God is now two in essence, not one?

[_Ely]

Would you say "God is greater then i?" Of course not but Christ had to say that because apparently it was'nt clear.

I'm still baffled. Are you also saying that it was not clear that the Father is greater "all" and that Jesus had to say "My Father... is greater than all" (John 10:29)? Was Jesus saying "ALTHOUGH all are diety, the Father is still greater than all"? Whatever you do with Jesus saying "My Father is greater than I" you have to do the same with him saying "My Father... is greater than all."

[_Ely]

Paidion,

My original question suggested that non-unitarian theology results in God being two in nature - thus invalidating the claim to monotheism. in response, you said that your understanding of God as a being a "deitific nature" stops you from reaching this conclusion. You were affirming that regardless of what happened in Israel 2000-odd years ago, there is still only one nature that is intrinsically divine. But you were also saying that of the two persons who have this nature, one of them also now has another nature - one of "altered" humanity. Again, God is not two in nature because "God" is a nature!

I understand why you speak in such a manner concerning God. It is the only way you have of staying faithful to the biblical maxim that God is one. My problem is that I don't ever see the scriptures speaking of God in such a manner. From Genesis through to Ecclesiastes and from Isaiah through to Revelation, all the inspired writers speak of God, Yahweh as an only "who", not an only "what." I fail to see how your understanding can make any sense of a whole multutude of scriptures.

For example, can you show how the idea of God as being a "deitific nature" was in the minds of these two pious Jewish men during their discussion of the shema:

"Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that he had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

[Guest]

I'm still baffled. Are you also saying that it was not clear that the Father is greater "all" and that Jesus had to say "My Father... is greater than all" (John 10:29)? Was Jesus saying "ALTHOUGH all are diety, the Father is still greater than all"? Whatever you do with Jesus saying "My Father is greater than I" you have to do the same with him saying "My Father... is greater than all."

If that were true then Jesus would not need to compare him and the Father "mano to mano" as they say.
I suspect the "greater then all" statement is not meant to compare God to individual human beings. Perhaps it's meant in the sense "greater then his creation."

[_Ely]

Paidion?

[Guest]

For example, can you show how the idea of God as being a "deitific nature" was in the minds of these two pious Jewish men during their discussion of the shema:

"Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that he had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one..."

Yes, Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God is one Yahweh."

For Yahweh to be one Yahweh does not necessarily mean that Yahweh is one individual. We ought not to conclude that Yahweh is a single individual until we have examined other scripture.

Indeed, Genesis 19:24 indicated two individuals each of whom is called "Yahweh".

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven...

The messenger who remained behind while the other two went ahead into Sodom, was addressed by Abraham as "Yahweh". Then this one went ahead into Sodom and Gororrah, and the Yahweh in heaven (the Father) worked through the Yahweh on earth to bring down fire and brimstone upon the cities.

We also have the following passage which seems to clearly show that Yahweh is plural:

Then Yahweh God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..." Genesis 3:22

Furthermore, Jesus Himelf said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." He seems to indicate that He is another exactly like the Father.

The author of Hebrews states that Jesus is the exact image (or "stamp") of the Father's essence.

So the scriptures seem clear that the Father has a divine nature, and the Son, by virtue of being begotten by the Father as His first act, also has a divine nature. Together they form the fulness of Deity; They share the name "Yahweh" and They share the same Holy Spirit.

[_Ely]

Paidion,

You didn't answer the question. I was asking you to show how your idea makes sense of the passage in question. When Jesus said:

The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Is it your understanding that Jesus speaking of a deitific nature and not a person?

And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

Again, was he speaking about loving a deitific nature with all the soul, mind etc.? Likewise, when the scribe said:

Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength

Again, in speaking of a He and a Him, was the scribe talking about a detific nature as opposed to a person?

[Guest]

I believe these type of statements were made earlier in Jesus's ministry when he seemed to speak a bit cryptically about who he was. The statements about himself elevating himself to "diety" were reported in John's gospel and were later in his ministry as he got closer to his resurrection and glorification.
But even the phrase "The Lord is One" may not mean "one person" because the hebrew word used for "one" is "echad" which is used for "one in unity" as in , "and they shall become one flesh."

[Guest]

I thought I had answered your question in my last post, Ely.

Okay, I'll try to be more direct:

Concerning the record of what Jesus said to the scribe in Matt 12:29, I think Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 6:4. I tried to show that there are two Individuals each of which is called "Yahweh" in Genesis 19:24. I believe these Individuals to be the Father and His only-begotten Son.
When Jesus spoke to the scribe, I am sure He was aware that the Father was Yahweh, and that He Himself was Yahweh. He would have understood that He and His Father had pefect unity.

There are many places in the bible where we read of this kind of unity. For example:

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Jesus also prayed that His disciples might be ONE as He and the Father are ONE. When Christians are complete (perfected) and of one mind with the Father and the Son, what a wonderful unity that will be! The figure of speech "the body of Christ" so illustrates this kind of unity.

How can I, or anyone else claim to know what Jesus had in mind when he quoted from Deuteronomy 6:4? --- that Yahweh is One ---- whether He was thinking of the unity of Himself and the Father, or whether He was thinking of the Father alone. In my opinion, He was thinking of the former. The scribe, doubtless was thinking of the latter. But Jesus did not reveal His full Deity at that time. The scribe was not ready for that. The Jews took up stones to stone Him when, on another occasion, He said that He and the Father were One [John 10:31]. They understood that by so saying, He, being a man, made Himself God. Indeed, He did know He was God in the generic sense. He and the Father constiture Deity, in a sense analogous to that in which people on earth constiture humanity. Jesus frequently referred to Himself as "the Son of God" (although even more frequently as "the son of man"). The only-begotten son of God is deity as the Father is deiety. The multiple- begotten sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, and their progeny, were and are humanity.

It is clear that sometimes Yahweh refers to the Father alone, just as sometimes God (or always "the God" in the NT where it is not qualified by other adjectives or adjectival phrases) refers to the Father alone. Jesus quoted one such example, when he questioned the scribes' assertion that the Messiah was the son of David:

David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.’ David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?" Mark 12:36,37

"Yahweh said to my Lord". Clearly "Yahweh" refers to the Father, and "My Lord" refers to the Messiah.

So, in summary, I think that in quoting the reference to the unity of Yahweh in Deut 6:4, He had in mind His own unity with the Father (as He said in John 10:31 "I and the Father are ONE) --- that He was thinking neither of a "deitific nature" or "a person", but "two persons" ---- He and the Father in perfect unity.

[_Ely]

So, you say that when Jesus quoted the shema, he was thinking of 'neither of a "deitific nature" or "a person", but "two persons" ---- He and the Father in perfect unity.

But you agree that the scribe thought that Jesus was speaking about the Father only as being the subject of the shema.

If this be the case, why did Jesus consider him to have answered "wisely" and why did he commend him for his comprehension of his words? Would this not be confusing and misleading if - as you say - the scribe had misinterpreted Jesus' words?

[Guest]

So, you say that when Jesus quoted the shema, he was thinking of 'neither of a "deitific nature" or "a person", but "two persons" ---- He and the Father in perfect unity.

Sorry to interject but according to the commentary of the Apostle John "For this reason therefore the Jews were seaking all the more to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath , but also was calling God his own Father , making himself equal with God." John 5.18