Trinity.

[TheEditor]

Hi Paidion,

Maybe Jesus' use of the words "seeing God" are to be understood differently? Job said: "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you" Job 42:5. This was at the end of the matter and maybe it was a way of expressing that he had learned more about God than he had previously known. Or, perhaps since the Scriptures say that to the "pure all things are pure, but to the defiled all things are defiled", then only those "pure of heart" would be able to "see" God, because God is pure, whereas the impure would not be able to so see? Just some ideas.

Regards, Brenden.

[Jose]

One more thing; the church is granted immortality--something the angels do not posess--but as of now only posessed by God and Christ.

Not to go off topic, but I think maybe the angels are immortal now also.

"Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20:34-36)

Doesn't it seem that they were created immortal or were given immortality at some point already?

I don't really think the passage is saying that they will become immortal at the resurrection along with those who are worthy, do you?

[darinhouston]

Being a part of Christ's body is to partake of his nature and life, and to be one Spirit with him, but it's not to literally be Christ, because we can be cut off from Christ and thus no longer a part of him.

This raises an interesting and very relevant question to this discussion, and a corollary to a frequent debate about Christ's nature. I think most on this thread would agree that Jesus could have sinned prior to his resurrection (if not, let's move that to another thread). So, with dizerner's comment above in mind, what would have happened if He "had" sinned. Would He have been cut off from the Father? If so, then would He have ceased "being God?"

[Homer]

Brenden wrote:

No one is saying that John does not say "What God was the Word was"; this is the most plain and non dogma-laden translation of John 1:1. John says that the Word is not just an emanation from God (as the Gnostics might say) nor a barrier to keep people from anthropomorphizing God (the way the Jews may have thought) but that He is of the same essence and nature. You are a Man. Your Son is a Man. You are not your son. "God" can be an identity (the Father) and "God" can be a substance (divinity). The Son is divine.

So a man, who is a human, has a son who is a man and also a human. Now we have two humans, do we not? So by what logic do we have only one God when we say the Father and Son are exactly the same stuff (divinity)? Perhaps we can say both are one God with separate identities?

[Homer]

Darin wrote:

This raises an interesting and very relevant question to this discussion, and a corollary to a frequent debate about Christ's nature. I think most on this thread would agree that Jesus could have sinned prior to his resurrection (if not, let's move that to another thread). So, with dizerner's comment above in mind, what would have happened if He "had" sinned. Would He have been cut off from the Father? If so, then would He have ceased "being God?"

Wasn't Jesus "cut off" from the Father while on the cross? In bearing our sins He was treated as though He was a sinner, although He was not. And if He had sinned, how would that have been any different than His experience on the cross? And when He became incarnate, didn't He, in a real sense, temporarily give up being God?

Okay, I answered questions with questions, but that's all I've got.

[Paidion]

So a man, who is a human, has a son who is a man and also a human. Now we have two humans, do we not? So by what logic do we have only one God when we say the Father and Son are exactly the same stuff (divinity)?

Here is the way I see it:

1. A human man who begets a son who is also a human person. They are made of exactly the same stuff—human stuff. Yes, we have two human beings.

2. God begets a Son who is also a divine Person. They are also of exactly the same stuff—divine stuff or essence. And, we have two divine Beings. Notwithstanding, as Jesus affirmed in his prayer, the Father is the "only true God". (John 17:3). So we have only one true God—the Father. The Son, though He is of the same stuff or essence is NOT the only true God. Yet the only true God honoured Him and gave Him the highest place. For that reason, and for the fact that He is God's only-begotten Son, He is worthy of worship.

It seems confusing that in the new testament the term "theos" is also applied to the Son. But "theos" is sometimes used in a different sense that "THE Theos", which is used of the Father alone. It is used in two other senses: 1) It applies to the divine essence itself (John 1:1, second instance) and 2) It applies to the only being other than the Father who is of this divine essence, namely the Son (John 1:18).

[Paidion]

Maybe Jesus' use of the words "seeing God" are to be understood differently? Job said: "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you" Job 42:5. This was at the end of the matter and maybe it was a way of expressing that he had learned more about God than he had previously known. Or, perhaps since the Scriptures say that to the "pure all things are pure, but to the defiled all things are defiled", then only those "pure of heart" would be able to "see" God, because God is pure, whereas the impure would not be able to so see? Just some ideas.

I see what you mean, Brenden! Jesus may well have used the word "see" in a figurative sense, such as I used in in my first sentence.
Thank you!

[dizerner]

But I have a different question with regards to the passage from 1 Timothy. Paul stated that "the only Sovereign, etc" is One whom "no one has ever seen or can see." Yet Jesus said:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (Matt 5:8 ESV)

Do Paul's words that no one has ever seen God or can see Him contradict the words of Jesus?

I've wrestled with this a long time. I think the verses saying no one can see God perhaps speak of the "fullness" of God, since God is infinite. I really believe and hope we can truly see God—as did many saints of old.

[Jose]

Being a part of Christ's body is to partake of his nature and life, and to be one Spirit with him, but it's not to literally be Christ, because we can be cut off from Christ and thus no longer a part of him.

This raises an interesting and very relevant question to this discussion, and a corollary to a frequent debate about Christ's nature. I think most on this thread would agree that Jesus could have sinned prior to his resurrection (if not, let's move that to another thread). So, with dizerner's comment above in mind, what would have happened if He "had" sinned. Would He have been cut off from the Father? If so, then would He have ceased "being God?"

I may be oversimplifying, but I believe the moment one admits that Christ was not impeccable, (which I do) one must necessarily believe that he was not God, for God cannot sin.

If he had sinned? Perhaps God would have begun with a third Adam to re-establish Paradise Lost, who knows. However, I don't expect that anything like that would've happened because I believe God was with Christ in a manner that no one else has ever experienced. Jesus was certain to succeed where Adam failed since he was filled with the Spirit "without measure" whereas Adam did not appear to be.

I may be raising another topic, or perhaps it may have been already discussed somewhere, but a problem I see with the dual natures theory is that it creates an ambiguity about who Jesus actually was. Was he the man who hung on the cross, or was the "real" Jesus the "second person" or the "essence" in the body that died? Since (according to some trinitarians) the God nature didn't actually die but only "Jesus the man, the human nature" died, doesn't this then leave us with a "mere man" atoning for sins? Doesn't this create a huge problem in the atonement for those who believe that only the death of God could achieve forgiveness? As far as I know, there is no requirement that the sacrificial lamb of God had to be God himself, nor someone who has the "essence" of God in his DNA. All that was needed was that the Lamb be spotless, which of course Jesus was. Sin and death entered the world by a man, and by a man it was taken to the grave. (Romans 5)

May I ask honestly, why is it so necessary that Jesus be God? What doctrine cannot survive if Jesus is simply a man, the anointed of God, who was made to be both Lord and Christ?

Sincerely, Jose

[dizerner]

May I ask honestly, why is it so necessary that Jesus be God? What doctrine cannot survive if Jesus is simply a man, the anointed of God, who was made to be both Lord and Christ?

Thanks for asking... I believe the gap sin created between God and humans was infinite, and only an infinitely perfect creature could cross it. Essentially that's the biggest issue doctrinely for me. Now I believe Scripture describes Christ as something only worthy of God, every knee bowing to him, judge of all creatures, creator of all worlds, visisble and invisible. But doctrinally, the first part is the stickler for me. Humans cannot climb back up to God somehow from the fall. For Jesus to be the true bridge between God and man, he had to be both. I know I've written on this here extensively, but that's it. Even our best "warrior," so to speak, cannot go out and fight our Goliath of sin, even with the help of God. To judge the world system, to judge all the sins of his redeemed, to taste death for every man, to within himself create an entirely new world order and destroy the old, to defeat Satan legally and fulfill the law, Christ had to be a God-man. When we make Christ less than God, our bridge doesn't quite reach to the Father. And we know God's standard is perfection. To insinuate Christ could have sinned is to cast aspersion on his nature and character. Could have and would have, of course are different things. We assert Christ was free but Christ was perfect love as well. Christ freely could do nothing but obey God. Christ himself affirmed this when he said he could call on his Father to save him.