Hypostatic Union

[jarrod]

I like the idea of defining God not so much as the sum total of His attributes, but by the core of His character.

To me, Jesus was shown to be God while on this earth primarily by His character and claims. Proving his deity wasn't his mission. His deity is the best conclusion to draw from his life.

Man I really like this. I started the post by asking more questions and as I struggled through them myself I think I came to find your answer more satisfactory.

I started by thinking that we define things by their attributes. Like... "Jim is a nice guy who does X, Y, and Z". I think my original thought was-- that is how we typically describe someone when we talk about them. However, I now see there can be a difference between _definition_ and _description_.

I am struggling with "proving his deity wasn't His mission." It seemed like the events at His baptism, the way He spoke about Himself, and the inspired works put in New Testament seem to suggest part of His mission was to prove it, He just wanted others to come the conclusion based on His life.

[Paidion]

I am struggling with "proving his deity wasn't His mission." It seemed like the events at His baptism, the way He spoke about Himself, and the inspired works put in New Testament seem to suggest part of His mission was to prove it ...

It is my contention rather, that He was trying to prove that He was totally human. The four gospels record 77 times His reference to Himself as "the son of man."
How many times do the gospels record Jesus as referring to Himself as "the son of God"? ZERO!

However, having said that, I affirm that it is clear however that whenever OTHERS referred to Him as "the son of God," He never denied it.

[jarrod]

However, having said that, I affirm that it is clear however that whenever OTHERS referred to Him as "the son of God," He never denied it.

Well I think that's where I end, "logically." How many times does it need to be said to make it true? If, at Jesus' baptism, God said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased," that is good enough for me with regards to being "the son of God."

[steve7150]

THE NICENE CREED
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages,



With all due respect to the Nicene Creed , doesn't this identify the begetting of the Son of God?

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you therefore also that Holy One who is to be born WILL BE CALLED the Son of God."
Luke 1.35

Notice the angel said "will be called the Son of God."

[Paidion]

With all due respect to the Nicene Creed , doesn't this identify the begetting of the Son of God?

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you therefore also that Holy One who is to be born WILL BE CALLED the Son of God."
Luke 1.35

Notice the angel said "will be called the Son of God."

But the conception of Jesus can hardly said to have occurred before ALL ages, can it?

[psimmond]

The Word (Logos) of God was with God and was God in the beginning; however, I don't think we should say that Jesus was begotten "before all ages." "Let there be light" is not Jesus, and Jesus is not "Let there be light." But both are Logos! Jesus is Logos--that which existed in the beginning--but not all Logos is Jesus. (We know that God didn't lose the ability to communicate when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.)

This spirit God has a Spirit (that which comes from God--God breathed*--and gives power and life) and Logos (expression). When God sent his Spirit to enter into people in both the Old and New Testaments, we don't say that a new God showed up on the scene. Likewise when God spoke in the Old Testament and when his Word took on flesh in the New Testament, we don't say that a new God showed up on the scene.

It seems to me that the Spirit of God (God's breath/that which comes from God and gives power and life) and the Word of God (God's expression) can both take on personhood. And it also seems to me that Yahweh, his Breath, and his Word must all be one. The Breath and the Word cannot exist without Yahweh, and I don't think Yahweh could be God without Breath and Word. Likewise the Word is breathed from Yahweh and so the Word could not exist without the Breath. I suspect this is why first the Spirit (God's breath) caused Mary to become pregnant and then the Word became flesh.

I do think the trinity is a pretty good explanation for what we read in the Bible. I also think it makes sense to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. I have a body, spirit, and word (expression) but these are all components of the one me.

*When I refer to God's Spirit as God's breath, please don't think I'm saying that God has lungs and inhales and exhales.

[Paidion]

It seems to me that the Spirit of God (God's breath/that which comes from God and gives power and life) and the Word of God (God's expression) can both take on personhood. And it also seems to me that Yahweh, his Breath, and his Word must all be one.

Okay, you say that the Spirit and the Word "take on personhood." Does this mean that there are three divine Persons? Three divine Individuals? If so, in what sense are they One? Do you think they are one in thought, intention, purpose, etc., but nonetheless three in person?

I do think the trinity is a pretty good explanation for what we read in the Bible. I also think it makes sense to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. I have a body, spirit, and word (expression) but these are all components of the one me.

Oh. Then if you, as a tripartite individual are a good analogy for God's being, then you can't be be a Trinitarian after all. Though you see yourself as being made up of body, spirit, and expression, you are one individual person. But Trinitarians see God as three divine Individuals. Perhaps you are actually a Modalist. There are a lot of Modalists who think they are Trinitarians. Do you believe God to be one single, divine Individual who expresses Himself in three different modes of being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of which has "taken on personhood", but taken together are not three different Individuals, but only One?

[jarrod]

Okay, you say that the Spirit and the Word "take on personhood." Does this mean that there are three divine Persons? Three divine Individuals? If so, in what sense are they One? Do you think they are one in thought, intention, purpose, etc., but nonetheless three in person?

I am thinking this through so I reserve the right to say something dumb and retract later When I think of the concept of the 3 distinct persons (Father, Word, & Spirit) as being one, I relate it to a marriage (as said in previous posts). I believe the relationship is so intimate between all three and that they each are so divested into the "pleasure" of the other that it is though they are "one." This also implies that they are on the same level -- each being God at their core.

Of course marriage may not fit for some people. Sure we are limited in our capacity for love since we also carry with us the "flesh." However, without sin, we (husbands) would love our wives as Christ perfectly loved the church and likewise wives would be invested into their husbands. I would take care of my wife's needs, she would take care of mine, and together all needs would be met. This is what I think of when 2 become one flesh -- not simply a "marriage bed" concept.

Like marriage, we see separate roles within the "triune nature" God reveals in Scripture (as I see it). The Father has certain "functions," so does the Word (creation, taking on flesh, etc, etc, etc+), and so does the Spirit (searches all things, convicts the world, etc, etc). I believe these distinct characteristics, as well as the fact that they are each referred to as distinct persons by each member, give weight to their personalities.

Oh. Then if you, as a tripartite individual are a good analogy for God's being, then you can't be be a Trinitarian after all. Though you see yourself as being made up of body, spirit, and expression, you are one individual person. But Trinitarians see God as three divine Individuals.

I agree with you in that I do not believe using the make-up of man, held by trichotomists, is a good illustration for the triune nature of God. I definitely think, as you said, Modalism would fit that analogy best.

I don't assume to know the complete nature of God and any illustration I have heard or have attempted to give can have holes in it. However, with the limited information given in Scripture, I do believe Trinitarianism reconciles the best.

[psimmond]

psimmond you wrote:It seems to me that the Spirit of God (God's breath/that which comes from God and gives power and life) and the Word of God (God's expression) can both take on personhood. And it also seems to me that Yahweh, his Breath, and his Word must all be one.

Paidion wrote: Okay, you say that the Spirit and the Word "take on personhood." Does this mean that there are three divine Persons? Three divine Individuals? If so, in what sense are they One? Do you think they are one in thought, intention, purpose, etc., but nonetheless three in person?

Yes, I think we can say there are 3 divine persons or individuals as long as we understand that we are talking about one personal God whose Breath and Word can also take on personhood (relate to us in a personal manner). Three of the same essence. Since the Spirit and Word issue from God and are God (of the same essence), we can say that all three must be one in thought, intention, purpose, etc.

Paidion wrote: Oh. Then if you, as a tripartite individual are a good analogy for God's being, then you can't be be a Trinitarian after all.

I think that I am a very poor analogy for God's being! I simply used the analogy to show that in a very simply sense I possess 3 parts that are me; however, my Breath and Word have very little power and no ability to take on personhood. And it makes no sense to say for example that my word (expression) is of the same essence as my body.

I suppose whether or not I'm a trinitarian could depend on your definition, but I consider myself a trinitarian .

[Homer]

psimmond wrote:

It seems to me that the Spirit of God (God's breath/that which comes from God and gives power and life) and the Word of God (God's expression) can both take on personhood. And it also seems to me that Yahweh, his Breath, and his Word must all be one.

With which I agree. Jesus is The Word. Words represent thoughts, ideas, concepts. If there was no word it seems to me God would have no thoughts, thus God and the word must be coetaneous.

But then psimmond wrote:

Yes, I think we can say there are 3 divine persons or individuals as long as we understand that we are talking about one personal God whose Breath and Word can also take on personhood (relate to us in a personal manner). Three of the same essence. Since the Spirit and Word issue from God and are God (of the same essence), we can say that all three must be one in thought, intention, purpose, etc.

psimmond, perhaps you can clarify - when God, Jesus, and the Spirit are said to be individuals do you mean individual persons, which would mean three Gods or do you mean "personae" which would mean three simultaneous roles or manifestations of God?