Unbelievers curiosity about Jesus

MooseJam

Yes I'm a total atheist, I'm 100% sure I'm just an animal who has evolved consciousness, but was thinking about Jesus seeing as it's coming up to Christmas so a couple of questions from the curious. Was Jesus up in heaven before he was born of Mary ? I was brought up Catholic untill I was old enough to come to my own conclusions about the whole thing so it was never taught to me if he was always there, if the trinity always was or if it just came to being upon Jesus' birth. If it just came to being upon Jesus' birth then what is the relationship tween God and Jesus, the father and son relationship is a pure biological one, the father passing his DNA to the son, God has no DNA so what exactly is the relationship between God and Jesus ?

philologos

MooseJam wrote:

Was Jesus up in heaven before he was born of Mary ?

Yes. Jesus said he saw Abraham before he carried out his mission on earth. John claims that Jesus was the Word of God, and had existed since the beginning of time. I'd see it as Jesus was an incarnation of God Himself, so that he could put himself on the earth as a worldly being. After his ascension he became reunited with his Father.

MooseJam wrote:

If it just came to being upon Jesus' birth then what is the relationship tween God and Jesus, the father and son relationship is a pure biological one, the father passing his DNA to the son, God has no DNA so what exactly is the relationship between God and Jesus ?

The relationship between Jesus and his Father is this. Jesus is the human form of his father. We see in John 7:14 "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father". We also know from the Gospel of John, that nobody can come to salvation without both belief in Christ and the Father. It is a complicated one however, considering that we are often told that we are also children of God. However we have worldly fathers and mothers, whereas Jesus only had a worldly mother with divine intervention from God in terms of his conception. Hope this helps slightly, maybe some of the others can chip in here.

kelly1

If I could just a few details.

Yes the Holy Trinity has no beginning and no end. God is the un-created creator. Before Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary, He only had a spiritual being. After His conception by the power of the Holy Spirit, he took on a fully human nature in addition to His divine nature. So Jesus is fully divine and fully human. It's called the hypostatic union. His humanness doesn't diminish His divinity and vice versa.

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex

Did Jesus possess all of God's knowledge and omnipotence while he was a human?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Did Jesus possess all of God's knowledge and omnipotence while he was a human?

Yes, I believe He did. He could predict the future and raise the dead to life for instance. He said the "Father and I are one", "Before Abraham was I am" etc. It's a good theological question though.

Pompey Magnus

When Jesus ascended to Heaven, did his circumcised foreskin come with him?

kelly1

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

When Jesus ascended to Heaven, did his circumcised foreskin come with him?

Strange question but the resurrected/glorified body has no need for a penis so I don't think it really matters

Zombrex

I think DM is asking (in a rather crude fashion), what was Jesus made of

Was he made of normal flesh and bone, just like any other human?

My understanding is that Jesus' physical body was supposed to ascend to heaven. One would assume would be just his body at the time, not every atom that was at some point had been his body, if you get my drift (we replace "us" every few years, in that the atoms that were your body when you were a boy are long gone and you are now made of different atoms now)

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

I think DM is asking (in a rather crude fashion), what was Jesus made of

Was he made of normal flesh and bone, just like any other human?

My understanding is that Jesus' physical body was supposed to ascend to heaven. One would assume would be just his body at the time, not every atom that was at some point had been his body, if you get my drift (we replace "us" every few years, in that the atoms that were your body when you were a boy are long gone and you are now made of different atoms now)

OK, but the point is that the body in which He ascended into was His resurrected and glorified body which has powers over and above a normal body. I say this because He seemed to have the ability to pass through walls and appear in any place at will because He appeared to the apostles despite the fact that they were behind a locked door when they were hiding from the Jews.

Run_to_da_hills

Wicknight wrote: »

Did Jesus possess all of God's knowledge and omnipotence while he was a human?

The answer to your question is "Yes" and "No." Since Jesus is part of the "Trinity", He is omniscient, but in His humanity, Jesus chose not to know certain things.

He learned and "grew in wisdom" if you read Luke 2vs52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man".(Luke 2:52)

He chose not to know the time of His second coming ie "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father". (Matthew 24:36).

Yet at other times Jesus exhibited omniscience,
"For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him" John 6:61,64; prediction of Peter's denial, prediction of Judas betrayal, John 13:11;John 16:30; John 1:48-49 etc.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, but the point is that the body in which He ascended into was His resurrected and glorified body which has powers over and above a normal body. I say this because He seemed to have the ability to pass through walls and appear in any place at will because He appeared to the apostles despite the fact that they were behind a locked door when they were hiding from the Jews.

I get that. Just wondering how it works.

Pompey Magnus

Wicknight wrote: »

I think DM is asking (in a rather crude fashion), what was Jesus made of

Was he made of normal flesh and bone, just like any other human?

My understanding is that Jesus' physical body was supposed to ascend to heaven. One would assume would be just his body at the time, not every atom that was at some point had been his body, if you get my drift (we replace "us" every few years, in that the atoms that were your body when you were a boy are long gone and you are now made of different atoms now)

That is pretty much what I was wondering, I assume that Jesus' human body is said to have ascended into Heaven for the same reason that Mary's body is said to have done the same, namely that it wouldn't experience decay. If that is the case then would the same logic not have applied to his divine foreskin?

Anyway, another question which has long puzzled me - even when I was a pretty convinced Catholic, was that when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemene before he was arrested he went off by himself to pray. What followed in the Gospel is an account of Jesus' prayers (asking God to "let this cup pass from me" and sweating blood). Now the thing that I don't get was that Jesus was on his own, and the Apostles were all asleep. How do they know what he said? If the Gospels are true then how on earth were they able to quote something that no-one was witness to and if this was made up then how much more of the Bible can't be trusted?

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The answer to your question is "Yes" and "No." Since Jesus is part of the "Trinity", He is omniscient, but in His humanity, Jesus chose not to know certain things.

Not following ... How does a omniscient being "choose" to not know something

Or are you saying that Jesus was a being that was not omniscient while he was Jesus the man

kelly1

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Anyway, another question which has long puzzled me - even when I was a pretty convinced Catholic, was that when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemene before he was arrested he went off by himself to pray. What followed in the Gospel is an account of Jesus' prayers (asking God to "let this cup pass from me" and sweating blood). Now the thing that I don't get was that Jesus was on his own, and the Apostles were all asleep. How do they know what he said? If the Gospels are true then how on earth were they able to quote something that no-one was witness to and if this was made up then how much more of the Bible can't be trusted?

Excellent question, no flies on you!

I think there are only two answers to this. Either Jesus told one of the apostles before He was dragged off to the midnight court or the Holy Spirit revealed it to the aspostles after Jesus died.

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

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

I think there are only two answers to this. Either Jesus told one of the apostles before He was dragged off to the midnight court or the Holy Spirit revealed it to the aspostles after Jesus died.

To be honest those were pretty much the main solutions that I could come up with and neither made much sense. In the first possibile explanation I have this ridiculous almost Monty Python-esque scenario of Jesus being pushed and dragged out of the Garden by the soldiers whilst shouting back "Guys, while you were sleeping I prayed for God to let this cup pass from my lips but if it is his will then let it be done, oh and I was sweating blood as well".

The second possibility seems like such a trivial thing for the Holy Spirit to be revealing when it could have been clarifying much more important things which Jesus left ambiguous during his lifetime and has caused millions of deaths between different Christian interpretations of the Bible such as "At the last supper did Jesus literally mean the bread and wine was his body and blood or was he talking symbolically?"

kelly1

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The second possibility seems like such a trivial thing for the Holy Spirit to be revealing when it could have been clarifying much more important things which Jesus left ambiguous during his lifetime and has caused millions of deaths between different Christian interpretations of the Bible such as "At the last supper did Jesus literally mean the bread and wine was his body and blood or was he talking symbolically?"

I don't think it's trivial at all. The authors and the Holy Spirit want us to know how much Jesus suffered for our sake. And also as John said in his gospel,

25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Peace,
Noel.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Not following ... How does a omniscient being "choose" to not know something

Or are you saying that Jesus was a being that was not omniscient while he was Jesus the man

That's about it. The Father revealed to Jesus what Jesus needed to be known during His lifetime.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Excellent question, no flies on you!

I think there are only two answers to this. Either Jesus told one of the apostles before He was dragged off to the midnight court or the Holy Spirit revealed it to the aspostles after Jesus died.

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

The third answer, of course, is that Jesus told the apostles about it after He was raised from the dead.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

That's about it. The Father revealed to Jesus what Jesus needed to be known during His lifetime.

So he wasn't God up to that point? Or he was God, but just didn't have the properties associated with God? so there was a time jesus did not know who he was?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Did Jesus possess all of God's knowledge and omnipotence while he was a human?

This has been done before, but I would have to disagree with Kell1.

When someone reached out and touched him in a jostling and over-excited crowd he asked 'Who touched me?' Kelly, how would you reconcile that lack of knowledge with Jesus being omnipotent?

kelly1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This has been done before, but I would have to disagree with Kell1.

When someone reached out and touched him in a jostling and over-excited crowd he asked 'Who touched me?' Kelly, how would you reconcile that lack of knowledge with Jesus being omnipotent?

I think Jesus did this out of humility and also so as not to over-awe people. Jesus often read the minds of the pharisees didn't He? He must have had a good reason for not showing His powers. Maybe it would have had to much influence over a person's response to Him? He was probably testing people's faith too. That's my theories anyway

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

The third answer, of course, is that Jesus told the apostles about it after He was raised from the dead.

Why didn't I think of that?! He was around for 40 days before the ascension.

Mr. Presentable

kelly1 wrote: »

I think Jesus did this out of humility and also so as not to over-awe people.

Seriously? The same one who transmutated water at a wedding, walked on water, passed through locked doors, is suddenly humble and awe-reluctant?

kelly1

nipplenuts wrote: »

Seriously? The same one who transmutated water at a wedding, walked on water, passed through locked doors, is suddenly humble and awe-reluctant?

he changed the water into wine only because His mother asked Him to! Didn't He say "My hour is not yet come"?

He walked on water etc before the apostles to convince them of who He was. And I don't think He performed miracles to impress anyone because He often said "tell nobody". He healed people out of compassion. Jesus could hardly be accused of show off!

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

So he wasn't God up to that point? Or he was God, but just didn't have the properties associated with God? so there was a time jesus did not know who he was?

He has always been God. When He came to Earth He was fully both. But He lived as a man, went through life as one, was tempted, felt pain, hunger, insecurity.

The Bible tells us that at the age of 12 He taught in the Temple. At the beginning of His minstry He announced in the Temple that He was the fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah. At that point He knew. During His ministry He knew His purpose and what was going to happen to Him.

But He didn't want to know the hour of His second coming, for whtever purpose, so He didn't.

PDN

I believe God the Son pre-existed from all eternity as part of the Triune Godhead, but, strictly speaking, He only became 'Jesus' when He was conceived in Mary's womb, thus uniting His divine nature with human nature.

The Bible says that Jesus grew in wisdom as a child (Luke 2:52). I would reckon that pretty well demonstrates that He laid aside his omniscience, just as He laid aside His omnipresence when He became God incarnate. This is known as 'kenosis' (Greek for 'emptying'). Charles Wesley expressed it well in his hymn "And Can it Be?" when he penned the lines:

"He left His Father's throne above,
So free so infinite His grace.
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam's helpless race."

Pompey Magnus

I have a three part question relating to Judas:

1) Judas accompanied Jesus through his ministry so it is fair to assume that he witnessed most of the supposed miracles, why on earth would someone betray a man who is able to calm storms, raise people from the dead, feed thousands with a few loaves and fish, heal lepers, walk on water, and turn water into wine? I can think of 3 possible answers; (a) either these events never happened and were a later invention, (b) Jesus did appear to work miracles but was a fraud and Judas was aware of this, or (c) they really happened but Judas lost control of his actions by some form of divine intervention and became the puppet of God in order for Jesus to achieve what he set out to do.

2) Why is Judas vilified in Christianity? I don't think it should be as straightforward as "Because he betrayed Jesus". Christians have Judas to thank for him assisting Jesus in ridding the world of original sin. Jesus didn't come to Earth to live a long life, he was supposed to die.

3) If you, as a Christian, were in Judas' position, would you set Jesus up to be crucified or would you condemn humanity to the punishment of sin and death by denying Jesus his blood sacrifice?

kelly1

Phil 2:5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. 9 For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: 10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I have a three part question relating to Judas:

Judas accompanied Jesus through his ministry so it is fair to assume that he witnessed most of the supposed miracles, why on earth would someone betray a man who is able to calm storms, raise people from the dead, feed thousands with a few loaves and fish, heal lepers, walk on water, and turn water into wine? I can think of 3 possible answers; (a) either these events never happened and were a later invention, (b) Jesus did appear to work miracles but was a fraud and Judas was aware of this, or (c) they really happened but Judas lost control of his actions by some form of divine intervention and became the puppet of God in order for Jesus to achieve what he set out to do.

The answer is, quite simply, sin. Judas was greedy for money, and possibly not overly impressed that despite all the miracles Jesus was asking his disciples to walk a path of persecution and probable martyrdom.

Sin causes people to do things that fly in the face of everything they know to be true. Middle-aged men get involved in pathetic sexual affairs when its perfectly obvious that the relationship won't last and that the end result will mean losing their marriage and earning the contempt of their kids. The lure of short term temptation will often overcome good sense - so don't get too logical in trying to figure out why Judas did what he did.

A good illustration of Judas is Cypher, in The Matrix film. Cypher betrays his comrades in order to enjoy the luxuries of a virtual reality world that he knows is an illusion.

Why is Judas vilified in Christianity? I don't think it should be as straightforward as "Because he betrayed Jesus". Christians have Judas to thank for him assisting Jesus in ridding the world of original sin. Jesus didn't come to Earth to live a long life, he was supposed to die.

Because Judas was a traitor, and treachery is despised by most human societies. The fact that his bad actions helped a good thing to happen doesn't absolve him of his guilt. The end does not justify the means.

Of course this does not stop speculation. Time to quote Bob Dylan again, from his "The Times They are AChangin" album:
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

If you, as a Christian, were in Judas' position, would you set Jesus up to be crucified or would you condemn humanity to the punishment of sin and death by denying Jesus his blood sacrifice?

If Judas hadn't done the dirty deed then someone else would have. You don't get in the face of the religious establishment as much as Jesus did and get away with it. Those guys get you in the end.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

He has always been God. When He came to Earth He was fully both. But He lived as a man, went through life as one, was tempted, felt pain, hunger, insecurity.

ok.

The Bible tells us that at the age of 12 He taught in the Temple. At the beginning of His minstry He announced in the Temple that He was the fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah. At that point He knew. During His ministry He knew His purpose and what was going to happen to Him.

Previously you said that thigs were revealed to him by his father during his lifetime. So at what stage did he know who he was? or did he always know?

But He didn't want to know the hour of His second coming, for whtever purpose, so He didn't.

you base that on him saying that he didn't know, only his father in heaven knew. So because of the trinity doctrine, you must then reason, he didn't want to know because he is God anyway, it in no way says that, but obviously you must assume this to concur with the trinity. So when he got back to heaven he then knew? So The father and the Son are parts of a triune godhead, but at times the father can know more than the son and vice versa?

kelly1

I haven't read these but they're relevant:

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/0304-97/christo2.html
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5793

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

ok.


Previously you said that thigs were revealed to him by his father during his lifetime. So at what stage did he know who he was? or did he always know??

As PDN aptly pointed out, Jesus grew in wisdom. He spoke of His own death and resurrection.

Matthew 12
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[a] greater than Jonah is here.

Mark 8:31
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

So, Jesus knew what was to happen. His death and resurrection.

JimiTime wrote: »

you base that on him saying that he didn't know, only his father in heaven knew. So because of the trinity doctrine, you must then reason, he didn't want to know because he is God anyway, it in no way says that, but obviously you must assume this to concur with the trinity. So when he got back to heaven he then knew? So The father and the Son are parts of a triune godhead, but at times the father can know more than the son and vice versa?

The missing part is that Jesus was man at this time. We surmise that the strategy of God was that Jesus during this time would not have th etime of His second coming revealed to Him. Although He was aware of what the signs were to indicate the second coming.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The missing part is that Jesus was man at this time. We surmise that the strategy of God was that Jesus during this time would not have th etime of His second coming revealed to Him. Although He was aware of what the signs were to indicate the second coming.

So he was God, without being all knowing? Actually, while we are on such a topic, why did he say the father was greater than the son?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

So he was God, without being all knowing? Actually, while we are on such a topic, why did he say the father was greater than the son?

It's what theologians refer to as the Economic Trinity. This means that each Person within the Godhead fulfills a particular role in order to work out God's salvation plan. Thus the Son willingly subordinated Himself to the Father and took the form of a servant, even though He was coequal with the Father in power and glory. This is explained in Philippians 2 and exemplified by Christ washing the disciples' feet in John 13.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

It's what theologians refer to as the Economic Trinity. This means that each Person within the Godhead fulfills a particular role in order to work out God's salvation plan. Thus the Son willingly subordinated Himself to the Father and took the form of a servant, even though He was coequal with the Father in power and glory. This is explained in Philippians 2 and exemplified by Christ washing the disciples' feet in John 13.

So when he said the father was greater than he, he only meant at that particular time?

Also, when he said what came to be called the model prayer, why did he pray to the father? If The holy Spirit and the Son are equal, why did he just pray to the Father?

Also, before Jesus, was there a Son?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

So when he said the father was greater than he, he only meant at that particular time?

Yes, I believe that the Son willingly subordinated Himself to the Father during the Incarnation.

Also, when he said what came to be called the model prayer, why did he pray to the father? If The holy Spirit and the Son are equal, why did he just pray to the Father?

The idea behind the Economic Trinity is that each Person within the Godhead fulfills certain roles. For example, it was the Son (not the Father or the Spirit) who died on the Cross. It was the Spirit (not the Son or the Father) who was poured out on the Day of Pentecost. It is the Father (not the Son or the Father) who hears and answers prayer. This is why Christians usually pray to the Father, through the Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus.

Also, before Jesus, was there a Son?

The Second Person of the Trinity certainly existed from all eternity. He is called the Word (Logos) in the opening verses of John's Gospel. Whether you think he should be called "the Son" prior to the Incarnation depends on whether you believe in the Eternal Sonship of Jesus or not:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I believe that the Son willingly subordinated Himself to the Father during the Incarnation.


The idea behind the Economic Trinity is that each Person within the Godhead fulfills certain roles. For example, it was the Son (not the Father or the Spirit) who died on the Cross. It was the Spirit (not the Son or the Father) who was poured out on the Day of Pentecost. It is the Father (not the Son or the Father) who hears and answers prayer. This is why Christians usually pray to the Father, through the Holy Spirit, in the name of Jesus.


The Second Person of the Trinity certainly existed from all eternity. He is called the Word (Logos) in the opening verses of John's Gospel. Whether you think he should be called "the Son" prior to the Incarnation depends on whether you believe in the Eternal Sonship of Jesus or not:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

I don't think I'll ever get it. All the language Jesus uses says differently to me. even when he says about his oneness with the father, he says 'let the apostles be one just like we are one'. Even the language used about being 'given' authority. it certainly doesn't say co-equal to me. The fact that the trinity did not come to christianity until constantine is another big clanger for me. As someone who believes the RCC are and were rotten to the core from their very founding, this really puts another nail in the trinities cofifn for me.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

The fact that the trinity did not come to christianity until constantine is another big clanger for me.

Come on, Jimi, that is as much of an urban legend as the recurring trolls' nonsense about the Council of Nicaea determining the Canon of Scripture. It was around the time of Constantine that Church Councils dotted all the 'i's and crossed all the 't's to give a very precise definition of the Trinity - primarily because of the various heresies that kept finding loopholes in the church's traditionally vaguer understanding of the Trinity. However, a quick reading of early Church history demonstrates that Christians believed in the Trinity from the very beginning (despite the JWs attempts to rewrite history).

Here's a few quotes - you can see both the understanding and the language become more explicit as Christians struggled to express and reconcile the various Scriptural teachings regarding the Godhead, and to avoid contradicting Scripture or falling into heresy.

70 AD: The Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1).

The late 1st century: Ignatius of Antioch
"Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual." (Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13).

151 AD: Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein." (First Apology 13:5–6).

181 AD: Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom." (To Autolycus 2:15). Theophilus is using the word 'Trinity' 160 years before Constantine!

189 AD: Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ...and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." (Against Heresies 1:10:1)

216 AD: Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made…. We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit…. This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics." (Against Praxeas 2)

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (ibid).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." (ibid., 9)

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent personae, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are one' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number." (ibid., 25).

225 AD: Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist." (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1)

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon…the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words 'when' and 'never' are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages." (ibid.).

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages." (ibid.).

228 AD: Hippolytus of Rome
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God." (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29)

235 AD: Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God." (Treatise on the Trinity 11)

262 AD: Dionysius
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads.... [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate." (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1)

"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe.... It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature].... But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd." (ibid., 1–2).

"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity.... Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'." (ibid., 3).

265 AD: Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God.... There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." (Declaration of Faith).

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Come on, Jimi, that is as much of an urban legend as the recurring trolls' nonsense about the Council of Nicaea determining the Canon of Scripture. It was around the time of Constantine that Church Councils dotted all the 'i's and crossed all the 't's to give a very precise definition of the Trinity - primarily because of the various heresies that kept finding loopholes in the church's traditionally vaguer understanding of the Trinity. However, a quick reading of early Church history demonstrates that Christians believed in the Trinity from the very beginning (despite the JWs attempts to rewrite history).

Here's a few quotes - you can see both the understanding and the language become more explicit as Christians struggled to express and reconcile the various Scriptural teachings regarding the Godhead, and to avoid contradicting Scripture or falling into heresy.

70 AD: The Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water…. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1).

The late 1st century: Ignatius of Antioch
"Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit; in the beginning and in the end; with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual." (Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13).

151 AD: Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein." (First Apology 13:5–6).

181 AD: Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place.... The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom." (To Autolycus 2:15). Theophilus is using the word 'Trinity' 160 years before Constantine!

189 AD: Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ...and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." (Against Heresies 1:10:1)

216 AD: Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made…. We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit…. This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics." (Against Praxeas 2)

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (ibid).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." (ibid., 9)

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent personae, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are one' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number." (ibid., 25).

225 AD: Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist." (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1)

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon…the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words 'when' and 'never' are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages." (ibid.).

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages." (ibid.).

228 AD: Hippolytus of Rome
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God." (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29)

235 AD: Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God…. Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God." (Treatise on the Trinity 11)

262 AD: Dionysius
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads.... [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate." (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1)

"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe.... It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature].... But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd." (ibid., 1–2).

"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity.... Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'." (ibid., 3).

265 AD: Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God.... There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything super-induced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." (Declaration of Faith).

I accept that there was was concept before constantine, but constantine rammed it home. As you said, put a 'strict definition' of it. There is an inseperable union between the father, the son, and the holy spirit. I'd never deny that. However, it is quite clear to me that the Father is God. Since everything was created through The Word but the Word is begotton of the Father, The Word is the only thing directly from Gods substance. Jesus is not his equal, rather, he has been 'given' a name above all others. he has been 'given' authority above the heavens and the earth. How is someone 'given' something they already have? Also, if we think of the term Father and Son. Even think of the hebrew scriptures with reference to father and son. All the language does not point to an equality, but rather an inseperable union. Nowhere do you see terms like God the Son in scripture. You do see the Father called God though. You see terms like 'Gods holy spirit', indicating something belonging to God, but never 'god the holy spirit'. all of these things were written after the fact. The apostles never mentioned this 'fundamental christian doctrine'. Jesus never mentioned this 'fundamental christian doctrine'. In fact Jesus categorically says the father is greater than he. However, trinity believers just say that he only means at that time etc. The father also had knowledge of the day of Armageddon, but jesus didn't. He diverted all Glory to His Father. Its cut an dry for me. One God, The Father of all creation. His son and Holy Spirit are an inseperable union with him. But there is only One God.

BTW. Alot of the quotes above mention the father the son and the holy spirit. But what does that prove as regards them all making up a triune godhead? the bible mentions the father the son and holy spirit, it doesn't say they are all part of a triune godhead though.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

All the language does not point to an equality, but rather an inseperable union. Nowhere do you see terms like God the Son in scripture. You do see the Father called God though. You see terms like 'Gods holy spirit', indicating something belonging to God, but never 'god the holy spirit'. all of these things were written after the fact.

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1)

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9)

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours. (2 Peter 1:1)

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 3:16-18)

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4)

kelly1

How about this:-

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

Doesn't this imply equality with the Father? Jesus is a perfect image of His Father.

and this:-

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

There it is in black and white. Something to meditate upon.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

There it is in black and white. Something to meditate upon.

Black and pale blue on my screen.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" - which means, "God with us." (Matthew 1:22-23)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1)

Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9)

But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours. (2 Peter 1:1)

But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 3:16-18)

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4)

You've certainly given me food for thought there PDN. Thanks for taking the time. I'm going to have a deeper look. Might take a while. Once again, thanks for taking the time.
J.