Hypostatic Union

[psimmond]

I said in my last post...

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.

Homer wrote: ...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?

I usually prefer to avoid the word "individuals" because it can connote "unique natures or essences," but I do think you can speak of both three distinct persons or three individuals as long as you make it clear you are referring to three divine persons or three divine individuals of the same essence--one Godhead, not three Gods.

I suppose I'm restating more than clarifying, but there is mystery involved here that I can't fully understand nor explain.

[Homer]

OK, lets say a scientist cloned an individual twice and the result was three persons of the exact same "essence" (not sure if that is the right word). Would there only be one person or three?

[jarrod]

OK, lets say a scientist cloned an individual twice and the result was three persons of the exact same "essence" (not sure if that is the right word). Would there only be one person or three?

Why pose that in such a way that the nature of God could be explained away by a science experiment by a created being? I think I know where you are going, I just don't think it's a beneficial analogy/illustration to consider -- no matter which belief I held.

[psimmond]

Homer wrote: OK, lets say a scientist cloned an individual twice and the result was three persons of the exact same "essence" (not sure if that is the right word). Would there only be one person or three?

There would be three people.

We cannot use a human analogy (or a hypothetical human cloning analogy) because humans do not possess a divine essence. It is this divine essence that makes it possible to have three distinct persons but one God. Like I said before, it makes no sense to say that my word (expression) is of the same essence as my body or my spirit. A cloning scenario doesn't change this fact.

[Paidion]

We cannot use a human analogy (or a hypothetical human cloning analogy) because humans do not possess a divine essence. It is this divine essence that makes it possible to have three distinct persons but one God.

So. It is the ESSENCE which is the one God. God is an essence composed of three persons. God is thus impersonal. But each of the three divine persons is personal. Then why do people refer to God as "He"? If the one God is an essence, then wouldn't it make more sense to refer to this essence as "It"? And why don't we refer to the persons of the Trinity as "They"? Neither of these is done in the Bible.

The apostle Paul seems to have made the distinction between the Father and the Son simple and clear. He said that the "one God" is the Father:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”-- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (I Corinthians 8:5,6 ESV)

[psimmond]

Paidion wrote: So. It is the ESSENCE which is the one God. God is an essence composed of three persons. God is thus impersonal. But each of the three divine persons is personal. Then why do people refer to God as "He"? If the one God is an essence, then wouldn't it make more sense to refer to this essence as "It"? And why don't we refer to the persons of the Trinity as "They"? Neither of these is done in the Bible.

This is not what I said nor what I believe. The Godhead is made up of three distinct persons, and these three are of the the same divine essence.

I do refer to the persons of the trinity as "they." I say for example that "they" can all be seen in the account of Jesus' baptism.

Paidion wrote:
Paul wrote:For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”-- yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (I Corinthians 8:5,6 ESV)

Paidion, even if you don't think Jesus' "I am" statements are significant, you still have to deal with the fact that Isaiah said the Messiah would be "God with us" and Matthew repeats this. At least two apostles refer to Jesus as God--John and Thomas--and so does the writer of Hebrews. And Jesus taught that you must worship God alone and yet allowed his followers to worship him.

[Paidion]

It all depends on what you mean by "God". I have no problem with referring to Jesus as "God" in the sense of being Deity, "the exact image of the Father's essence" (Heb 1:3) in other words, the same essence, if you will.I quoted early Christian writers who used it in this way. What I have a problem with in saying "Jesus is God" is speaking as if He were the same person as the Father. Trinitarians — yes, Trinitarians who claim not to be Modalists — make statements such as "God was born on the earth as a man." When the New Testament refers to "God" as a Person, it refers to the Father. But clearly the Father was not born on earth as a man. If Trinitarians mean the essence was born on earth as a man, this is indeed odd, for the essence is not a person. Why not state the matter clearly, "The Son of God was born on the earth as a man"?

[mattrose]

It all depends on what you mean by "God". I have no problem with referring to Jesus as "God" in the sense of being Deity, "the exact image of the Father's essence" (Heb 1:3) in other words, the same essence, if you will.I quoted early Christian writers who used it in this way. What I have a problem with in saying "Jesus is God" is speaking as if He were the same person as the Father. Trinitarians — yes, Trinitarians who claim not to be Modalists — make statements such as "God was born on the earth as a man." When the New Testament refers to "God" as a Person, it refers to the Father. But clearly the Father was not born on earth as a man. If Trinitarians mean the essence was born on earth as a man, this is indeed odd, for the essence is not a person. Why not state the matter clearly, "The Son of God was born on the earth as a man"?

In my opinion, paidion, you are using a bit too much rigidity in language here. The term God may apply to the entire trinity... or specifically to the Father... or specifically to the Son... or specifically to the Spirit. True, it occurs more frequently in regards to the Trinity and the Father, but the quantity of usage does not necessarily equate to the truthfulness of usage. Language is elastic enough to make room for this potentially confusing usage because we have things like context to help us understand the sense in which a given term is being used.

In other words, the problem with your comment, here, is that when people say "Jesus is God" they generally do NOT mean that Jesus is the same person as the Father.... and the context of their words generally makes that clear. They mean that He is God in the sense of being deity, which you say you have no problem with!

[steve7150]

In other words, the problem with your comment, here, is that when people say "Jesus is God" they generally do NOT mean that Jesus is the same person as the Father.... and the context of their words generally makes that clear. They mean that He is God in the sense of being deity, which you say you have no problem with!





One of the several problems with the phrase "Jesus is God" is that it means different things to different people and leads to other phrases which i think are inaccurate like "Mary the mother of God." God has a mother? No Jesus had a mother.

Yes they do generally mean the trinity but not always if you are a Modalist or a Oneness and to a non-Christian monotheist it sounds like idolatry. To an atheist it sounds truly unbelievable.

I understand that we should not describe Jesus to appease unbelievers, but even Jesus called his Father "My God", and said to others the Father is "your God."

[mattrose]

In my view, if we are going to stop using words and phrases b/c the culture misunderstands them, then we can't stop with phrases like "Jesus is God," we'd have to also eliminate usage of the word "God" in general (let alone "Jesus" and even "is"!).

To say we shouldn't use "Jesus is God" while admitting that "Jesus is deity" is just as confusing as not using "Jesus is God"

The key is in the conversation... the context. Perhaps the problem is not so much in the words that we use but in the fact that we insist on labels instead of dialogue.