Yeah, but if all these persons are also eternal, what’s the difference? Just because God appears in one mode doesn’t mean that the other modes don’t also exist concurrently. Just because God appeared as the Son doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit and God the Father didn’t exist–in fact, Jesus talks about the actions of one and prays to the other.
I, like Shodan, find all the focus on the exact nature of the Trinity to be odd. The whole point is that it’s a mystery, and we don’t know exactly how it works. Most of the different positions are essentially equivalent, producing the same results, and I don’t see why we need to argue which one is the True Definition.
I personally like C. S. Lewis’s interpretation, that God is a superperson, so big that we can’t just describe him as one traditional person. Then again, I like a lot of Lewis’s theology–which I understand puts me in a distinct minority.
While I agree it is possible, most organizations saying they do this are just Christians trying to add a few Jewish ideas. Judaism is more than just the dietary laws.
The main problem with the reasoning cited in the OP is that all religions feature lesser supernatural beings that are not considered gods within that religion’s frame of reference. Hinduism has a lot of gods. It also has a lot of demons, and there’s a clear distinction between the two. It’s no more hypocritical for a Hindu to insist that a rakshasa is not a god, while Vishnu is, then it is for a Christian to claim that the saints are not gods, while Jesus is.
I mean the guy who immediately backpedals on that, yes; as soon as said line prompts folks to pick up anti-blasphemer rocks, he promptly scales back to a more modest I’m-In-The-Father-And-The-Father-Is-In-Me claim while throwing in a quick You-Are-Gods line to run further conceptual interference.
(Of course, once he’s actually nailed to a cross, he changes from a Not-My-Will-But-Thy-Will guy to a My-God-Why-Have-You-Forsaken-Me? guy.)
One can – indeed, many do – express absolute trust in God while making clear that you and He are separate let-not-my-will-but-thy-will-be-done entities. I mean, if you’re ever in pain and at the bottom of some well, you may well hear me say I’m running off to get help; and, after a while, you may well ask why I’ve forsaken you; and, yes, you might ultimately express absolute trust in me anyway.
But whether you’re asking why I’ve forsaken you or expressing that you trust me, the whole point is that you’re not me; you don’t have to trust me, or wonder about me forsaking you, unless, y’know, you’re you and I’m me. If you mundanely use those sentences with regard to me, there’s no ineffable mystery; we’re just two different people, who can of course forsake each other or trust one another, is all.
Christian theology is that God the Father and God the Son are separate persons, albeit of one divinity. There is 2000 years of Christian thought regarding this matter, which you are free to think is a waste of time, but are not excused from ignoring if you wish to discuss these matters.
Ultimately though, Christ is documented reciting the words of Psalm 22 to show his fulfillment of the prophecy contained in that passage (which includes details of Christ’s torture before his execution). You could argue that the whole story was contrived to fulfill the passage, but it would be an error to believe that the line shows that Jesus did not believe he and God were one.
Well, look at it this way : you waste a lot fewer resources making burnt offerings to a single god than to a dozen. And thus, civilization advances. Baby steps.
I’m not ignoring it; I especially like that “separate persons” part.
Well, yes, he apparently believed they were “separate persons” as per the “let not my will, but thy will” sentiment, which seems completely consistent with asking – seriously or rhetorically – why God had forsaken him; after all, said psalmist asked that same question, and he and God were “separate persons” too. By an extraordinary coincidence, the wonder-working prophets mentioned in Deuteronomy 13 are “separate persons” from God, and are of course to be put to death anyway.
Because they can identify with the saint more easily than with God (who you’re not supposed to identify with anyway). Prayer is among other things a way to ruminate on your troubles so you can find a solution; has it never happened to you that you had a problem, and as soon as you described it to another person the light went on? You’re a mother having mother problems, you talk to another mother. You’re a student having student problems, you talk to another student. That’s all.
Again, I don’t expect you to believe Christianity if you don’t; I just ask that you try to understand it.
It is a complicated answer. Jesus is a separate divine person, but not separated at from God, because he is God. For this to make sense, we must first accept that a divine person is fundamentally different from a created person.
The premise of this thread is that Christianity has a “pantheon” of supernatural beings that can be invoked. I specifically reject this interpretation because all members are created beings and exist solely at the will of God the Father, creator of all things.
God the Son (Jesus Christ) also has as his ultimate source God the Father. However the Son is “begotten” not “made”. God the Father did not create God the Son, rather the Son’s existence is a natural consequence of the Divine nature of God. It is unfortunately a bit circular, that God the Son exists because it is necessary for him to exist. However, God the Father and God the Son (along with the Holy Spirit) are co-eternal, and share a divine nature that is completely different than anything or anyone they created.
In his Divine Will, God the Son perfectly shares the will of God the Father. God the Father wished sacrifice his Son to redeem humanity, and God the Son volunteered to the Father to be the perfect sacrifice. However, to accomplish goal, God the Son took on a human nature (in addition to his divine nature). This human, Jesus Christ, was perfectly unified with his divine nature. However, God the Son’s human nature could feel pain and fear and even temptation.
Christianity teaches that no human can want death; for death is evil, albeit a necessary. The human nature of Jesus could not want to die, but also accepted perfectly that it was the will of God the Father for him to do so. Thus, Jesus invokes psalm 22 to describe the reconciliation of his divine and human will. "let not my [human] will, but [our divine] will"
Psalm 22 captures the natural feelings of abandonment his human nature felt, while expressing his trust in his shared divine will, which is why the Evangelist used this quote in his Gospel account of Christ’s death.
But you believe that God the Father is a supernatural being, and you believe that Jesus is a supernatural being who “took on a human nature (in addition to his divine nature). This human, Jesus Christ, was perfectly unified with his divine nature. However, God the Son’s human nature could feel pain and fear and even temptation.”
If so, then wouldn’t that “separate person” pantheon it up as a supernatural entity who feels temptations and fears that God the Father doesn’t?
I’m not following you at all here. I mean, yes, each word makes sense, but it’s as if you’re saying no human can possibly choose to do what plenty of humans opt for every day; is everyone who commits suicide supposedly being influenced by supernatural entities? I just don’t get it.
Just so we’re clear: I could, tomorrow, use the exact same let-not-my-will-but-your-will-be-done words as Jesus to simply mean “let not my [human] will, but [your divine] will, be done,” right? (I’d of course be using “your” to mean “your” – since, had I meant “our”, I would’ve said “our”, right? Heck, pretty much anyone who meant “our” would presumably say “our”; that’s, like, the whole point of having different words for “your” and “our”.)
Perhaps I’m having a language problem here, but I was never taught that death was evil; I know many people consider it bad, but the word to which I’d translate “evil” requires an agent - death is not one. Capital-D Death would be, but personifications aren’t the same as persons.
I was also taught that while wanting death is a bad thing (it means you’re really, really fucked up), accepting it is perfectly fine. In fact, acceptance on the part of the dying person is considered one of the elements of a Good Death (which is not a person, it’s capitalized because it’s an “important concept”). One of my father’s last utterings was asking my mother to “let me go; I am dying, but I can’t do it peacefully until you let me”.
Christianity teaches that death is a “natural evil”, with has specific theological meaning. Describing it as “bad” is fairly accurate :).
This is correct. However, in the context of Jesus Christ, however, the narrative gave him the power to stop his own death because he was God. His death was not inevitable and entirely within his power to stop. His human nature desired vigorously to not die; however, he chose to follow through with his divine plan.
Because God the Father and God the Son are united, they would both experience the human fears and suffering of the Son’s human nature. They are also both divine, and incapable of sin and falling for these human temptations. The human nature of Jesus is thus with sin.
No, suicide is considered intrinsically evil. Mental illness is also a natural evil because it can lead to despair and death by suicide. Jesus’ human nature, being perfectly sinless, could not desire his own death. Being God, he could offer up his death anyways.
:dubious:
The Gospel account is meant to be instructive. Jesus’ human life is meant to model a proper human relationship with God. Thus, Jesus refers to God the Father as external to himself, to be an example of how Christians are meant to address God.
The Gospels were written by Christians for an already Christian audience; both already accepted as a matter of faith that Jesus was God. It is silly to parse the Evangelist’s words to try to disprove the divinity of Christ, when this was not a vigorous proof of his divinity but a mode of instruction of Christ’s life and works, and of proper Christian behavior.
OK, thanks for the clarification; it is partly a difference in language and partly that the way you phrased it here “evil” is a noun, whereas the previous time it was an adjective. Very different things.
And the RCC does not consider suicide intrinsically evil any more. It used to be considered “the ultimate sin”, being considered the ultimate/final rejection of God’s mercy, but now there’s both the knowledge that it’s usually linked to being quite literally “not mentally whole” and the idea that hey, isn’t it part of the idea of the Final Judgment that we keep getting chances even after death? So, you’re not fully in control of your faculties and it’s not final.
If they’re united such that they both in fact experience the same things, then in what way are they separate persons?
I don’t think I’m following you. It sounds like you’re saying Jesus was “incapable of sin and falling for these human temptations.” But you also said that Jesus “could feel pain and fear and even temptation.” Are you saying he felt temptations he wasn’t actually capable of falling for? That his “let not my will” comment was purely just him putting on a show, since he (a) didn’t actually will that and (b) was in fact incapable of willing otherwise?
And so God the Father likewise refers to Jesus as external to Himself in hopes of helping the example along? That’s – pretty danged weird; it basically sets up a conceptual cul-de-sac where literally any interaction between Jesus and God could be explained as them putting on an act, only ever pretending to be external to one another. (Heck, any two people could make that claim, and nothing could ever prove them wrong, because, hey, it’s all part of the show!)
Yes, well, as you’ve suggested, I of course believe “proper Christian behavior” is a contradiction in terms – insofar as a vigorous dedication to the first commandment by definition requires having no other gods before, as it were, God the Father.
But so long as I’m playing the assume-for-the-sake-of-argument game, if your only answer to the Is-It-A-Pantheon question is Not if you accept, as a matter of faith, that the Evangelist’s words shouldn’t be parsed that way, well, then, look, honestly, that strikes me as a pretty weak argument.
s I see it, if God is all powerful and all knowing, and answers some prayers, and some not, then Prayer would indicate a lack of trust! A good parent Who is not all knowing would not make it’s children beg for anything, all that is for their known good would be given to them, and anything harmful would be kept away. Some say God says No sometimes, then one could pray to a carrot and get the same answers.
Not quite: suicide is never a moral acceptable choice, because taking one’s life is always evil. However, you correctly note that mental illness can muddle one’s choices, such that they are not condemned to hell for suicide.
The Christian argument is that God revealed himself as One God, with three divine persons. I reject inclusion of the saints, angels, in demons in a Christian “pantheon”, because these beings are not divine persons.
If you wish to insist that the three persons of the trinity constitute a “pantheon”, then I will cease arguing. In this case, it would be a strictly closed “pantheon”, unlike traditional pagan versions that sometimes elevate non-divine beings to god or godlike status.