Topic: Sabellianism

[NicholasMyra]

I considering the 3 to be a matter of perception, and you considering the 3 to be a matter of essence

No, you consider the 3 to be a matter of perception, we consider the 3 to be a matter of persons. Tri-theists like Mormons consider the 3 to be a matter of essence.

In the early church there were many who baptized in the name of Jesus alone and they were not necessarily considered non-Christians.  It wasn't until the 400's I believe when it was declared heretical to baptize in the name of Jesus only.

Your second point is not true, and your first point is debatable, because many believe the Book of Acts' reference to baptism "in the name of Jesus" for the reception of the Holy Spirit was a completion of John's baptism which was in the name of the Father.

"During the development of trinitarian theology, it was often proposed that the Christian God had three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa). The questions thus arose, is this threeness a matter of essence or perception? Where the three "persons" of the Godhead permanent distinctions, or modes of God's activity?" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Sabellianism

Jehovah's Witness private wiki propaganda isn't a very good argument.

Obviously in the middle ages men were wrongly burned at the stake for rejecting the trinity.

It seems to me that there is more than one possible interpretation.  Perhaps this is hinted at in the vehemence towards the "judaizers"?  Obviously the early community was very diverse.  And the church can excommunicate until the cows come home, and burn every text that differs from orthodoxy but at the end of the day history will determine if that is a prudent move.

And I am open to discussing these views.

You should probably read the primary sources for yourself instead of trusting random blogs and pop church history.

[xariskai]

this event at his baptism was experienced by all those present and not just experienced by John?

Lk 3:21: "Now when all the people were baptized [ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν] Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened..."

Acts 1:21: "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Luke's gospel doesn't say who the witness is. It is silent.  

The passages both suggest there were multiple witnesses of Jesus' baptism. You can, of course, take or leave the testimonies in Luke and Acts as you have earlier with the Gospels of John and Mark, but that's what Luke and Acts present.

[EkhristosAnesti]

I have not been able to read through the entirety of the last 4-5 pages since the posting of my own response on page one, but I notice generally that discussion on the subject of the Incarnation and Holy Trinity has devolved into matters of logical coherence, scriptural authenticity and historical credibility. I say 'devolved' not because such discussion is necessarily wrong, unedifying or useless, but rather because it seems to have relegated the matter raised by mabsoota's post, which, as far as we Orthodox are concerned, is of paramount importance: the soteriological underpinnings of Incarnational theology. From the Orthodox perspective, authentic Christology is first and foremost a saving Christology rather than a logical Christology; it is the latter too, but only incidentally so.

In a relatively old yet classical work exploring inter alia the Holy Fathers' Christological methodology, Fr. Gerald O'Collins states:

Right from the outset the driving force behind theological inquiry and official teaching about Jesus was clearly the experience of salvation…The overriding concern for salvation and their experience of it led Christians to maintain that two basic conditions make it possible for Jesus to do this for them: he must be truly human and truly divine to function as their effective Saviour…without the incarnation of the Son of God, divine redemption would be impossible. Yet without a genuine incarnation, the battle against the diabolic forces of evil would not be won from the inside. [Christology (Oxford University Press: 1995), 154-5]

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Leisa,

I just want to make clear that my above post was not intended to quell the discussion at hand but rather to re-direct it from the seemingly tiresome and fruitless path it appears to have taken.

I guess the very basic question to you implicitly suggested by my above post is: how does your docetic Christology inform your understanding of salvation? You claim that it makes no sense for God to have become man in reality; rather than attempt to convince you otherwise, my suggestion to you is that the idea of Christ saving us through His coming, life, death, resurrection and ascension, makes no sense unless He truly became man. I am of the belief that once you are able to appreciate this reality you may then be more open-minded to accepting the paradox of the Incarnation.

[Leisa]

Dear Leisa,

I just want to make clear that my above post was not intended to quell the discussion at hand but rather to re-direct it from the seemingly tiresome and fruitless path it appears to have taken.

I guess the very basic question to you implicitly suggested by my above post is: how does your docetic Christology inform your understanding of salvation? You claim that it makes no sense for God to have become man in reality; rather than attempt to convince you otherwise, my suggestion to you is that the idea of Christ saving us through His coming, life, death, resurrection and ascension, makes no sense unless He truly became man. I am of the belief that once you are able to appreciate this reality you may then be more open-minded to accepting the paradox of the Incarnation.

I never said that I believed in docetism.  I'm not sure how you got that impression?  Would you quote me? 
 

[Leisa]

That's just a red herring. The early church accepted baptism in the name of Jesus.

I asked about Sabellianism. This has always been rejected. On what authority do you believe that you alone are correct?

No, it was not "always" rejected.  Let's recall what council defined the trinity. 

[Salpy]

Can you tell us when Sabellianism was ever accepted?

[Leisa]

this event at his baptism was experienced by all those present and not just experienced by John?

Lk 3:21: "Now when all the people were baptized [ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν] Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened..."

Acts 1:21: "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

Luke's gospel doesn't say who the witness is. It is silent.  

The passages both suggest there were multiple witnesses of Jesus' baptism. You can, of course, take or leave the testimonies in Luke and Acts as you have earlier with the Gospels of John and Mark, but that's what Luke and Acts present.

Does Acts 1:21-22 say that many people at Jesus's baptism saw the clouds part and a dove descend on Jesus?

Does Luke report who witnesses the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus?

[Leisa]

Can you tell us when Sabellianism was ever accepted?

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sabellius

[NicholasMyra]

Can you tell us when Sabellianism was ever accepted?

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Sabellius

That's a really bad source, Leisa.

[Salpy]

I've read elsewhere that Pope Callistus tolerated Sabellianism.  However, his position was attacked by other bishops in Rome, Alexandria, and elsewhere.  Although it was held for a while in certain isolated circles, Sabellianism in the end was condemned by the universal Church.  It was never embraced by the Church as a whole.  It was never accepted or vindicated by any council of bishops.  Like other heresies that raised their heads for a while, Sabeliianism did not survive as a legitimate Christian doctrine.

[EkhristosAnesti]

I never said that I believed in docetism.  I'm not sure how you got that impression?  Would you quote me?

In your first few posts you speak of Christ merely appearing to be human but not becoming so in actuality. This reeks of Docetism. Unless you nevertheless regard the humanity of Christ to have been very real albeit foreign to His being and thus never actually appropriated by or united to His Person, in which case your Christology is more akin to the heresy of Adoptionism. Regardless, the principle of your Christology that is relevant to the issues and questions I've raised is that you deny the doctrine of the hypostatic union—the doctrine that is central to a proper understanding of Christ's redemptive mission.

The point I'm trying to emphasise is not simply that your doctrines are senseless, but, and more importantly, they are lifeless. They are neither based on a genuine experience of salvation nor will they ever lead you to such.

[Papist]

I haven't kept up with the converstation as of lately (I really needed a break from OC.net). That being said, doesn't this passage from the Gospel of John provide a defnitive bibilical refutation of Sabellianism?

 "31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

 32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

 33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

 34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

 35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

 36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

 37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

 38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." - John 5:31-38

Clearly the Father and the Son are presented as two distinct persons in this passage.

Further, there is clear biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit and God the Son are two distinct persons:

"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " -John 14 16-17

Here the Holy Spirit is not presented as the same comforter as Jesus, but another or distinct comforter.

[Aindriú]

I haven't kept up with the converstation as of lately (I really needed a break from OC.net). That being said, doesn't this passage from the Gospel of John provide a defnitive bibilical refutation of Sabellianism?

Her mental gymnastics are to deny one Gospel and to allow the twist of another.

No known modalists before 190AD!  I would argue that there were no trinitarians in the first community because all of the disciples were Jews!

You and Minasoliman and Azurestone have all quoted from the gospel of John, the last gospel written.
I agree with you that the gospel of John makes some clear departures from the earlier gospels and I won't argue with you there.
I would be the last person to try and harmonize the gospel of Mark with the gospel of John.
If you prefer the gospel of John then that is fine and we will have a difficult time marrying some of the passages in John with the earliest gospel. Clearly I lean on the gospel of Mark.  And I am not a theologian and I won't even make an attempt to reconcile certain passages. I doubt it can even be done to be honest.  I think there are different voices and they are and will remain distinct.

She appears to think that the Gospel of John is less of the Truth because it is believed to have been written down 20-30 years after Mark. But mostly, because it refutes her theories.

[Papist]

I haven't kept up with the converstation as of lately (I really needed a break from OC.net). That being said, doesn't this passage from the Gospel of John provide a defnitive bibilical refutation of Sabellianism?

Her mental gymnastics are to deny one Gospel and to allow the twist of another.

No known modalists before 190AD!  I would argue that there were no trinitarians in the first community because all of the disciples were Jews!

You and Minasoliman and Azurestone have all quoted from the gospel of John, the last gospel written.
I agree with you that the gospel of John makes some clear departures from the earlier gospels and I won't argue with you there.
I would be the last person to try and harmonize the gospel of Mark with the gospel of John.
If you prefer the gospel of John then that is fine and we will have a difficult time marrying some of the passages in John with the earliest gospel. Clearly I lean on the gospel of Mark.  And I am not a theologian and I won't even make an attempt to reconcile certain passages. I doubt it can even be done to be honest.  I think there are different voices and they are and will remain distinct.

She appears to think that the Gospel of John is less of the Truth because it is believed to have been written down 20-30 years after Mark. But mostly, because it refutes her theories.

Thanks for catching me up to speed. So now, not only is she in business of picking and choosing which Church teachings to believe, but also in the business of deciding the canon of the scriptures for herself. Interesting.

[Leisa]

I never said that I believed in docetism.  I'm not sure how you got that impression?  Would you quote me?

In your first few posts you speak of Christ merely appearing to be human but not becoming so in actuality. This reeks of Docetism. Unless you nevertheless regard the humanity of Christ to have been very real albeit foreign to His being and thus never actually appropriated by or united to His Person, in which case your Christology is more akin to the heresy of Adoptionism. Regardless, the principle of your Christology that is relevant to the issues and questions I've raised is that you deny the doctrine of the hypostatic union—the doctrine that is central to a proper understanding of Christ's redemptive mission.

The point I'm trying to emphasise is not simply that your doctrines are senseless, but, and more importantly, they are lifeless. They are neither based on a genuine experience of salvation nor will they ever lead you to such.

I sympathize with Sabellians and modalists who hold that Jesus is the same as the Father, ie: God.
 
"These in turn split into two principal groups - the Adoptianists and the Modalists - the former holding Christ to be the man chosen of God, on whom the Holy Spirit rested in a quite unique sense, and who after toil and suffering, through His oneness of will with God, became divine, the latter maintaining Christ to be a manifestation of God Himself." (1911 Encyclopedia Britannica)

Jesus, in my opinion, is divine, and does not possess a human nature.  Any more than God the Father or the Holy Spirit have a human nature.  God is not able to have a human nature.  

Human nature and divine nature are opposites, like hot and cold.  Wet and dry.  Up and down.  Something cannot be both God and human.

At least, not to my understanding.

[Theophilos78]

I sympathize with Sabellians and modalists who hold that Jesus is the same as the Father, ie: God.

This is a misleading designation, for all Orthodox Christians hold that Jesus is the same as the Father in the sense that the Son has the same divine substance as the Father.
 

Jesus, in my opinion, is divine, and does not possess a human nature. Any more than God the Father or the Holy Spirit have a human nature.  God is not able to have a human nature.

This means you try to impose limitations on God by trying to make the infinite finite.

If you do not believe that Jesus was a true human, you are not a Sabellianist, but a Gnostic Docetist. 

Human nature and divine nature are opposites, like hot and cold.  Wet and dry.  Up and down.  Something cannot be both God and human.

Human nature and divine nature will not be binary oppositions only because you believe and claim so. More, man was created in the image and likeness of God, which destroys your argument. Finally, if you are a Catholic, you cannot be a Sabellianist or a Gnostic Docetist. This is a mere contradiction.

[Aindriú]

Jesus, in my opinion, is divine, and does not possess a human nature.  Any more than God the Father or the Holy Spirit have a human nature.  God is not able to have a human nature.  

Human nature and divine nature are opposites, like hot and cold.  Wet and dry.  Up and down.  Something cannot be both God and human.

At least, not to my understanding.

Did Jesus bleed? Did he eat and have tears? Was he born and did he die? How about pee and poop?

These are not divine qualities, they are human. Just as, for example, miracles are not human qualities. If you can affirm the former examples, then you must accept his human 'nature', in addition to his divine 'nature'.

[Melodist]

Human nature and divine nature are opposites, like hot and cold.  Wet and dry.  Up and down.  Something cannot be both God and human.

They are other and distinct from each other, but not necessarily "opposite". Also, Jesus isn't a "something", He's a "someone".

[Leisa]

.........Also, Jesus isn't a "something", He's a "someone".

Is that right?

 

[Leisa]

Jesus, in my opinion, is divine, and does not possess a human nature. Any more than God the Father or the Holy Spirit have a human nature.  God is not able to have a human nature.

This means you try to impose limitations on God by trying to make the infinite finite.

I don't quite follow you...?  You are the one saying God has a human nature.  You are the one that is holding the position that Jesus was bound to a human nature.

Let me ask you this:  is it possible for a thing to be both God and not God?  ie: omnipotent and not omnipotent?  Or does being omnipotent cancel out being non-omnipotent?

This is the nature of opposites.  Light cancels out dark.  Heavy cancels out light.  Sick cancels out health.  Truth cancels out lies..etc

So answer the question with a yes or no,...can something be omnipotent and not omnipotent? 

Then answer the question, can something be both God and not God?

[Theophilos78]

I don't quite follow you...?  You are the one saying God has a human nature.  You are the one that is holding the position that Jesus was bound to a human nature.

You sure do not follow me since you prefer constructing your arguments on straw-man fallacy. I do not say God has a human nature. I only say God at the appointed time assumed human nature and was born as a man.

Let me ask you this:  is it possible for a thing to be both God and not God?  ie: omnipotent and not omnipotent?  Or does being omnipotent cancel out being non-omnipotent?

It is possible for God to be both God and man. Taking human nature does not make God less divine and does not force Him to leave His divinity.

God could and chose to take upon Himself what was not divine. He did this because He was already divine. He had nothing to lose.

This is the nature of opposites.  Light cancels out dark.  Heavy cancels out light.  Sick cancels out health.  Truth cancels out lies..etc

 

God and human are not direct oppposites. No matter how many times you repeat this ...

So answer the question with a yes or no,...can something be omnipotent and not omnipotent? 

Then answer the question, can something be both God and not God?

I shall answer this question only after you answer this simple question with a yes or no:

Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? Yes or No?

[Leisa]

Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? Yes or No?

No.

[Leisa]

Did Jesus bleed? Did he eat and have tears? Was he born and did he die? How about pee and poop?

These are not divine qualities, they are human. Just as, for example, miracles are not human qualities. If you can affirm the former examples, then you must accept his human 'nature', in addition to his divine 'nature'.

I do not have to accept it.  You are accepting an illogical premise that something or someone can be both divine and human at the same time. 

[Aindriú]

Did Jesus bleed? Did he eat and have tears? Was he born and did he die? How about pee and poop?

These are not divine qualities, they are human. Just as, for example, miracles are not human qualities. If you can affirm the former examples, then you must accept his human 'nature', in addition to his divine 'nature'.

I do not have to accept it.  You are accepting an illogical premise that something or someone can be both divine and human at the same time. 

By this and the last response, you then claim that God is not omnipotent. We have found what he 'cannot' do.

Also, would you explain Jesus' person? That is, His incarnation on the world with only a divine nature (support it).

[Anba Bola]

"For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. VI).

St. Ignatius of Antioch was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist. He shows through this passage the apostolic faith which he learned directly from the apostles themselves.

[xariskai]

Jesus, in my opinion, is divine, and does not possess a human nature.  Any more than God the Father or the Holy Spirit have a human nature.  God is not able to have a human nature.  Human nature and divine nature are opposites, like hot and cold.  Wet and dry.  Up and down.  Something cannot be both God and human. At least, not to my understanding.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." -2 John 1:7

[Theophilos78]

Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? Yes or No?

No.

This means you believe that God is unable to do something, and is therefore not omnipotent.

[xariskai]

Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? Yes or No?

No.

On one small planet, lying in a manger, one incarnate babe could not lift the rocks He had made. All the rocks of all of the starfields in Him consist, with their whirling atoms; by Him were and ever-are all things lifted up (Col 1:17; Phil 2:5-8).

[Leisa]

Can God create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift? Yes or No?

No.

This means you believe that God is unable to do something, and is therefore not omnipotent.

Yes, God is limited in one respect, God cannot cease to be God.  He cannot cease to be what he is, and that is all powerful.
If you say God can make a rock that he cannot lift then you are saying that God is not all-powerful.  If he is not all-powerful then he is not God is he? 

[Leisa]

Did Jesus bleed? Did he eat and have tears? Was he born and did he die? How about pee and poop?

These are not divine qualities, they are human. Just as, for example, miracles are not human qualities. If you can affirm the former examples, then you must accept his human 'nature', in addition to his divine 'nature'.

I do not have to accept it.  You are accepting an illogical premise that something or someone can be both divine and human at the same time. 

By this and the last response, you then claim that God is not omnipotent. We have found what he 'cannot' do.

Also, would you explain Jesus' person? That is, His incarnation on the world with only a divine nature (support it).

Jesus, in my opinion, could not have had a human nature and a divine nature because they are opposites.  This is what I have been trying to explain.  What need does a divine being have of a human nature?  God is all knowing. 
 
Humans are made through sperm and egg joining together.  Jesus was not formed through sperm and egg.  He is a divine being.  He has no need of sperm and egg. 

If you believe that Jesus had a human nature and was subject to an external divine will not his own, then he cannot be God incarnate.
But a human, or a "lesser" god, or another god.  Yet Jesus preached one God. 

John 5:44 "How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?"

 

[Aindriú]

Jesus, in my opinion, could not have had a human nature and a divine nature because they are opposites.  This is what I have been trying to explain.  What need does a divine being have of a human nature?  God is all knowing. 
 

We don't believe God has any need for human nature, because you're right, He doesn't need us for anything. BUT human nature needs to have the divine nature.

The Orthodox believe that when God took on the human nature, He experienced our pain through our eyes and sanctified our flesh through His.

Romans 5:

11 And not only so: but also we glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received reconciliation. 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, has abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. 20 Now the law entered in that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. 21 That as sin has reigned to death: so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

BTW, how did Jesus die, if he only had a divine nature? Can God be killed?

Humans are made through sperm and egg joining together.  Jesus was not formed through sperm and egg.  He is a divine being.  He has no need of sperm and egg. 

No, He doesn't have any need for sperm and egg. He is God, and was 'incarnated' through a virgin. The divine took the flesh of humanity.

But, I feel as though you're misunderstanding our meaning of nature.

If you believe that Jesus had a human nature and was subject to an external divine will not his own, then he cannot be God incarnate.

But a human, or a "lesser" god, or another god.  Yet Jesus preached one God. 

The exposition of faith from the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 to help relieve any misunderstanding.

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood.  This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html

John 5:44 "How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?"

'of one being with the Father'

[Salpy]

Leisa,

May I suggest that you read On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius?

http://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Saint-Athanasius/dp/1456546236/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

It's a classic--probably one of the most influential books ever written about Christian theology--and it will help you to understand why mainstream Christians believe what we do about Christ.  It's a pretty quick and easy read, and it will go a long way toward helping you understand "the other side." 

[Leisa]

We don't believe God has any need for human nature, because you're right, He doesn't need us for anything. BUT human nature needs to have the divine nature.

The Orthodox believe that when God took on the human nature, He experienced our pain through our eyes and sanctified our flesh through His.

Is God all-knowing?  

It is a contradiction to say God doesn't need a human nature, but he took a human nature to experience our pain.
 
If someone has all knowledge, and another person offers to teach them the alphabet, haven't they already got it?  They have all knowledge.

So either God is all knowing, and therefore has no need for information he already has, or he is not all knowing and has needs.

Which do you say God is?


 

[Theophilos78]

Is God all-knowing?  

It is a contradiction to say God doesn't need a human nature, but he took a human nature to experience our pain.
 
If someone has all knowledge, and another person offers to teach them the alphabet, haven't they already got it?  They have all knowledge.

So either God is all knowing, and therefore has no need for information he already has, or he is not all knowing and has needs.

Which do you say God is?

Another straw-man argument from you!

Knowing is NOT the same as experiencing. I know how women get pregnant and give birth, but this does not mean that I have experienced these myself!

[ialmisry]

Did Jesus bleed? Did he eat and have tears? Was he born and did he die? How about pee and poop?

These are not divine qualities, they are human. Just as, for example, miracles are not human qualities. If you can affirm the former examples, then you must accept his human 'nature', in addition to his divine 'nature'.

I do not have to accept it.  You are accepting an illogical premise that something or someone can be both divine and human at the same time. 

By this and the last response, you then claim that God is not omnipotent. We have found what he 'cannot' do.

Also, would you explain Jesus' person? That is, His incarnation on the world with only a divine nature (support it).

Jesus, in my opinion, could not have had a human nature and a divine nature because they are opposites.  This is what I have been trying to explain.  What need does a divine being have of a human nature?  God is all knowing. 
 
Humans are made through sperm and egg joining together.  Jesus was not formed through sperm and egg.  He is a divine being.  He has no need of sperm and egg. 

If you believe that Jesus had a human nature and was subject to an external divine will not his own, then he cannot be God incarnate.
But a human, or a "lesser" god, or another god.  Yet Jesus preached one God. 

John 5:44 "How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?"

 

You should change your faith identification as "Apollonarian."

[Aindriú]

We don't believe God has any need for human nature, because you're right, He doesn't need us for anything. BUT human nature needs to have the divine nature.

The Orthodox believe that when God took on the human nature, He experienced our pain through our eyes and sanctified our flesh through His.

Is God all-knowing?  

It is a contradiction to say God doesn't need a human nature, but he took a human nature to experience our pain.
 
If someone has all knowledge, and another person offers to teach them the alphabet, haven't they already got it?  They have all knowledge.

So either God is all knowing, and therefore has no need for information he already has, or he is not all knowing and has needs.

Which do you say God is?

The thing is, this is irrelevant. It wasn't for God. It was for us.

When He died on the cross, He sanctified death. When we beat Him, He showed His love, because of His foreknowledge. We can survive all struggles because He has shown that with divine strength, His strength, it can all be overcome.

[Shiny]

Leisa,

May I suggest that you read On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius?

http://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Saint-Athanasius/dp/1456546236/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

It's a classic--probably one of the most influential books ever written about Christian theology--and it will help you to understand why mainstream Christians believe what we do about Christ.  It's a pretty quick and easy read, and it will go a long way toward helping you understand "the other side." 

And you can read it all here for free:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

[Leisa]

Papist
I haven't kept up with the converstation as of lately (I really needed a break from OC.net). That being said, doesn't this passage from the Gospel of John provide a defnitive bibilical refutation of Sabellianism?

 "31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

 32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

 33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

 34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

 35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

 36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

 37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

 38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." - John 5:31-38

Clearly the Father and the Son are presented as two distinct persons in this passage.

Does it say that?
John 5:31 "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true."

A person cannot testify to their self.  This is a well known fact.  If I enter a court room and testify of myself that I was at home on the night of July 4 and not at the bar where the shooting occurred they would laugh at me.  Who would take that testimony as fact?

So Jesus makes this statement that he cannot testify about himself.  So then he says you have John.  He testifies to Jesus.  But Jesus also says that he doesn't accept human testimony.  (note the word HUMAN).  But then he says he has a testimony greater than Johns.  He says "the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me." (5:36)

So we know that the scriptures about God testify to who Jesus is right?  Does that mean that the scriptures testify to another god besides God the Father?  Does it say that?  What does the scriptures say next:
"And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe him whom he has sent." (John 5:37-78)

Do you know what this is saying?

Papist - Further, there is clear biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit and God the Son are two distinct persons:

"16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. " -John 14 16-17

Here the Holy Spirit is not presented as the same comforter as Jesus, but another or distinct comforter.

Are they?  Then what is he talking about when he says "but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."?
If the Holy Spirit is separate and distinct from Jesus, then why does he say that "ye know him, for he dwelleth with you"?

Jesus says who the comforter is, he says it is the "spirit of truth".  Is that another person?  Jesus says "This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him.  You know him, because he abides with you, and will be in you." (John 14:17).

And consider verse 18, "I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you."

[ialmisry]

Did Jesus bleed? Did he eat and have tears? Was he born and did he die? How about pee and poop?

These are not divine qualities, they are human. Just as, for example, miracles are not human qualities. If you can affirm the former examples, then you must accept his human 'nature', in addition to his divine 'nature'.

I do not have to accept it.  You are accepting an illogical premise that something or someone can be both divine and human at the same time. 

God the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

[Leisa]

Leisa,

May I suggest that you read On the Incarnation, by St. Athanasius?

http://www.amazon.com/Incarnation-Saint-Athanasius/dp/1456546236/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

It's a classic--probably one of the most influential books ever written about Christian theology--and it will help you to understand why mainstream Christians believe what we do about Christ.  It's a pretty quick and easy read, and it will go a long way toward helping you understand "the other side."  

Thank you.
In this book it says:
"....But how was He to do it? .....and through His actions done in that body, as it were on their own level, He teaches those who would not learn by other means to know Himself, the Word of God, and through Him the Father."

This idea is repeated:
"[4] Men had turned from the contemplation of God above, and were looking for Him in the opposite direction, down among created things and things of sense. The Savior of us all, the Word of God, in His great love took to Himself a body and moved as Man among men, meeting their senses, so to speak, half way. He became Himself an object for the senses, so that those who were seeking God in sensible things might apprehend the Father through the works which He, the Word of God, did in the body."


This is not sensible to me because it is my understanding that if a person did not know the Father they would not know Jesus.  Not, as this writer seems to imply, that they were unable to find God in the world, so God incarnated so that they were able to know what they could not previously know, or sense what they were previously unable to sense.

We know that many Jews did not recognize Jesus.  Not because they were not able to meet him personally and have discussions with him, but because they didn't know the Father!  (And yet these men were well versed in scripture).

I also disagree with him that the Word of God is a separate person from God the Father.  But this is trinitarian theology and so therefore I reject it.  

He is correct, in my opinion, when he says that God appears to be a man:
"(16) When, then, the minds of men had fallen finally to the level of sensible things, the Word submitted to appear in a body, in order that He, as Man, might center their senses on Himself, and convince them through His human acts that He Himself is not man only but also God, .."

However, I disagree again that he proves himself to be God through "human acts", and I disagree that Jesus is both human and God.

[Leisa]

We don't believe God has any need for human nature, because you're right, He doesn't need us for anything. BUT human nature needs to have the divine nature.

The Orthodox believe that when God took on the human nature, He experienced our pain through our eyes and sanctified our flesh through His.

Is God all-knowing?  

It is a contradiction to say God doesn't need a human nature, but he took a human nature to experience our pain.
 
If someone has all knowledge, and another person offers to teach them the alphabet, haven't they already got it?  They have all knowledge.

So either God is all knowing, and therefore has no need for information he already has, or he is not all knowing and has needs.

Which do you say God is?

The thing is, this is irrelevant. It wasn't for God. It was for us.

When He died on the cross, He sanctified death. When we beat Him, He showed His love, because of His foreknowledge. We can survive all struggles because He has shown that with divine strength, His strength, it can all be overcome.

When you say "It wasn't for God" you are correct.  And this dispels the myth that God needed to "experience our pain".

[Aindriú]

We don't believe God has any need for human nature, because you're right, He doesn't need us for anything. BUT human nature needs to have the divine nature.

The Orthodox believe that when God took on the human nature, He experienced our pain through our eyes and sanctified our flesh through His.

Is God all-knowing? 

It is a contradiction to say God doesn't need a human nature, but he took a human nature to experience our pain.
 
If someone has all knowledge, and another person offers to teach them the alphabet, haven't they already got it?  They have all knowledge.

So either God is all knowing, and therefore has no need for information he already has, or he is not all knowing and has needs.

Which do you say God is?

The thing is, this is irrelevant. It wasn't for God. It was for us.

When He died on the cross, He sanctified death. When we beat Him, He showed His love, because of His foreknowledge. We can survive all struggles because He has shown that with divine strength, His strength, it can all be overcome.

When you say "It wasn't for God" you are correct.  And this dispels the myth that God needed to "experience our pain".

That's not what I've said. Multiple times I've stated it wasn't for Him. See post #211

Also:

Hebrews 5:

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 Neither does any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. 5 So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: You are my Son: this day have I begotten you. 6 As he says also in another place: You are a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. 8 And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. 9 And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation: 10 Called by God a high priest, according to the order of Melchisedech.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb005.htm

Hebrews 2:

3 How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him. 4 God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and divers miracles and distributions of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will. 5 For God has not subjected unto angels the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place has testified, saying: What is man, that you are mindful of him? Or the son of man, that you visit him? 7 You have made him a little lower than the angels: you have crowned him with glory and honour and have set him over the works of your hands. 8 You have subjected all things under his feet. For in that he has subjected all things to him he left nothing not subject to him. But now we see not as yet all things subject to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God he might taste death for all. 10 For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by his passion. 11 For both he that sanctifies and they who are sanctified are all of one. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying:

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/heb002.htm

Do you dispute He felt pain? Or fear?

Agony in the garden? The Passion on the cross? Being whipped?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Yes, God is limited in one respect, God cannot cease to be God.  He cannot cease to be what he is, and that is all powerful.

But sister, this where you entirely keep missing the point, and continue constructing your own imaginary arguments which of course are easy for you to dispel because you've simply invented them rather then confront the unreality of your assumptions.

"For we are not daring to judge ourselves by, our compare ourselves with some who are commending themselves.  But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, do not understand." 2 Corinthians 10:12

No one here or in 2000 years of Holy Tradition or the Fathers have ever suggested that The Person of Jesus Christ through the Incarnation "ceased" being a manifestation of the Divine Godhead, the Divinity, the Co-Eternal Word and Second Person of the Infinite and Immaterial Holy Trinity, rather, such as through the Union this Immateriality took on Corporeality, in the Union the Infinity of the Godhead joined perfectly with the Limits of Flesh and Blood that we might be able to receive Him.  If Jesus Christ is not corporeal, how do we receive more then just mere symbols at the Communion? Are we like the Pentecostals now, commemorating only in symbolism our Lord, or is the Real Presence true? If the contradictory Real Presence exists in the Consecrated Host, how is it that the Infinite Godhead could not also dwell in a Human form in the Incarnate Person of Jesus Christ? Is this not also within the Omnipotence of God as others tried to explain to you before? We say these things not to spite you, rather out of our Christian love..



I think we need to official close this thread, all the kind brothers and sisters have spent months now trying to explain, reason, discuss, witness, teach, and share teaching of the Church, the Tradition, the Scriptures, the Fathers, and even the red-letter words of Christ Himself about this regard, and if the good sister insists after all this at continuing only to argue with herself (where of course she knows she can win) rather than sincerely approach this discussion perhaps we are beating this horse deader than the Filoque threads?

Is God all-knowing?  

It is a contradiction to say God doesn't need a human nature, but he took a human nature to experience our pain.
 
If someone has all knowledge, and another person offers to teach them the alphabet, haven't they already got it?  They have all knowledge.

So either God is all knowing, and therefore has no need for information he already has, or he is not all knowing and has needs.

Which do you say God is?

Another straw-man argument from you!

Knowing is NOT the same as experiencing. I know how women get pregnant and give birth, but this does not mean that I have experienced these myself!

Brilliant! Post of the Month if not year

Do you know what this is saying?

My dear, do you?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Leisa]

Do you dispute He felt pain? Or fear?

Agony in the garden? The Passion on the cross? Being whipped?

I think you should spend less time worrying about the physical pain in Jesus's limbs, and more time worrying about the spiritual implications of his death.