there was no more room for heresy in the
explanation of the mystery of
the nature of the Incarnation. There is always room for heresy in the
matter of explanation of a
mystery, if one does not hear the infallible teaching body to whom and
to whom alone Christ
entrusted His mysteries to have and to keep and to teach them till ihe
end of time. Three patriarchs
of the Oriental Church gave rise, so far as we know, to the new heresy.
These three heresiarchs
were Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch of
Alexandria, and Athanasius,
the Patriarch of Antioch. St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem,
remained true and delated his
fellow patriarchs to Pope Honorius. His successor in the see of Peter,
St. Martin, bravely
condemned the error of the three Oriental patriarchs, who admitted the
decrees of Nicaea, Ephesus,
and Chalcedon; defended the union of two natures in one Divine Person;
but denied that this
Divine Person had two wills. Their principle was expressed by the words,
en thelema kai mia
energeia, by which they would seem to have meant one will and one
activity, i. e. only one
principle of action and of suffering in Jesus Christ and that one
principle Divine. These heretics
were called Monothelites. Their error was condemned by the Sixth General
Council (the Third
Council of Constantinople, 680). It defined that in Christ there were
two natural wills and two
natural activities, the Divine and the human, and that the human will
was not at all contrary to the
Divine, but rather perfectly subject thereto (Denzinger, n. 291). The
Emperor Constans sent St.
Martin into exile in Chersonesus. We have trace of only one body of
Monothelites. The Maronites,
about the monastery of John Maron, were converted from Monothelism in
the time of the
Crusades and have been true to the faith ever since. The other
Monothelites seem to have been
absorbed in Monophysitism, or in the schism of the Byzantine Church
later one
The error of Monothelism is clear from the Scripture as well as from
tradition. Christ did acts of
adoration (John, iv, 22), humility (Matt., xi, 29), reverence (Heb., v,
7). These acts are those of a
human will. The Monothelites denied that there was a human will in
Christ. Jesus prayed: "Father,
if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but
thine be done," (Luke, xxii,
42). Here there is question of two wills, the Father's and Christ's. The
will of Christ was subject to
the will of the Father. "As the Father hath given me commandment, so do
I" (John, xiv, 31). He
became obedient even unto death (Phil., ii, 8). The Divine will in Jesus
could not have been subject
to the will of the Father, with which will it was really identified.
(4) THE CATHOLIC FAITH
Thus far we have that which is of Faith in this matter of the nature of
the Incarnation. The human
and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that
exactly which they are,
namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect activities of
their own. Theologians go
farther in their attempts to give some account of the mystery of the
Incarnation, so as, at least, to
show that there is therein no contradiction, nothing that right reason
may not safely adhere to. This
union of the two natures in one Person has been for centuries called a
hypostatic union, that is, a
union in the Divine Hypostasis. What is an hypostasis? The definition of
Boethius is classic:
rationalis naturae individua substantia (P. L., LXIV, 1343), a complete
whole whose nature is
rational. This book is a complete whole; its nature is not rational; it
is not an hypostasis. An
hypostasis is a complete rational individual. St. Thomas defines
hypostasis as substantia cum
ultimo complemento (III:2:3, ad 2um), a substance in its entirety.
Hypostasis superadds to the
notion of rational substance this idea of entirety; nor does the idea of
rational nature include this
notion of entirety. Human nature is the principle of human activities;
but only an hypostasis, a
person, can exercise these activities. The Schoolmen discuss the
question whether the hypostasis
has anything more of reality than human nature. To understand the
discussion, one must needs be
versed in scholastic Philosophy. Be the case as it may in the matter of
human nature that is not
united with the Divine, the human nature that is hypostatically united
with the Divine, that is, the
human nature that the Divine Hypostasis or Person assumes to Itself, has
certainly more of reality
united to it than the human nature of Christ would have were it not
hypostatically united in the
Word. The Divine Logos identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union)
means then that the
Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates to Itself
human nature, and takes in
every respect the place of the human person. In this way, the human
nature of Christ, though not a
human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the perfect man; for
the Divine Person supplies
the place of the human.
It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no
change in the Word; all the
change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the
Blessed Mother,
through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul
of Christ created but the
Word assumed the man that was conceived. When God created the world, the
world was changed,
that is. it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of
existence; and there was no change in the
Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that
Logos when it began to
terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this
new relation implied in the
Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change,
was in the human nature.
Anyone who wishes to go into this very intricate question of the manner
of the Hypostatic Union
of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with great profit
read St. Thomas (III:4:2);
Scotus (in III, Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory,
of Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4).
Any modern text book on theology will give various opinions in regard to
the way of the union of
the Person assuming with the nature assumed
--------------198952102AAE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="07706b.htm"
<BASE HREF="http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/07706b.htm#I3">
<title>Catholic Encyclopedia: Incarnation, The</title>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
<p align=center><a href=http://www.knight.org/cgi-bin/imagemap/advent/na.map><img border=0 alt="New Advent Catholic Supersite" src=../bar.gif ISMAP></a><br><a href=../message.htm><img border=0 src=../message.gif></a></p>
<h1>The Incarnation</h1>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#I">I. The Fact of the Incarnation</a>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#I1">(1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ</a>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#I1a">A. Old Testament Proofs</a>
<dd><a href="#I1b">B. New Testament Proofs</a>
<dd><a href="#I1c">C. Witness of Tradition</a>
</dl>
<dd><a href="#I2">(2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ</a>
<dd><a href="#I3">(3) The Hypostatic Union</a>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#I3a">A. The Witness of the Scriptures</a>
<dd><a href="#I3b">B. Witness of Tradition</a>
</dl>
</dl>
<dd><a href="#II">II. The Nature of the Incarnation</a>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#II1">(1) Nestorianism</a>
<dd><a href="#II2">(2) Monophysitism</a>
<dd><a href="#II3">(3) Monothelitism</a>
<dd><a href="#II4">(4) Catholicism</a>
</dl>
<dd><a href="#III">III. Effects of the Incarnation</a>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#III1">(1) On Christ Himself</a>
<dl>
<dd><a href="#III1a">A. On the Body of Christ</a>
<dd><a href="#III1b">B. On the Human Soul of Christ</a>
<dd><a href="#III1c">C. On the God-Man</a>
</dl>
<dd><a href="#III2">(2) The Adoration of the Humanity of Christ</a>
<dd><a href="#III3">(3) Other Effects of the Incarnation</a>
</dl>
</dl>
<p>The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh. ln
this technical sense the word <i>incarnation</i> was adopted,
during the twelfth century, from the Norman-French, which in turn
had taken the word over from the Latin <i>incarnatio</i>.
The Latin Fathers, from the fourth
century, make common use of the word; so Saints Jerome, Ambrose,
Hilary, etc. The Latin <i>incarnatio</i> (<i>in</i>: <i>caro</i>, flesh)
corresponds to the Greek <i>sarkosis</i>, or
<i>ensarkosis</i>, which words depend on
John (i, 14) <i>kai ho Logos sarx egeneto</i>,
"And the Word was made flesh". These two
terms were in use by the Greek Fathers from the time of St.
Irenaeus--i. e. according to Harnack, A. D. 181-189 (cf.
lren., "Adv. Haer." III, l9, n. i.; Migne, VII, 939). The
verb <i>sarkousthai</i>, to be made flesh, occurs in the creed of the Council
of Nicaea (cf. Denzinger, "Enchiridion", n. 86). In the
language of Holy Writ, flesh means, by synecdoche, human nature
or man (cf. Luke, iii, 6; Rom., iii, 20). Suarez deems the
choice of the word <i>incarnation</i> to have been very apt. Man
is called flesh to emphasize the weaker part of his nature. When
the Word is said to have been incarnate, to have been made Flesh,
the Divine goodness is better expressed whereby God "emptied
Himself . . . and was found in outward bearing (<i>schemati</i>) like a
man" (Phil. ii, 7); He took upon Himself not only the nature of
man, a nature capable of suffering and sickness and death, He
became like a man in all save only sin (cf. Suarez, "De
Incarnatione", Praef. n. 5). The Fathers now and then use
the word <i>henanthropesis</i>, the act of becoming man, to which correspond the
terms <i>inhumanatio</i>, used by some Latin Fathers, and
"Menschwerdung", current in German. The mystery of the
Incarnation is expressed in Scripture by other terms: <i>epilepsis</i>, the
act of taking on a nature (Heb., ii. 16): <i>epiphaneia</i>, appearance (II
Tim., i, 10); <i>phanerosis hen sarki</i>, manifestation in the flesh (I Tim., iii,
16); <i>somatos katartismos</i>, the fitting of a body, what some Latin Fathers call
<i>incorporatio</i> (Heb., x. 5); <i>kenosis</i>, the act of emptying one's
self (Phil., ii, 7). In this article, we shall treat of the fact,
nature and effects of the Incarnation.
<a name="I"><p align="center"><b>I. THE FACT OF THE INCARNATION</b></p></a>
<p>The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The
Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus
Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine
Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.
<a name="I1"><p><b>(1) THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST</b></a>
<p>We presuppose
the historicity, of Jesus Christ,--i. e. that He was a real
person of history (cf. JESUS CHRIST); the Messiahship of Jesus;
the historical worth and authenticity of the Gospels and Acts;
the Divine ambassadorship of Jesus Christ established thereby;
the establishment of an infallible and never failing teaching
body to have and to keep the deposit of revealed truth entrusted
to it by the Divine ambassador, Jesus Christ; the handing down of
all this deposit by tradition and of part thereof by Holy Writ;
the canon and inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures--all these
questions will be found treated in their proper places.
Moreover, we assume that the Divine nature and Divine personality
are one and inseparable (see TRINITY). The aim of this article is
to prove that the historical person, Jesus Christ, is really and
truly God, --i. e. has the nature of God, and is a Divine person.
The Divinity of Jesus Christ is established by the Old Testament,
by the New Testament and by tradition.
<a name="I1a"><p><b>A. Old Testament Proofs</b></a>
<p>The Old Testament proofs of the Divinity of Jesus
presuppose its testimony to Him as the Christ, the Messias (see
MESSIAS). Assuming then, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messias
promised in the Old Testament, from the terms of the promise it
is certain that the One promised is God, is a Divine Person in
the strictest sense of the word, the second Person of the Holy
Trinity, the Son of the Father, One in nature with the Father and
the Holy Spirit. Our argument is cumulative. The texts from the
Old Testament have weight by themselves; taken together with
their fulfilment in the New Testament, and with the testimony of
Jesus and His apostles and His Church, they make up a cumulative
argument in favour of the Divinity of Jesus Christ that is
overwhelming in its force. The Old Testament proofs we draw from
the Psalms, the Sapiential Books and the Prophets.
<p><i>(a) TESTIMONY OF THE PSALMS</i>
<p>Psalm 2:7. "The Lord hath
said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee."
Here Jahweh, i. e., God of Israel, speaks to the promised
Messias. So St. Paul interprets the text (Heb., i, 5) while
proving the Divinity of Jesus from the Psalms. The objection is
raised that St. Paul is here not interpreting but only
accommodating Scripture. He applies the very same words of Ps.
ii, 7 to the priesthood (Heb., v, 5) and to the resurrection
(Acts, xiii, 33) of Jesus; but only in a figurative sense did the
Father beget the Messias in the priesthood and resurrection of
Jesus; hence only in a figurative sense did He beget Jesus as His
Son. We answer that St. Paul speaks figuratively and
accommodates Scripture in the matter of the priesthood and
resurrection but not in the matter of the eternal generation of
Jesus. The entire context of this chapter shows there is a
question of real sonship and real Divinity of Jesus. In the same
verse, St. Paul applies to Christ the words of Jahweh to David,
the type of Christ: "I will be to him a father, and he shall be
to me a son". (II Kings, vii, 14.) In the following verse,
Christ is spoken of as the first-born of the Father, and as the
object of the adoration of the angels; but only God is adored:
"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . Thy God, O God,
hath anointed thee " (Ps. xliv, 7, 8). St. Paul refers these
words to Christ as to the Son of God (Heb., i, 9). We follow the
Massoretic reading, "Thy God, O God". The Septuagint and New
Testament reading, <i>ho theos, ho theos sou</i>, "O God, Thy God", is capable of the
same interpretation. Hence, the Christ is here called God twice;
and his throne, or reign, is said to have been from eternity.
Ps. cix, 1: "The Lord said to my Lord (Heb., Jahweh said to my
Adonai): Sit thou at my right hand". Christ cites this text to
prove that He is Adonai (a Hebrew term used only for Deity),
seated at the right hand of Jahweh, who is invariably the great
God of Israel (Matt., xxii, 44). In the same psalm, Jahweh says
to Christ: "Before the day-star, I begat thee". Hence Christ is
the begotten of 6od; was begotten before the world was, and sits
at the right hand of the heavenly Father. Other Messianic psalms
might be cited to show the clear testimony of these inspired
poems to the Divinity of the promised Messias.
<p><i>(b) TESTIMONY OF THE SAPIENTIAL BOOKS</i>
<p>So clearly do these
Sapiential Books describe uncreated Wisdom as a Divine Person
distinct from the First Person, that rationalists have resort to
a subterfuge and claim that the doctrine of uncreated Wisdom was
taken over by the authors of these books from the Neo-Platonic
philosophy of the Alexandrian school. It is to be noted that in
the pre-sapiential books of the Old Testament, the uncreated
Logos, or <i>hrema</i>, is the active and creative principle of Jahweh
(see Ps. xxxii, 4; xxxii, 6; cxviii, 89; cii, 20; Is., xl, 8; lv,
11). Later the <i>logos</i> became <i>sophia</i>, the uncreated Word became
uncreated Wisdom. To Wisdom were attributed all the works of
creation and Divine Providence (see Job, xxviii, 12: Prov., viii
and ix; Ecclus., i,1; xxiv, 5 to 12; Wis., vi, 21; ix, 9). In
Wis., ix, 1, 2, we have a remarkable instance of the attribution
of God's activity to both the Logos and Wisdom. This
identification of the pre-Mosaic Logos with the Sapiential Wisdom
and the Johannine Logos (see LOGOS) is proof that the
rationalistic subterfuge is not effective. The Sapiential Wisdom
and the Johannine Logos are not an Alexandrian development of the
PIatonic idea, but are a Hebraistic development of the pre-Mosaic
uncreated and creating Logos or Word.
<p>Now for the Sapiential proofs: In Ecclus., xxiv, 7, Wisdom
is described as uncreated, the "first born of the Most High
before all creatures", "from the beginning and before the World
was I made" (ibid., 14). So universal was the identification of
Wisdom with the Christ, that even the Arians concurred with the
Fathers therein; and strove to prove by the word <i>ektise</i>,
<i>made</i> or <i>created</i>, of verse 14, that incarnate Wisdom
was created. The Fathers did not make answer that the word
<i>Wisdom</i> was not to be understood of the Christ, but
explained that the word <i>ektise</i> had here to be interpreted in
keeping with other passages of Holy Writ and not according to its
usual meaning,--that of the Septuagint version of Gen., i, 1. We
do not know the original Hebrew or Aramaic word; it may have been
the same word that occurs in Prov. viii, 22: "The Lord
<i>possessed</i> me (Heb., gat me by generation; see Gen., iv, 1)
in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the
beginning, I was set up from eternity." Wisdom speaking of
itself in the Book of Ecclesiasticus cannot contradict what
Wisdom says of itself in Proverbs and elsewhere. Hence the
Fathers were quite right in explaining <i>ektise</i> not to mean
<i>made</i> or <i>created</i> in any strict sense of the terms (see
St. Athanasius, "Sermo ii contra Arianos", n. 44; Migne, P.
G., XXVI, 239). The Book of Wisdom, also, speaks clearly of
Wisdom as "the worker of all things . . . a certain pure
emanation of the glory of the almighty God . . . the brightness
of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and
the image of his goodness." (Wis., vii, 21-26.) St. Paul
paraphrases this beautiful passage and refers it to Jesus Christ
(Heb., i, 3). It is clear, then, from the text-study of the
books themselves, from the interpretation of these books by St.
Paul, and especially, from the admitted interpretation of the
Fathers and the liturgical uses of the Church, that the
personified wisdom of the Sapiential Books is the uncreated
Wisdom, the incarnate Logos of St. John, the Word hypostatically
united with human nature, Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal
Father. The Sapiential Books prove that Jesus was really and
truly God.
<p><i>(c) TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETIC BOOKS</i>
<p>The prophets clearly
state that the Messias is God. Isaias says: "God Himself will
come and will save you" (xxxv, 4); "Make ready the way of
Jahweh" (xl, 3); "Lo Adonai Jahweh will come with strength" (xl,
10). That Jahweh here is Jesus Christ is clear from the use of
the passage by St. Mark (i 3). The great prophet of Israel
gives the Christ a special and a new Divine name "His name will
be called Emmanuel" (Is., vii, 14). This new Divine name St.
Matthew refers to as fulfilled in Jesus, and interprets to mean
the Divinity of Jesus. "They shall call his name Emmanuel,
@hich, being interpreted, is God with us." (Matt., i, 23.) Also
in ix, 6, Isaias calls the Messias God: "A child is born to us .
. . his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the
Strong One, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of
Peace." Catholics explain that the very same child
is called God the Strong One (ix, 6) and Emmanuel (vii, 14); the
conception of the child is prophesied in the latter verse, the
birth of the very same child is prophesied in the former verse.
The name Emmanuel (God with us) explains the name that we
translate "God the Strong One." It is uncritical and prejudiced
on the part of the rationalists to go outside of lsaias and to
seek in Ezechiel (xxxii, 21) the meaning "mightiest among
heroes" for a word that everywhere else in Isaias is the name of
"God the Strong One" (see Is., x, 21). Theodotion translates
literally <i>theos ischyros</i>; the Septuagint has "messenger". Our
interpretation is that commonly received by Catholics and by
Protestants of the stamp of Delitzsch ("Messianic Prophecies", p.
145). Isaias also calls the Messias the "sprout of Jahweh" (iv,
2), i. e. that which has sprung from Jahweh as the same in nature
with Him. The Messias is "God our King" (Is., 1ii, 7), "the
Saviour sent by our God" (Is., 1ii, 10, where the word for
Saviour is the abstract form of the word for Jesus); "Jahweh the
God of Israel" (Is., lii, 12): "He that hath made thee, Jahweh of
the hosts His name" (Is., liv, 5)".
<p>The other prophets are as clear as Isaias, though not so
detailed, in their foretelling of the Godship of the Messias. To
Jeremias, He is "Jahweh our Just One" (xxiii, 6; also xxxiii,
16). Micheas speaks of the twofold coming of the Child, His
birth in time at Bethlehem and His procession in eternity from
the Father (v, 2). The Messianic value of this text is proved by
its interpretation in Matthew (ii, 6). Zacharias makes Jahweh to
speak of the Messias as "my Companion"; but a companion is on an
equal footing with Jahweh (xiii, 7). Malachias says: "Behold I
send my angel, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and
presently the Lord, whom you seek, and the angel of the
testament, whom you desire, shall come to his temple" (iii, 1).
The messenger spoken of here is certainly St. John the Baptist.
The words of Malachias are interpreted of the Precursor by Our
Lord Himself (Matt., xi, 10). But the Baptist prepared the way
before the face of Jesus Christ. Hence the Christ was the
spokesman of the words of Malachias. But the words of Malachias
are uttered by Jahweh the great God of Israel. Hence the Christ
or Messias and Jahweh are one and the same Divine Person. The
argument is rendered even more forcible by the fact that not only
is the speaker, Jahweh the God of hosts, here one and the same
with the Messias before Whose face the Baptist went: but the
prophecy of the Lord's coming to the Temple applies to the
Messias a name that is ever reserved for Jahweh alone. That name
occurs seven times (Ex., xxiii, 17; xxxiv, 23; Is.,
i, 24; iii, 1; x, 16 and 33; xix, 4) outside of Malachias, and is
clear in its reference to the God of Israel. The last of the
prophets of Israel gives clear testimony that the Messias is the
very God of Israel Himself. This argument from the prophets in
favour of the Divinity of the Messias is most convincing if
received in the light of Christian revelation, in which light we
present it. The cumulative force of the argument is well worked
out in "Christ in Type and Prophecy", by Maas.
<a name="I1b"><p><b>B. New Testament Proofs</b></a>
<p>We shall give the witness of the
Four Evangelists and of St. Paul. The argument from the New
Testament has a cumulative weight that is overwhelming in its
effectiveness, once the inspiration of the New Testament and the
Divine ambassadorship of Jesus are proved (see INSPIRATION;
CHRISTIANITY). The process of the Catholic apologetic and
dogmatic upbuilding is logical and never-failing. The Catholic
theologian first establishes the teaching body to which Christ
gave His deposit of revealed truth, to have and to keep and to
hand down that deposit without error or failure. This teaching
body gives us the Bible; and gives us the dogma of the Divinity
of Christ in the unwritten and the written Word of God, i. e. in
tradition and Scripture. When contrasted with the Protestant
position upon "the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the
Bible"--no, not even anything to tell us what is the Bible and
what is not the Bible--the Catholic position upon the
Christ-established, never-failing, never-erring teaching body is
impregnable. The weakness of the Protestant position is
evidenced in the matter of this very question of the Divinity of
Jesus Christ. The Bible is the one and only rule of faith of
Unitarians, who deny the Divinity of Jesus; of Modernistic
Protestants, who make out His Divinity to be an evolution of His
inner consciousness; of all other Protestants, be their thoughts
of Christ whatsoever they may. The strength of the Catholic
position will be clear to any one who has followed the trend of
Modernism outside the Church and the suppression thereof within
the pale.
<p><i>WITNESS OF THE EVANGELISTS</i>
<p>We here assume the Gospels to
be authentic, historical documents given to us by the Church as
the inspired Word of God. We waive the question of the
dependence of Matthew upon the Logia, the origin of Mark from
"Q", the literary or other dependence of Luke upon Mark; all
these questions are treated in their proper places and do not
belong here in the process of Catholic apologetic and dogmatic
theology. We here argue from the Four Gospels as from the
inspired Word of God. The witness of the Gospels to the Divinity
of Christ is varied in kind.
<p><i>Jesus is the Divine Messias</i>
<p>The Evangelists, as we
have seen, refer to the prophecies of the Divinity of the Messias
as fulfilled in Jesus (see Matt., i, 23; ii, 6: Mark, i, 2: Luke,
vii, 27).
<p><i>Jesus is the Son of God</i>
<p>According to the testimony
of the Evangelists, Jesus Himself bore witness to His Divine
Sonship. As Divine Ambassador He can not have borne false
witness. Firstly, He asked the disciples, at Caesarea
Philippi, "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" (Matt., xvi,
13). This name Son of man was commonly used by the Saviour in
regard to Himself; it bore testimony to His human nature and
oneness with us. The disciples made answer that others said He
was one of the prophets. Christ pressed them. "But whom do you
say that I am? "(ibid., 15). Peter, as spokesman, replied: "Thou
art Christ, the Son of the living God" (ibid., 16). Jesus was
satisfied with this answer; it set Him above all the prophets
who were the <i>adopted</i> sons of God; it made Him the
<i>natural</i> Son of God. The adopted Divine sonship of all the
prophets Peter had no need of special revelation to know. This
natural Divine Sonship was made known to the leader of the
Apostles only by a special revelation. "Flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" (ibid., 17).
Jesus clearly assumes this important title in the specially
revealed and altogether new sense. He admits that He is the Son
of God in the real sense of the word.
<p>Secondly, we find that He allowed others to give Him this
title and to show by the act of real adoration that they meant
real Sonship. The possessed fell down and <i>adored</i> Him, and
the unclean spirits cried out: "Thou art the Son of God" (Mark,
iii, 12). After the stilling of the storm at sea, His disciples
<i>adored</i> Him and said: "Indeed thou art the Son of God "(Matt.,
xiv, 33). Nor did He suggest that they erred in that they gave
Him the homage due to God alone. The centurion on Calvary
(Matt., xxvii, 54; Mark, xv, 39), the Evangelist St. Mark (i, 1),
the hypothetical testimony of Satan (Matt., iv, 3) and of the
enemies of Christ (Matt., xxvii, 40) all go to show that Jesus
was called and esteemed the Son of God. Jesus Himself clearly
assumed the title. He constantly spoke of God as "My Father"
(Matt., vii, 21; x, 32; xi, 27; xv, 13; xvi, 17, etc.).
<p>Thirdly, the witness of Jesus to His Divine Sonship is clear
enough in the Synoptics, as we see from the foregoing argument
and shall see by the exegesis of other texts; but is perhaps even
more evident in John. Jesus indirectly but clearly assumes the
title when He says: "Do you say of him whom the Father hath
sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I
said, I am the Son of God? . . . the Father is in me and I in
the Father." (John, x, 36, 38.) An even clearer witness is given
in the narrative of the cure of the blind man in Jerusalem.
Jesus said: "Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" He answered,
and said: "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? And Jesus
said to him: Thou hast both seen him; and it is he that talketh
with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down, he
adored him." (John, ix, 35-38.) Here as elsewhere, the act of
adoration is allowed, and the implicit assent is in this wise
given to the assertion of the Divine Sonship of Jesus.
<p>Fourthly, likewise to His enemies, Jesus made undoubted
profession of His Divine Sonship in the real and not the
figurative sense of the word; and the Jews understood Him to say
that He was really God. His way of speaking had been somewhat
esoteric. He spoke often in parables. He willed then, as He
wills now, that faith be "the evidence of things that appear not"
(Heb., xi, 1). The Jews tried to catch Him, to make Him speak
openly. They met Him in the portico of Solomon and said: "How
long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the
Christ, tell us plainly" (John, x, 24). The answer of Jesus is
typical. He puts them off for a while; and in the end tells them
the tremendous truth: "I and the Father are one" (John, x, 30).
They take up stones to kill Him. He asks why. He makes them
admit that they have understood Him aright. They answer: "For a
good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that
thou, being a man makest thyself God" (ibid., 33). These same
enemies had clear statement of the claim of Jesus on the last
night that He spent on earth. Twice He appeared before the
Sanhedrim, the highest authority of the enslaved Jewish nation.
The first times the high priest, Caiphas, stood up and demanded:
"I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be
the Christ the Son of God " (Matt., xxvi, 63). Jesus had before
held His peace. Now His mission calls for a reply. "Thou hast
said <i>it</i>" (ibid., 64). The answer was likely--in Semitic
fashion--a repetition of the question with a tone of affirmation
rather than of interrogation. St. Matthew reports that answer in
a way that might leave some doubt in our minds, had we not St.
Mark's report of the very same answer. According to St. Mark,
Jesus replies simply and clearly: "I am" (Mark, xiv, 62). The
context of St. Matthew clears up the difficulty as to the meaning
of the reply of Jesus. The Jews understood Him to make Himself
the equal of God. They probably laughed and jeered at His claim.
He went on: 'Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see
the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and
coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt., xxvi, 64). Caiphas rent
his garments and accused Jesus of blasphemy. All joined in
condemning Him to death for the blasphemy whereof they accused
Him. They clearly understood Him to make claim to be the real
Son of God; and He allowed them so to understand Him, and to put
Him to death for this understanding and rejection of His claim.
It were to blind one's self to evident truth to deny the force of
this testimony in favour of the thesis that Jesus made claim to
be the real Son of God. The second appearance of Jesus before
the Sanhedrim was like to the first; a second time He was asked
to say clearly: " Art thou then the Son of God? " He made reply:
"You say that I am." They understood Him to lay claim to
Divinity. " What need we any further testimony? for we ourselves
have heard it from his own mouth" (Luke, xxii, 70, 71). This
twofold witness is especially important, in that it is made
before the great Sanhedrim, and in that it is the cause of the
sentence of death. Before Pilate, the Jews put forward a mere
pretext at first. "We have found this man perverting our nation,
and forbidding to give tribute to Cwsar, and saying that he is
Christ the king" (Luke, xxiii, 2). What was the result? Pilate
found no cause of death in Him! The Jews seek another pretext.
"He stirreth up the people . . . from Galilee to this place"
(ibid., 5). This pretext fails. Pilate refers the case of
sedition to Herod. Herod finds the charge of sedition not worth
his serious consideration. Over and again the Jews come to the
front with a new subterfuge. Over and again Pilate finds no
cause in Him. At last the Jews give their real cause against
Jesus. In that they said He made Himself a king and stirred up
sedition and refused tribute to Caesar, they strove to make
it out that he violated Roman law. Their real cause of complaint
was not that Jesus violated Roman law; but that they branded Him
as a violator of the Jewish law. How? "We have a law; and
according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself
the Son of God (John, xix, 7). The charge was most serious; it
caused even the Roman governor "to fear the more." What law is
here referred to? There can be no doubt. It is the dread law of
Leviticus: "He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let
him die: all the multitude shall stone him, whether he be a
native or a stranger. He that blasphemeth the name of the Lord
dying let him die " (Lev., xxiv, 17). By virtue of this law, the
Jews were often on the very point of stoning Jesus; by virtue of
this law, they often took Him to task for blasphemy whensoever He
made Himself the Son of God; by virtue of this same law, they now
call for His death. It is simply out of the question that these
Jews had any intention of accusing Jesus of the assumption of
that adopted sonship of God which every Jew had by blood and
every prophet had had by special free gift of God's grace.
<p>Fifthly, we may only give a summary of the other uses of
thee title Son of God in regard to Jesus. The angel Gabriel
proclaims to Mary that her son will "be called the Son of the
most High" (Luke, i, 32); "the Son of God" (Luke, i, 35); St.
John speaks of Him as "the only begotten of the Father" (John, i,
14); at the Baptism of Jesus and at His Transfiguration, a voice
from heaven cries: "This is my beloved son" (Matt., iii, 17;
Mark, i, 11; Luke, iii, 22; Matt., xvii., 3); St. John gives it
as his very set purpose, in his Gospel, "that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John, xx, 31).
<p>Sixthly, in the testimony of John, Jesus identifies Himself
absolutely with the Divine Father. According to John, Jesus
says: "he that seeth me seeth the Father" (ibid., xiv, 9). St.
Athanasius links this clear testimony to the other witness of
John "I and the Father are one" (ibid., x, 30); and thereby
establishes the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. St.
John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same sense. A last
proof from John is in the words that bring his first Epistle to a
close: "We know that the Son of God is come: and He hath given us
understanding that we may know the true God, and may be in his
true Son. This is the true God and life eternal" (I John, v,
20). No one denies that "the Son of God" who is come is Jesus
Christ. This Son of God is the "true Son" of "the true God"; in
fact, this true son of the True God, i. e. Jesus, is the true God
and is life eternal. Such is the exegesis of this text given by
all the Fathers that have interpreted it (see Corluy,
"Spicilegium Dogmatico-Biblicum", ed. Gandavi, 1884, II, 48).
All the Fathers that have either interpreted or cited this text,
refer <i>outos</i> to Jesus, and interpret "Jesus is the true God and
life eternal." The objection is raised that the phrase "true
God" (<i>ho alethisnos theos</i>) always refers, in John, to the Father. Yes,
the phrase is consecrated to the Father, and is here used
precisely on that account, to show that the Father who is, in
this very verse, first called "the true God", is one with the Son
Who is second called "the true God" in the very same verse. This
interpretation is carried out by the grammatical analysis of the
phrase; the pronoun <i>this</i> (<i>outos</i>) refers of necessity to the
noun near by, i. e. His true Son Jesus Christ. Moreover, the
Father is never called "life eternal" by John; whereas the term
is often given by him to the Son (John, xi, 25; xiv, 6: I John,
i, 2; v, 11-12). These citations prove beyond a doubt that the
Evangelists bear witness to the real and natural Divine Sonship
of Jesus Christ.
<p>Outside the Catholic Church, it is today the mode to try to
explain away all these uses of the phrase Son of God, as if,
forsooth, they meant not the Divine Sonship of Jesus, but
presumably His sonship by adoption--a sonship due either to His
belonging to the Jewish race or derived from His Messiahship.
Against both explanations stand our arguments; against the latter
explanation stands the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament is
the term Son of God given as a name peculiar to the Messias. The
advanced Protestants of this twentieth century are not satisfied
with this latter and wornout attempt to explain away the assumed
title Son of God. To them it means only that Jesus was a Jew (a
fact that is now denied by Paul Haupt). We now have to face the
strange anomaly of ministers of Christianity who deny that Jesus
was Christ. Formerly it was considered bold in the Unitarian to
call himself a Christian and to deny the Divinity of Jesus; now
"ministers of the Gospel" are found to deny that Jesus is the
Christ, the Messias (see articles in the Hibbert Journal for
1909, by Reverend Mr. Roberts, also the articles collected under
the title " Jesus or Christ? "Boston, 19m). Within the pale of
the Church, too, there were not wanting some who followed the
trend of Modernism to such an extent as to admit that in
certain passages, the term "Son of God" in its application to
Jesus, presumably meant only adopted sonship of God. Against
these writers was issued the condemnation of the proposition: "In
all the texts of the Gospels, the name Son of God is merely the
equivalent of the name Messias, and does not in any wise mean
that Christ is the true and natural Son of God" (see decree
"Lamentabili", S. Off., 3-4 July, 1907, proposition xxxii). This
decree does not affirm even implicitly that every use of the name
"Son of God" in the Gospels means true and natural Sonship of
God. Catholic theologians generally defend the proposition
whenever, in the Gospels, the name "Son of God" is used in the
singular number, absolutely and without any additional
explanation, as a proper name of Jesus, it invariably means true
and natural Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ (see Billot, "De Verbo
Incarnato," 1904, p. 529). Corluy, a very careful student of the
original texts and of the versions of the Bible, declared that,
whenever the title Son of God is given to Jesus in the New
Testament, this title has the inspired meaning of natural Divine
Sonship; Jesus is by this title said to have the same nature and
substance as the Heavenly Father (see "Spicilegium", II, p. 42).
<p><i>Jesus is God</i>
<p>St. John affirms in plain words that
Jesus is God. The set purpose of the aged disciple was to teach
the Divinity of Jesus in the Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse
that he has left us; he was aroused to action against the first
heretics that bruised the Church. "They went out from us, but
they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no
doubt have remained with us" (I John, ii, 19). They did not
confess Jesus Christ with that confession which they had
obligation to make (I John, iv, 3). John's Gospel gives us the
clearest confession of the Divinity of Jesus. We may translate
from the original text: "In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was in relation to God and the Word was God" (John i, 1).
The words <i>ho theos</i> (with the article) mean, in Johannine Greek, the
Father. The expression <i>pros ton theon</i> reminds one forcibly of Aristotle's
<i>to pros ti einai</i>. This Aristotelian way of expressing relation found its
like in the Platonic, Neo-Platonic, and Alexandrian philosophy;
and it was the influence of this Alexandrian philosophy in
Ephesus and elsewhere that John set himself to combat. It was,
then, quite natural that John adopted some of the phraseology of
his enemies, and by the expression <i>ho logos en pros ton theon</i> gave forth the mystery
of the relation of Father with Son: "the Word stood in relation
to the Father", i. e., even in the beginning. At any rate the
clause <i>theos en ho logos</i> means "the Word was God". This meaning is driven
home, in the irresistibIe logic of St. John, by the following
verse: "All things were made by him." The Word, then, is the
Creator of all things and is true God. Who is the Word! It was
made flesh and dwelt with us in the flesh (verse 14); and of this
Word John the Baptist bore witness (verse 15). But certainly it
was Jesus, according to John the Evangelist, Who dwelt with us in
the flesh and to Whom the Baptist bore witness. Of Jesus the
Baptist says: "This is he, of whom I said: After me there cometh
a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me"
(verse 30). This testimony and other passages of St. John's
Gospel are so clear that the modern rationalist takes refuge from
their forcefulness in the assertion that the entire Gospel is a
mystic contemplation and no fact-narrative at all (see JOHN,
GOSPEL OF SAINT). Catholics may not hold this opinion denying
the historicity of John. The Holy Office, in the Decree
"Lamentabili", condemned the following proposition: "The
narrations of John are not properly speaking history but a mystic
contemplation of the Gospel: the discourses contained in his
Gospel are theological meditations on the mystery of salvation
and are destitute of historical truth." (See prop. xvi.)
<p><i>(b) WITNESS OF ST. PAUL</i>
<p>It is not the set purpose of St.
Paul, outside of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove the
Divinity of Jesus Christ. The great Apostle takes this
fundamental principle of Christianity for granted. Yet so clear
is the witness of Paul to this fact of Christ's Divinity, that
the Rationalists and rationalistic Lutherans of Germany have
strived to get away from the forcefulness of the witness of the
Apostle by rejecting his form of Christianity as not conformable
to the Christianity of Jesus. Hence they cry: "Los von Paulus,
zurück zu Christus"; that is, "Away from Paul, back to
Christ" (see J¨licher, Paulus und Christus", ed. Mohr,
1909). We assume the historicity of the Epistles of Paul; to a
Catholic, the Christianity of St. Paul is one and the same with
the Christianity of Christ. (See PAUL, SAINT). To the Romans,
Paul writes: "God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful
flesh and of sin" (viii, 3). His Own Son (<i>ton heautou</i>) the Father
sends, not a Son by adoption. The angels are by adoption the
children of God; they participate in the Father's nature by the
free gifts He has bestowed upon them. Not so the Own Son of the
Father. As we have seen, He is more the offspring of the Father
than are the angels. How more? In this that He is adored as the
Father is adored; the angels are not adored. Such is Paul's
argument in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Therefore, in St. Paul's theology, the Father's Own Son, Whom the
angels adore, Who was begotten in the today of eternity, Who was
sent by the Father, clearly existed before His appearance in the
Flesh, and is, in point of fact, the great "I am who am",--the
Jahweh Who spoke to Moses on Horeb. This identification of the
Christ with Jahweh would seem to be indicated, when St. Paul
speaks of Christ as <i>ho
on epi panton theos</i>, "who is over all things, God blessed
for ever" (Rom., ix, 5). This interpretation and punctuation are
sanctioned by all the Fathers that have used the text; all refer
to Christ the words "He who is God over all". Petavius (De
Trin., 11, 9, n. 2) cites fifteen, among whom are Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose,
Augustine, and Hilary. The Peshitta has the same translation as
we have given. Alford, Trench, Westcott and Hort, and most
Protestants are at one with us in this interpretation.
<p>This identification of the Christ with Jahweh is clearer in
the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Christ is said to have
been Jahweh of the Exodus. "And all drank the same spiritual
drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them,
and the rock was Christ)" (x, 4). It was Christ Whom some of the
Israelites "tempted, and (they) perished by the serpents" (x,
10); it was Christ against Whom "some of them murmured, and were
destroyed by the destroyer" (x, 11). St. Paul takes over the
Septuagint translation of Jahweh <i>ho kyrios</i>, and makes this title
distinctive of Jesus. The Colossians are threatened with the
deception of philosophy (ii, 8). St. Paul reminds them that they
should think according to Christ; "for in him dwelleth the
fulness of the Godhead (<i>pleroma tes theotetos</i>) corporeally" (ii, 9); nor should
they go so low as give to angels, that they see not, the
adoration that is due only to Christ (ii, 18, 19). "For in Him
were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or
powers; all things were created by Him and for Him" (<i>eis auton</i>). He
is the cause and the end of all things, even of the angels whom
the Colossians are so misguided as to prefer to Him (i, 16). The
cultured Macedonians of Philippi are taught that in "the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on
earth, and under the earth; and that every tongue should confess
that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father"
(ii, 10, 11). This is the very same genuflexion and confession
that the Romans are bidden to make to the Lord and the Jews to
Jahweh (see Rom., xiv, 6; Is., xiv, 24). The testimony of St.
Paul could be given at much greater length. These texts are only
the chief among many others that bear Paul's witness to the
Divinity of Jesus Christ.
<a name="I1c"><p><b>C. Witness of Tradition</b></a>
<p>The two main sources wherefrom we
draw our information as to tradition, or the unwritten Word of
God, are the Fathers of the Church and the general councils.
<p><i>(a) THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH</i>
<p>The Fathers are practically unanimous in explicitly
teaching the Divinity of Jesus Christ. The testimony of many has
been given in our exegesis of the dogmatic texts that prove the
Christ to be God. It would take over-much space to cite the
Fathers adequately. We shall confine ourselves to those of the
Apostolic and apologetic ages. By joining these testimonies to
those of the Evangelists and St. Paul, we can see clearly that
the Holy Office was right in condemning these propositions of
Modernism: "The Divinity of Christ is not proven by the Gospels
but is a dogma that the Christian conscience has evolved from the
notion of a Messiah. It may be taken for granted that the Christ
Whom history shows us is much inferior to the Christ Who is the
object of Faith" (see prop. xxvii and xxix of Decree
"Lamentabili").
<p><i>The Fathers Themselves</i>
<p>St. Clement of Rome (A. D. 93-95, according to
Harnack), in his first epistle to the Corinthians, xvi, 2, speaks
of "The Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the Might of God"
(Funk, " Patres Apostolici", T¨bingen ed., 1901, p. 118),
and describes, by quoting Is., 1ii, 1-12, the humiliation that
was foretold and came to pass in the self-immolation of Jesus.
As the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are very scant, and not
at all apologetic but rather devotional and exhortive, we should
not look in them for that clear and plain defence of the Divinity
of Christ which is evidenced in the writings of the apologists
and later Fathers.
<p>The witness of St. Ignatius of
Antioch (A. D. 110-117, according to Harnack) is almost that of
the apologetic age, in whose spirit he seems to have written to
the Ephesians. It may well be that at Ephesus the very same
heresies were now doing havoc which about ten years before or,
according to Harnack's chronology, at the very same time, St.
John had written his Gospel to undo. If this be so, we
understand the bold confession of the Divinity of Jesus Christ
which this grand confessor of the Faith brings into his
greetings, at the beginning of his letter to the Ephesians.
"Ignatius . . . . to the Church . . . which is at Ephesus . . . .
in the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ <i>Our God
(tou theou hemon</i>)." He says: "The Physician in One, of the Flesh and of
the Spirit, begotten and not begotten, who was <i>God in Flesh
(en sarki genomenos theos</i>) . . . Jesus Christ Our Lord" (c. vii; Funk, I, 218).
"For <i>Our God</i> Jesus Christ was borne in the womb by Mary"
(c. xviii, 2; Funk, I, 226). To the Romans he writes: "For
<i>Our God</i> Jesus Christ, abiding in the Father, is manifest
even the more" (c. iii, 3; Funk, 1, 256).
<p>The witness of
the Letter of Barnabas:
"Lo, again, Jesus is not the Son of man but the Son of God, made
manifest in form in the Flesh. And since men were going to say
that the Christ was the Son of David, David himself, fearing and
understanding the malice of the wicked, made prophecy: The Lord
said to my Lord . . . . . Lo, how David calls Him the Lord and
not son" (c. xiii; Funk, I, 77).
<p>In the apologetic age,
Saint Justin Martyr (Harnack. A. D. 150) wrote: "Since the Word
is the first-born of God, He is also God" (Apol. I, n. 63; P. G.,
VI, 423). It is evident from the context that Justin means Jesus
Christ by the Word; he had just said that Jesus was the Word
before He became Man, and used to appear in the form of fire or
of some other incorporeal image. St. Irenaeus
proves that Jesus Christ is rightly called the one and
only God and Lord, in that all things are said to have been made
by Him (see "Adv. Haer.", III, viii, n. 3; P. G., VII, 868;
bk. IV, 10, 14, 36). Deutero-Clement (Harnack, A. D. 166;
Sanday, A. D. 150) insists: "Brethren, we should think of Jesus
Christ as of God Himself, as of the Judge of the living and the
dead" (see Funk, I, 184). St. Clement of Alexandria (Sanday, A.
D. 190) speaks of Christ as "true God without any controversy,
the equal of the Lord of the whole universe, since He is the Son
and the Word is in God" (Cohortatio ad Gentes, c. x; P. G., VIII,
227).
<p><i>Pagan Writers</i>
<p>To the witness of these Fathers of the Apostolic and
apologetic age, we add a few witnesses from the contemporary
pagan writers. Pliny (A. D. 107) wrote to Trajan that the
Christians were wont before the light of day to meet and to sing
praises "to Christ as to God" (Epist., x, 97). The Emperor
Hadrian (A. D. 117) wrote to Servianus that many Egyptians had
become Christians, and that converts to Christianity were "forced
to adore Christ", since He was their God (see Saturninus, c.
vii). Lucian scoffs at the Christians because they had been
persuaded by Christ "to throw over the gods of the Greeks and to
adore Him fastened to a cross" (De Morte Peregrini, 13). Here
also may be mentioned the well-known <i>graffito</i> that
caricatures the worship of the Crucified as God. This important
contribution to archaeology was found, in 1857, on a wall
of the Paedagogium, an inner part of the Domus Gelotiana of
the Palatine, and is now in the Kircher Museum, Rome. After the
murder of Caligula (A. D. 41) this inner part of the Domus
Gelotiana became a training-school for court pages, called the
Paedagogium (see Lanciani, "Ruins and Excavations of Ancient
Rome", ed. Boston, 1897, p. 186). This fact and the language of
the graffito lead one to surmise that the page who mocked at the
religion of one of his fellows has so become an important witness
to the Christian adoration of Jesus as God in the first or, at
the very latest, the second century. The <i>graffito</i>
represents the Christ on a cross and mockingly gives Him an ass's
head; a page is rudely scratched kneeling and with hands
outstretched in the attitude of prayer; the inscription is
"Alexamenos worships his God" (<i>Alexamenos sebetai ton theon</i>).
In the second century,
too, Celsus arraigns the Christians precisely on this account
that they think God was made man (see Origen, "Contra Celsum",
IV, 14; P. G., XI, 1043). Aristides wrote to the Emperor
Antonius Pius (A. D. 138-161) what seems to have been an apology
for the Faith of Christ: "He Himself is called the Son of God;
and they teach of Him that He as God came down from heaven and
took and put on Flesh of a Hebrew virgin" (see "Theol.
Quartalschrift", Tübingen, 1892, p. 535).
<p><i>(b) WITNESS OF THE COUNCILS</i>
<p>The first general council of
the Church was called to define the Divinity of Jesus Christ and
to condemn Arius and his error (see ARIUS). Previous to this
time, heretics had denied this great and fundamental dogma of the
Faith; but the Fathers had been equal to the task of refuting the
error and of stemming the tide of heresy. Now the tide of heresy
was so strong as to have need of the authority of the universal
Church to withstand it. In his "Thalia", Arius taught that the
Word was not eternal (<i>en pote ote ouk en</i>) nor generated of the Father, but
made out of nothing (<i>ex ouk onton hehonen ho logos</i>); and though it was before the world
was, yet it was a thing made, a created thing (<i>poiema</i> or <i>ktisis</i>).
Against this bold heresy, the Council of Nicaea (325)
defined the dogma of the Divinity: of Christ in the clearest
terms: "We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, the Only-begotten, generated of the Father (<i>hennethenta ek tou patros monogene</i>), that is,
of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, True
God of True God, begotten not made, the same in nature with the
Father (<i>homoousion to patri</i>) by Whom all things were made" (see Denzinger, 54).
<a name="I2"><p><b>(2) THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST</b></a>
<p>The Gnostics
taught that matter was of its very nature evil, somewhat as the
present-day Christian scientists teach that it is an "error of
mortal mind"; hence Christ as God could not have had a material
body, and His body was only apparent. These heretics, called
<i>doketae</i> included Basilides, Marcion, the Manichaeans, and others.
Valentinus and others admitted that Jesus had a body, but a
something heavenly and ethereal; hence Jesus was not born of
Mary, but His airy body passed through her virgin body. The
Apollinarists admitted that Jesus had an ordinary body, but
denied Him a human soul; the Divine nature took the place of the
rational mind. Against all these various forms of the heresy
that denies Christ is true Man stand countless and clearest
testimonies of the written and unwritten Word of God. The title
that is characteristic of Jesus in the New Testament is Son of
Man; it occurs some eighty times in the Gospels; it was His Own
accustomed title for Himself. The phrase is Aramaic, and would
seem to be an idiomatic way of saying "man". The life and death
and resurrection of Christ would all be a lie were He not a man,
and our Faith would be vain. (I Cor., xv, 14). "For there is one
God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I
Tim., ii, 5). Why, Christ even enumerates the parts of His Body.
"See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle and see: for
a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have" (Luke,
xxiv, 39). St. Augustine says, in this matter: "If the Body of
Christ was a fancy, then Christ erred; and if Christ erred, then
He is not the Truth. But Christ is the Truth; hence His Body was
not a fancy' (QQ. lxxxiii, q. 14; P. L., XL, 14). In regard to
the human soul of Christ, the Scripture is equally clear. Only a
human soul could have been sad and troubled. Christ says: "My
soul is sorrowful even unto death" (Matt., xxvi, 38). "Now is my
soul troubled" (John, xii, 27). His obedience to the heavenly
Father and to Mary and Joseph supposes a human soul (John, iv,
34; v, 30; vi, 38; Luke, xxii, 42). Finally Jesus was really
born of Mary (Matt., i, 16), made of a woman (Gal., iv, 4), after
the angel had promised that He should be conceived of Mary (Luke,
i, 31); this woman is called the mother of Jesus (Matt., i, 18;
ii, 11; Luke, i, 43; John, ii, 3); Christ is said to be really
the seed of Abraham (Gal., iii, 16), the son of David (Matt., i,
1), made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom., i,
3), and the fruit of the loins of David (Acts, ii, 30). So clear
is the testimony of Scripture to the perfect human nature of
Jesus Christ, that the Fathers held it as a general principle
that whatsoever the Word had not assumed was not healed, i. e.,
did not receive the effects of the Incarnation.
<a name="I3"><p><b>(3) THE HYPOSTATIC UNION OF THE DIVINE NATURE AND THE
HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS IN THE DIVINE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST</b></a>
<p>Here we consider this union as a fact; the nature of the union will be
later taken up. Now it is our purpose to prove that the Divine
nature was really and truly united with the human nature of
Jesus, i. e., that one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, was God
and man. We speak here of no moral union, no union in a
figurative sense of the word; but a union that is physical, a
union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person, a
union which means that God is Man and Man is God in the Person of
Jesus Christ.
<a name="I3a"><p><b>A. The Witness of Holy Writ</b></a>
<p>St. John says: "The Word was
made flesh" (i, 14), that is, He Who was God in the Beginning (i,
2), and by Whom all things were created (i. 3), became Man.
According to the testimony of St. Paul, the very same Person,
Jesus Christ, "being in the form of God [<i>en morphe Theou hyparxon</i>]
. . . emptied
himself, taking the form of a servant [<i>morphen doulou labon</i>]" (Phil., ii, 6, 7).
It is always one and the same Person, Jesus Christ, Who is said
to be God and Man, or is given predicates that denote Divine and
human nature. The author of life (God) is said to have been
killed by the Jews (Acts, iii, 15); but He could not have been
killed were He not Man.
<a name="I3b"><p><b>B. Witness of Tradition</b></a>
<p>The early forms of the creed all
make profession of faith, not in one Jesus Who is the Son of God
and in another Jesus Who is Man and was crucified, but "in one
Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Who became Man
for us and was crucified". The forms vary, but the substance of
each creed invariably attributes to one and the same Jesus Christ
the predicates of the Godhead and of man (see Denzinger,
"Enchiridion"). Franzelin (thesis xvii) calls special attention
to the fact that, long before the heresy of Nestorius, according
to Epiphanius (Ancorat., II, 123, in P. G., XLII, 234), it was
the custom of the Oriental Church to propose to catechumens a
creed that was very much more detailed than that proposed to the
faithful; and in this creed the catechumens said: "We believe . .
. in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the
Father . . . that is, of the substance of the Father . . . in Him
Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made
Flesh, that is, was perfectly begotten of Mary ever Virgin by the
Holy Spirit; Who became Man, that is, took perfect human nature,
soul and body and mind and all whatsoever is human save only sin,
without the seed of man; not in another man, but unto himself did
He form Flesh into one holy unity [<i>eis mian hagian henoteta</i>];
not as He breathed and
spoke and wrought in the prophets, but He became Man perfectly;
for the Word was made Flesh, not in that It underwent a change
nor in that It exchanged Its Divinity for humanity, but in that
It united Its Flesh unto Its one holy totality and Divinity
[<i>eis mian . . . heautou hagian teleioteta te kai theoteta</i>].'
"The one holy totality", Franzelin considers, means
personality, a person being an individual and complete subject of
rational acts. This creed of the catechumens gives even the
Divinity of the totality, i. e. the fact that the individual
Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person. Of this
intricate question we shall speak later on.
<p>The witness of tradition to the fact of the union of the two
natures in the one Person of Jesus is clear not only from the
symbols or creeds in use before the condemnation of Nestorius,
but also from the words of the ante-Nicaean Fathers. We
have already given the classic quotations from St. Ignatius the
Martyr, St. Clement of Rome, St. Justin the Martyr, in all of
which are attributed to the one Person, Jesus Christ, the actions
or attributes of God and of Man. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (about
176), says: "Since the same (Christ) was at the same time God and
perfect Man, He made His two natures evident to us; His Divine
nature by the miracles which He wrought during the three years
after His baptism; His human nature by those thirtv years that He
first lived, during which the lowliness of the Flesh covered over
and hid away all signs of the Divinity, though He was at one and
the same time true and everlasting God" (Frag. vii in P. G., V,
1221). St. Irenaeus, toward the close of the second
century, argues: "If one person suffered and another Person
remained incapable of suffering; if one person was born and
another Person came down upon him that was born and thereafter
left him, not one person but two are proven . . . whereas the
Apostle knew one only Who was born and Who suffered" ("Adv.
Haer.", III, xvi, n, 9, in P. G., VII, 928). Tertullian
bears firm witness: "Was not God really crucified? Did He not
realiy die as He really was crucified?" ("De Carne Christi", c.
v, in P. L., II, 760).
<a name="II"><p align="center"><b>II. THE NATURE OF THE INCARNATION</b></p></a>
<p>We have treated the fact
of the Incarnation, that is, the fact of the Divine nature of
Jesus, the fact of the human nature of Jesus, the fact of the
union of these two natures in Jesus. We now take up the crucial
question of the nature of this fact, the manner of this
tremendous miracle, the way of uniting the Divine with the human
nature in one and the same Person. Arius had denied the fact of
this union. No other heresy rent and tore the body of the Church
to any very great extent in the matter of this fact after the
condemnation of Arius in the Council of Nicaea (325). Soon
a new heresy arose in the explanation of the fact of the union of
the two natures in Christ. Nicaea had, indeed, defined the
fact of the union; it had not explicitly defined the nature of
that fact; it had not said whether that union was moral or
physical. The council had implicitly defined the union of the
two natures in one hypostasis, a union called physical in
opposition to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the two
natures called a moral union. Nicaea had professed a
belief in "One Lord Jesus Christ . . . true God of true God . . .
Who took Flesh, became Man and suffered". This belief was in one
Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the
same time Divine and human nature. Such teaching was an implicit
definition of all that was later on denied by Nestorius. We
shall find the great Athanasius, for fifty years the determined
foe of the heresiarch, interpreting Nicaea's decree in just
this sense; and Athanasius must have known the sense meant by
Nicaea, in which he was the antagonist of the heretic
Arius.
<a name="II1"><p><b>(1) NESTORIANISM</b></a>
<p>In spite of the efforts of Athanasius, Nestorius, who
had been elected Patriarch of Constantinople (428), found a
loophole to avoid the definition of Nicaea. Nestorius (q.
v.) called the union of the two natures a mysterious and an
inseparable joining (<i>symapheian</i>), but would admit no unity
(<i>enosin</i>) in
the strict sense of the word to be the result of this joining
(see " Serm.", ii, n. 4; xii, n. 2, in P. L., XLVIII). The union
of the two natures is not physical (<i>physike</i>) but moral, a mere
juxtaposition in state of being (<i>schetike</i>); the Word indwells in
Jesus like as God indwells in the just (loc. cit.); the
indwelling of the Word in Jesus is, however, more excellent than
the indwelling of God in the just man by grace, for that the
indwelling of the Word purposes the Redemption of all mankind and
the most perfect manifestation of the Divine activity (Serm. vii,
n. 24); as a consequence, Mary is the Mother of Christ (<i>Christotokos</i>),
not the Mother of God (<i>Theotokos</i>). As is usual in these Oriental
heresies, the metaphysical refinement of Nestorius was faulty,
and led him into a practical denial of the mystery that he had
set himself to explain. During the discussion that Nestorius
aroused, he strove to explain that his indwelling (<i>enoikesis</i>) theory
was quite enough to keep him within the demands of Nicaea;
he insisted that "the Man Jesus should be co-adored with the
Divine union and almighty God [<i>ton te theia symapheia to
pantokratori theo symproskynoumenon anthropon</i>] "(Serm., vii, n. 35); he
forcibly denied that Christ was two persons, but proclaimed Him
as one person (<i>prosopon</i>) made up of two substances. The oneness of
the Person was however only moral, and not at all physical.
Despite whatsoever Nestorius said as a pretext to save himself
from the brand of heresy, he continually and explicitly denied
the hypostatic union (<i>enosin kath hypostasin, kata physin, kat ousian</i>),
that union of physical entities and
of substances which the Church defends in Jesus; he affirmed a
juxtaposition in authority, dignity, energy, relation, and state
of being (<i>synapheia kat authentian, axian, energeian,
anaphoran, schesin</i>);
and he maintained that the Fathers of
Nicaea had nowhere said that God was born of the Virgin
Mary (Sermo, v, nn. 5 and 6).
<p>Nestorius in this distortion of the sense of Nicaea
clearly went against the tradition of the Church. Before he had
denied the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus, that
union had been taught by the greatest Fathers of their time. St.
Hippolytus (about 230) taught: "the Flesh [<i>sarx</i>] apart from the
Logos had no hypostasis [<i>oude . . . hypostanai edynato</i>, was unable to act as principle of
rational activity], for that its hypostasis was in the Word"
("Contra Noet.", n. 15, in P. G., X, 823). St. Epiphanius (about
365): "The Logos united body, mind, and soul into one totality
and spiritual hypostasis" ("Haer.", xx, n. 4, in P. G.,
XLI, 277). "The Logos made the Flesh to subsist in the
hypostasis of the Logos [<i>eis heauton hypostesanta ten sarka</i>]"
("Haer.", cxxvii, n. 29,
in P. G., XLII, 684). St. Athanasius (about 350): "They err who
say that it is one person who is the Son that suffered, and
another person who did not suffer ... ; the Flesh became God's
own by nature [<i>kata physin</i>], not that it became consubstantial with the
Divinity of the Logos as if coeternal therewith, but that it
became God's own Flesh by its very nature [<i>kata physin</i>]." In this
entire discourse ("Contra Apollinarium", I, 12, in P. G., XXVI,
1113), St. Athanasius directly attacks the specious pretexts of
the Arians and the arguments that Nestorius later took up,and
defends the union of two physical natures in Christ [<i>kata physin</i>], as
apposed to the mere juxtaposition or joining of the same natures
[<i>kata physin</i>]. St. Cyril of Alexandria (about 415) makes use of this
formula oftener even than the other Fathers; he calls Christ
"the Word of the Father united in nature with the Flesh [<i>ton ek theou Patros
Logon kata physin henothenta sarki</i>]
("De Recta Fide", n. 8, in P. G., LXXVI, 1210). For other and
very numerous citations, see Petavius (111, 4). The Fathers
always explain that this physical union of the two natures does
not mean the intermingling of the natures, nor any such union
as would imply a change in God, but only such union as was
necessary to explain the fact that one Divine Person had human
nature as His own true nature together with His Divine nature.
<p>The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the heresy of
Nestorius, and defined that Mary was mother in the flesh of God's
Word made Flesh (can. i). It anathematized all who deny that the
Word of God the Father was united with the Flesh in one
hypostasis (<i>kath hypostasin</i>); all who deny that there is only one Christ
with Flesh that is His own; all who deny that the same Christ is
God at the same time and man (can. ii). In the remaining ten
canons drawn up by St. Cyril of Alexandria, the anathema is aimed
directly at Nestorius. "If in the one Christ anyone divides the
substances, after they have been once united, and joins them
together merely by a juxtaposition [<i>mone symapton autas synapheia</i>]
of honour or of
authority or of power and not rather by a union into a physical
unity [<i>synode te kath henosin physiken</i>], let him be accursed" (can. iii). These twelve
canons condemn plecemeal the various subterfuges of Nestorius.
St. Cyril saw heresy lurking in phrases that seemed innocent
enough to the unsuspecting. Even the co-adoration theory is
condemned as an attempt to separate the Divine from the human
nature in Jesus by giving to each a separate hypostasis (see
Denzinger, "Enchiridion", ed. 1908, nn. 113-26).
<a name="II2"><p><b>(2) MONOPHYSITISM</b></a>
<p>The condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius saved for
the Church the dogma of the Incarnation, "the great mystery of
godliness" (I Tim., iii, 16), but lost to her a portion of her
children, who, though dwindled down to insignificant numbers,
still remain apart from her care. The union of the two natures
in one Person was saved. The battle for the dogma was not yet
won. Nestorius had postulated two persons in Jesus Christ. A
new heresy soon began. It postulated only one Person in Jesus,
and that the Divine Person. It went farther. It went too far.
The new heresy defended only one nature, as well as one Person in
Jesus. The leader of this heresy was Eutyches. His followers
were called Monophysites. They varied in their ways of
explanation. Some thought the two natures were intermingled into
one. Others are said to have worked out some sort of a
conversion of the human into the Divine. All were condemned by
the Council of Chalcedon (451). This Fourth General Council of
the Church defined that Jesus Christ remained, after the
Incarnation, "perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity . . .
consubstantial with the Father according to His Divinity,
consubstantial with us according to His humanity . . . one and
the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only begotten, to be
acknowledged in two natures not intermingled, not changed, not
divisible, not separable" (see Denzinger, n. 148). By this
condemnation of error and definition of truth, the dogma of the
Incarnation was once again saved to the Church. Once again a
large portion of the faithful of the Oriental Church were lost to
their mother. Monophysitism resulted in the national Churches of
Syria, Egypt, and Armenia. These national Churches are still
heretic, although there have in later times been formed Catholic
rites called the Catholic Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian rites.
The Catholic rites, as the Catholic Chaldaic rite, are less
numerous than the heretic rites.
<a name="II3"><p><b>(3) MONOTHELITISM</b></a>
<p>One would suppose that there was no more room for heresy
in the explanation of the mystery of the nature of the
Incarnation. There is always room for heresy in the matter of
explanation of a mystery, if one does not hear the infallible
teaching body to whom and to whom alone Christ entrusted His
mysteries to have and to keep and to teach them till ihe end of
time. Three patriarchs of the Oriental Church gave rise, so far
as we know, to the new heresy. These three heresiarchs were
Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch of
Alexandria, and Athanasius, the Patriarch of Antioch. St.
Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, remained true and delated
his fellow patriarchs to Pope Honorius. His successor in the see
of Peter, St. Martin, bravely condemned the error of the three
Oriental patriarchs, who admitted the decrees of Nicaea,
Ephesus, and Chalcedon; defended the union of two natures in one
Divine Person; but denied that this Divine Person had two wills.
Their principle was expressed by the words, <i>en thelema kai mia
energeia</i>, by which they
would seem to have meant one will and one activity, i. e. only
one principle of action and of suffering in Jesus Christ and that
one principle Divine. These heretics were called Monothelites.
Their error was condemned by the Sixth General Council (the Third
Council of Constantinople, 680). It defined that in Christ there
were two natural wills and two natural activities, the Divine and
the human, and that the human will was not at all contrary to the
Divine, but rather perfectly subject thereto (Denzinger, n. 291).
The Emperor Constans sent St. Martin into exile in Chersonesus.
We have trace of only one body of Monothelites. The Maronites,
about the monastery of John Maron, were converted from
Monothelism in the time of the Crusades and have been true to the
faith ever since. The other Monothelites seem to have been
absorbed in Monophysitism, or in the schism of the Byzantine
Church later one
<p>The error of Monothelism is clear from the Scripture as well
as from tradition. Christ did acts of adoration (John, iv, 22),
humility (Matt., xi, 29), reverence (Heb., v, 7). These acts are
those of a human will. The Monothelites denied that there was a
human will in Christ. Jesus prayed: "Father, if Thou wilt,
remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be
done," (Luke, xxii, 42). Here there is question of two wills,
the Father's and Christ's. The will of Christ was subject to the
will of the Father. "As the Father hath given me commandment, so
do I" (John, xiv, 31). He became obedient even unto death
(Phil., ii, 8). The Divine will in Jesus could not have been
subject to the will of the Father, with which will it was really
identified.
<a name="II4"><p><b>(4) THE CATHOLIC FAITH</b></a>
<p>Thus far we have that which is of Faith in this matter
of the nature of the Incarnation. The human and Divine natures
are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that exactly
which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct
and perfect activities of their own. Theologians go farther in
their attempts to give some account of the mystery of the
Incarnation, so as, at least, to show that there is therein no
contradiction, nothing that right reason may not safely adhere
to. This union of the two natures in one Person has been for
centuries called a hypostatic union, that is, a union in the
Divine Hypostasis. What is an hypostasis? The definition of
Boethius is classic: <i>rationalis naturae individua
substantia</i> (P. L., LXIV, 1343), a complete whole whose nature is
rational. This book is a complete whole; its nature is not
rational; it is not an hypostasis. An hypostasis is a complete
rational individual. St. Thomas defines hypostasis as
<i>substantia cum ultimo complemento</i> <a href=../summa/400203.htm>(III:2:3, ad
2um)</a>, a substance in its entirety. Hypostasis superadds to the
notion of rational substance this idea of entirety; nor does the
idea of rational nature include this notion of entirety. Human
nature is the principle of human activities; but only an
hypostasis, a person, can exercise these activities. The
Schoolmen discuss the question whether the hypostasis has
anything more of reality than human nature. To understand the
discussion, one must needs be versed in scholastic Philosophy.
Be the case as it may in the matter of human nature that is not
united with the Divine, the human nature that is hypostatically
united with the Divine, that is, the human nature that the Divine
Hypostasis or Person assumes to Itself, has certainly more of
reality united to it than the human nature of Christ would have
were it not hypostatically united in the Word. The Divine Logos
identified with Divine nature (Hypostatic Union) means then that
the Divine Hypostasis (or Person, or Word, or Logos) appropriates
to Itself human nature, and takes in every respect the place of
the human person. In this way, the human nature of Christ,
though not a human person, loses nothing of the perfection of the
perfect man; for the Divine Person supplies the place of the
human.
<p>It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there
was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At
the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother,
through the forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the
human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that
was conceived. When God created the world, the world was
changed, that is. it passed from the state of nonentity to the
state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or
Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that
Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new
relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the
Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real
change, was in the human nature. Anyone who wishes to go into
this very intricate question of the manner of the Hypostatic
Union of the two natures in the one Divine Personality, may with
great profit read St. Thomas <a href=../summa/400402.htm>(III:4:2)</a>;
Scotus (in III,
Dist. i); (De Incarnatione, Disp. II, sec. 3); Gregory, of
Valentia (in III, D. i, q. 4). Any modern text book on theology
will give various opinions in regard to the way of the union of
the Person assuming with the nature assumed
<a name="III"><p align="center"><b>III. EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION</b></p></a>
<a name="III1"><p><b>(1) ON CHRIST HIMSELF</b></a>
<a name="III1a"><p><b>A. On the Body of Christ</b></a>
<p>Did union with the Divine
nature do away, with all bodily inperfections? The Monophysites
were split up into two parties by this question. Catholics hold
that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to
all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is
universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death.
Christ hungered (Matt., iv, 2), thirsted (John, xix, 28), was
fatigued (John, iv, 6), suffered pain and death. "We have not a
high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but
one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Heb., iv,
15). "For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been
tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted"
(Heb., ii, 18). All these bodily weaknesses were not
miraculously brought about by Jesus; they were the natural
results of the human nature He assumed. To be sure, they might
have been impeded and were freely willed by Christ. They were
part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the
Incarnation. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith:
Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast
fitted to me" (Heb., x, 5). The Fathers deny that Christ assumed
sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of
Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging
of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers
sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered
by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one
definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no
one definite sickness was assumed by Christ. St. Athanasius
gives the reason that it were unbecoming that He should heal
others who was Himself not healed (P. G., XX, 133). Weaknesses
due to old age are common to mankind. Had Christ lived to an old
age, He would have suffered such weaknesses just as He suffered
the weaknesses that are common to infancy. Death from old age
would have come to Jesus, had He not been violently put to death
(see St. Augustine, " De Peccat.", II, 29; P. L., XLIV, 180).
The reasonableness of these bodily imperfections in Christ is
clear from the fact that He assumed human nature so as to satisfy
for that nature's sin. Now,to satisfy forthe sin of another is
to accept the penalty of that sin. Hence it was fitting that
Christ should take upon himself all those penalties of the sin of
Adam that are common to man and becoming. or at least not
unbecoming to the Hypostatic Union. (See
<a href=../summa/401400.htm><i>Summa Theologica</i> III:14</a>
for other reasons.) As Christ did not take sickness upon
Himself, so other imperfections, such as deformities, which are
not common to mankind, were not His. St. Clement of Alexandria
(III Paedagogus, c. 1), Tertullian (De Carne Christi, c.
ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed. They
misinterpreted the words of Isaias: "There is no beauty in him,
nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no
sightlinesss" etc. (liii, 2). The words refer only to the
suffering Christ. Theologians now are unanimous in the view that
Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a
perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His
incarnation, a perfect man (see Stentrup, "Christologia", theses
lx, lxi).
<a name="III1b"><p><b>B. On the Human Soul of Christ</b></a>
<p><i>(a) IN THE WILL</i>
<p><i>Sinlessness</i>
<p>The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of
Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was
absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul
of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of
the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union. The fact
that Christ never sinned is an article of faith (see Council,
Ephes., can. x, in Denzinger, 122, wherein the sinlessness of
Christ is implicit in the definition that he did not offer
Himself for Himself, but for us). This fact of Christ's
sinlessness is evident from the Scripture. "There is no sin in
Him" (I John, iii, 5). Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin
for us" i. e. a victim for sin (II Cor., v, 21). The
impossibility of a sinful act by Christ is taught by all
theologians, but variously explained. G¨nther defended an
impossibility consequent solely upon the Divine provision that He
would not sin (Vorschule, II, 441). This is no impossibility at
all. Christ is God. It is absolutely impossible, antecedent to
the Divine prevision, that God should allow His flesh to sin. If
God allowed His flesh to sin, He might sin, that is, He might
turn away from Himself; and it is absolutely impossible that God
should turn from Himself, be untrue to His Divine attributes.
The Scotists teach that this impossibility to sin, antecedent to
God's revision, is not due to the Hypostatic Union, but is like
to the impossibility of the beatified to sin, and is due to a
special Divine Providence (see Scotus, in III, d. xiii, Q. i).
St. Thomas <a href=../summa/401501.htm>(III:15:1)</a> and all Thomists,
Suarez (d.
xxxiii, 2), Vasquez (d. xi, c. iii), de Lugo (d. xxvi,
1, n. 4), and all theologians of the Society of Jesus teach
the now almost universally admitted explanation that the absolute
impossibility of a sinful act on the part of Christ was due to
the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine.
<p><i>Liberty</i>
<p>The will of Christ remained free after the
Incarnation. This is an article of faith. The Scripture is most
clear on this point. "When he had tasted, he would not drink"
(Matt., xxvii, 34). "I will; be thou made clean" (Matt., viii,
3). The liberty of Christ was such that He merited. "He humbled
himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the
cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him" (Phil., ii,
8). "Who having joy set before him, endured the cross" (Heb.,
xii, 2). That Christ was free in the matter of death, is the
teaching of all Catholics; else He did not merit nor satisfy for
us by His death. Just how to reconcile this liberty of Christ
with the impossibility of His committing sin has ever been a crux
for theologians. Some seventeen explanations are given (see
<a href=../summa/404703.htm><i>Summa Theologica</i> III:47:3, ad 3</a>;
Molina, "Concordia", d. liii, membr. 4).
<p><i>(b) IN THE INTELLECT</i>
<p>The effects of the Hypostatic Union
upon the knowledge of Christ will be treated in a special article
(See KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST).
<p><i>(c) SANCTITY OF CHRIST</i>
<p>The Humanity of Christ was holy by
a twofold sanctity: the grace of union and sanctifying grace.
The grace of union, i. e. the Substantial and Hypostatic Union of
the two natures in the Divine Word, is called the substantial
sanctity of Christ. St. Augustine says: "Tunc ergo sanctificavit
se in se, hoc est hominem se in Verbo se, quia unus est Christus,
Verbum et homo, sanctificans hominem in Verbo" (When the Word was
made Flesh then, indeed, He sanctified Himself in Himself, that
is, Himself as Man in Himself as Word; for that Christ is One
Person, both Word and Man, and renders His human nature holy in
the holiness of the Divine nature) (In Johan. tract. 108, n. 5,
in P. L., XXXV, l916). Besides this substantial sanctity of the
grace of Hypostatic Union, there was in the soul of Christ, the
accidental sanctity called sanctifying grace. This is the
teaching of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom,
St. Cyril of Alexandria, and of the Fathers generally. The Word
was "full of grace" (John, i, 14), and "of his fullness we all
have received, and grace for grace" (John, i, 16). The Word were
not full of grace, if any grace were wanting in Him which would
be a perfection fitting to His human nature. All theologians
teach that sanctifying grace is a perfection fitting the humanity
of Christ. The mystical body of Christ is the Church, whereof
Christ is the Head (Rom., xii, 4; I Cor., xii, 11; Eph., i, 20;
iv, 4; Col. i, 18: ii, 10). It is especially in this sense that
we say the grace of the Head flows through the channels of the
sacraments of the Church--through the veins of the body of
Christ. Theologians commonly teach that from the very beginning
of His existence, He received the fullness of sanctifying grace
and other supernatural gifts (except faith, hope, and the moral
virtue of penance); nor did He ever increase in these gifts or
this sanctifying grace. For so to increase would be to become
more pleasing to the Divine Majesty; and this were impossible in
Christ. Hence St. Luke meant (ii, 52) that Christ showed more
and more day after day the effects of grace in His outward
bearing.
<p><i>(d) LIKES AND DISLIKES</i>
<p>The Hypostatic Union did not
deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and dislikes.
The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His in so far
as they were becoming to the grace of union, in so far as they
were not out of order. St. Augustine well argues: "Human
affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really
and truly a human body and a human soul" (De Civ. Dei, XIV, ix,
3). We find that he was subject to anger against the blindness
of heart of sinners (Mark, iii, 5); to fear (Mark, xiv, 33); to
sadness (Matt., xxvi, 37): to the sensible affections of hope, of
desire, and of joy. These likes and dislikes were under the
complete will-control of Christ. The <i>fomes peccati</i>, the
kindling-wood of sin--that is, those likes and dislikes that are
not under full and absolute control of right reason and strong
will-power--could not, as a matter of course, have been in
Christ. He could not have been tempted by such likes and
dislikes to sin. To have taken upon Himself this penalty of sin
would not have been in keeping with the absolute and substantial
holiness which is implied by the grace of union in the Logos.
<a name="III1c"><p><b>C. On the God-Man (Deus-Homo, <i>theanthropos</i>)</b></a>
<p>One of the most
important effects of the union of the Divine nature and human
nature in One Person is a mutual interchange of attributes,
Divine and human, between God and man, the <i>Communicatio
Idiomatum</i>. The God-Man is one Person, and to Him in the concrete
may be applied the predicates that refer to the Divinity as well
as those that refer to the Humanity of Christ. We may say God is
man, was born, died, was buried. These predicates refer to the
Person Whose nature is human, as well as Divine; to the Person
Who is man, as well as God. We do not mean to say that God, as
God, was born; but God, Who is man, was born. We may not
predicate the abstract Divinity of the abstract humanity, nor the
abstract Divinity of the concrete man, nor vice versa; nor the
concrete God of the abstract humanity, nor vice versa. We
predicate the concrete of the concrete: Jesus is God; Jesus is
man; the God-Man was sad; the Man-God was killed. Some ways of
speaking should not be used, not that they may not be rightly
explained, but that they may easily be misunderstood in an
heretical sense (see COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM).
<a name="III2"><p><b>(2) THE ADORATION OF THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST</b></a>
<p>The human nature of Christ, united hypostatically with the Divine
nature, is adored with the same worship as the Divine nature (see
ADORATION). We adore the Word when we adore Christ the Man; but
the Word is God. The human nature of Christ is not at all the
reason of our adoration of Him; that reason is only the Divine
nature. The entire term of our adoration is the Incarnate Word;
the motive of the adoration is the Divinity of the Incarnate
Word. The partial term of our adoration may be the human nature
of Christ: the motive of the adoration is the same as the motive
of the adoration that reaches the entire term. Hence, the act of
adoration of the Word Incarnate is the same absolute act of
adoration that reaches the human nature. The Person of Christ is
Iadored with the cult called <i>latria</i>. But the cult that is
due to a person is due in like manner to the whole nature of that
Person and to all its parts. Hence, since the human nature is
the real and true nature of Christ, that human nature and all its
parts are the object of the cult called <i>latria</i>, i. e.,
adoration. We shall not here enter into the question of the
adoration of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (see HEART OF JESUS,
DEVOTION TO THE). (For the Adoration of the Cross, CROSS AND
CRUCIFIX, THE, subtitle II.)
<a name="III3"><p><b>(3) OTHER EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION</b></a>
<p>The effects of the incarnation on
the Blessed Mother and us, will be found treated under the
respective special subjects. (See GRACE; JUSTIFICATION;
SATISFACTION; IMMACULATE CONCEPTION; MARY, THE BLESSED VIRGIN.)
<p><b>BIBLIOGRAPHY</b>
<font size=-1>
<p>Fathers of the Church: ST. IRENAEUS, <i>Adversus Haer.</i>;
ST.ATHANASIUS, <i>De Incarnatione Verbi</i>; IDEM, <i>Contra Arianos</i>; ST.
AMBROSE, <i>De Incarnatione</i>; ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, <i>Antirrheticus
adversus Apollinarium</i>; IDEM, <i>Tractatus ad Theophilum contra
Apollinarium</i>; the writings of ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, ST. CYRIL OF
ALEXANDRIA, and others who attacked the Arians, Nestorians,
Monophysites, and Monothelites.
<br>Scholastics: ST. THOMAS, <i>Summa Theologica</i>, III, QQ. 1-59; ST.
BONAVENTURE, <i>Brevil.</i>, IV; IDEM, in III Sent.; BELLARMINE, <i>De
Christo Capite Tolius Ecclesia, Controversiae.</i>, 1619; SUAREZ, <i>De
Incarnatione</i>, DE LUGO, <i>De Incarnatione</i>, III; PETAVIUS, <i>De incarn.
Verbi: Theologia Dogmatica</i>, IV.
</font>
<p>WALTER DRUM
<br>Transcribed by Mary Ann Grelinger
<p><font size=-1>From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by <a href=../>New Advent, Inc.</a></font>
--------------198952102AAE--
Syed Yusuf
let's take another tact,
1) WHO created God?
2) who created Jesus?
3) which is greater, or are they equal?
--
I *AM* the SoN of G-d (Pslams 82:6, Isaiah 63:16, Matt 5:9, John 8:41)
--
Syed Yusuf
http://www.uidaho.edu/~yusuf921
--
"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is the right to refuse
allegiance to and to resist the government, when its tyranny or its
inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not
the case now." (Henry David Thoreau)
Suzanne Fortin
On 9 Jun 1997, Syed Yusuf wrote:
>
> let's take another tact,
>
> 1) WHO created God?
Nobody.
> 2) who created Jesus?
His Divine side always existed, but his human side was created.
> 3) which is greater, or are they equal?
They're equal and the same being.
Ed Form
In article <339d6d9...@news.bournemouth-net.co.uk>,
ll...@bournemouth-net.co.uk (Lloyd James) wrote:
> You know if I were a Christian the words that I would to be a
> great stumbling block are those spoken by Jesus on the cross
> when near to death. My God my God why have you forsaken me?
> Those are the words of a defeated man. The are full of pain
> and emptiness. For me they could never be the words of the
> universal savior about to successfully complete his divine
> work.
Taking the words of this paragraph at face value, and attaching
no trinitarian baggage WHATEVER to the phrases 'universal
saviour' and 'divine work', I would like to comment on the ideas
in this paragraph.
Why should you take the words 'My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?' to be full of pain and emptiness when the source
from which they are drawn is a Psalm of glorious hope? Verses
21-31 of Psalm 22 show the answer to the questions which the
Psalmist asked in his time of trouble. They are answers of hope,
of confidence in God, and of praise in the highest vein possible.
What tortured reasoning causes you to assume that Jesus, A JEW,
would not have looked upon Psalm 22 as a GUARANTEE of God's
salvation for him?
There are times Lloyd, in arguing with the Jewish element here in
alt.messy, that I wonder whether I am dealing with three-year-old
children. Do you regard Psalm 22 as the defeated and tortured
whining of one who has given up on God? That is what you are
saying of Jesus. It would. I suppose, never have occurred to you
that, in gasping out this Psalm, Jesus was STILL preaching. Some
of those round the cross are certain to have realised when they
heard the familiar words... "He's still confident in God's
salvation! Listen! He's reciting Psalm 22!"
Had you looked a little more carefully at the NT descriptions of
the last few hours of Jesus' life, you would have seen that he
constantly quoted Scripture which was inescapable by those who
were mistreating him. One lovely example is in...
John 19:5
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of
thorns, and the purple robe. And [Pilate]
saith unto them, Behold the man!
The word 'Pilate' is not in the text. It was Jesus who said
'Behold the man!' You will realise now, of course, that he was
quoting...
Zechariah 6:12
And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh
the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man
whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall
grow up out of his place, and he shall
build the temple of the LORD...
...which is why the next verse in John records...
John 19:6
When the chief priests therefore and
officers saw him, they cried out, saying,
Crucify him, crucify him...
They knew what he was saying, but the entire idea of Israel's
Messiah about to be hung on a tree was anathema to them and they
lost their self-control and shrieked (cf the Greek) for him to be
done away with. Some in the crowd however, must have realised
that Zechariah spoke of the building of God's Temple and the
appointment of one called JESUS as both king and priest, sitting
on God's throne and enjoying peaceful counsel with God. It was
them whom Jesus addressed not the disgraceful reprobates who had
usurped priestly office. Right up to the end he continued to
appeal to Israel to come to their senses. Sadly most did not, and
40 years later the whole nation was judged unfit and were booted
out of the land.
Ed Form