Agnos1

Okay, you smarties, put your heads together for this:

I was arguing with a Trinitarian about Jesus being a Man vs. the duality of being both man and God as most Christians believe, yet most places in the Bible seem to corroborate that he was not God. I used John 14 as just one example where he is consistently portrayed as separate in every way from "The Father" or God. His response follows:

Okay first the verse again: "You have heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you'. If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." You argue that this indicates a seperation between Jesus and the Father, and the Father in this verse is God. My argument is that this does indicate a seperation between Jesus and the Father and the Father in this verse is God. While our arguments are the same, the conclusion drawn from them is different.

The Christian argument is this: Jesus Christ, Son of God, 2nd Person in the Trinity, incarnated himself. He became a real human man, was born a tiny little baby, months before that, he existed in the womb of Mary, a fetus, and you get the point. When Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I" he is talking about his nature as a man. He took on this nature -- the nature of a created man, a man dependent on God, a man that can die (Jesus really did die), a man that is a certain height, weight, can only see so far to the horizon, but not past the horizon, can get hungry, thirsty, and so on. Jesus was a real man here. Elsewhere with respect to Jesus' incarnation, Scripture refers to it in this way, that Jesus "emptied himself". Jesus was always God, the Second Person in the Trinity, but he took on the nature of creature of God. That is why he said the Father is "greater than I". He said it as a creature of God. His human nature is as real as his divine nature, but still it is true that his human nature is "less than" the nature of God. The
Second Person of the Triune God possesses both natures: divine and human.

It makes sense to the Christian, and it is self-consistent, to read in Scripture that Jesus, truly a man, is "less than" the Father, who was never truly a man. In the same book of John, however, Jesus does say, "I and the Father are one" -- in Greek the "one" is a "neuter" pronoun, which is to say "one thing", not "one person".

There you go.

Philosoft

Ahem.

3 =! 1

relatedly,

1 =! 3

Thank you.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

First, you've got to establish that Jesus actually existed. Then, you ought to establish that the Jesus that lived, lives as the Bible claims he lived. Then, you need to show that the miracles he allegedly casued actually took place as the Bible claims and that they were the result of God.

(Oh, you need to prove that God exists, as well.)

Only then can you begin to examine the Christian view of the Trinity.

And if you've got the patience for that, might I suggest a hobby (or a good movie) instead? (LOL.)

Keith.

Tristan Scott

Yeah Kieth, but I think more to the point of argument the question is really relative to the Xians. Early Xians certainly didn't think Jesus was God. The whole idea started taking shape in the second c. and only then because people were praying to Jesus. In order to justify this practice many Xians felt that Jesus had to be a deity. Some took it a step further and said that Jesus was not only a god but was the god himself. The one and only. After much arguing and gnashing of teeth they decided that, ok he was god, but they wanted him to still be Jesus, whom they had grown quite fond of. So they got these three guys, 2 Gregorys and one Basil, they called them the Cappadocians and they told them to figure out some way they could have their god and Jesus be the same, and while they were at it throw in the holy ghost as well. So they came up with a paper called the Cappadocian Document that said that Jesus, God and THG were "three individuals sharing the same essence" whatever that means. They went further and said that not only was Jesus God, but that he had always been God, since the beginning of time. They went on to say that it was ok if it didn't make any sense, because these things seldom do.

Agnos1

Thank you, Tristan, for understanding the question as it was posed. In this case I am taking one religious argument to fend off another. I myself am Atheist, but it's fun to pretend and argue from various standpoints. Thanks again for the lead.

Agnos1

Jobar

Agnos1, if you want to know more about this, I suggest posting a thread in the Biblical Criticism forum- I won't move this as it looks like you found the answer you were asking for, but IMO this forum is not the best place to ask it.

Keith Russell

Tristan:

I hadn't heard the history behind the 'concept' (it's actually a rather fine example of an 'anti-concept') of the 'Trinity'.

It's an interesting story; I'll have to write my sister about it (she'll really up on early Church history).

But, knowing the history behind it, still doesn't make the 'concept' itself any more valid; it's still as nonsensical as ever.

Keith.

Amos

The reality behind the Trinity is that each one of us is God when the Trinity is resolved.

The trinity consists of our conscious mind (Son), subconscious mind (Father) and the relationship between these two (HS)

Jesus was not God until after resurrection. Jesus was the human identity of Joseph to whom the [son of] man (Christ) identity was reborn and so the Jesus identity was added to the subconscious mind after the humanity of Joseph was annihilated.

Keith Russell

Amos:

When you speak of a 'subconscious' mind, you have entered Freudian territory. To say that God is the subconscious mind seems to be embracing Freudian ideas that Christians (to offer only one example) are not likely to favour.

According to Freud, the subconscious mind is basically a sewer, and rational, civilized society is only able to function because various aspects of the subconscious are repressed, or channelled into other areas.

Do you really believe that the mind of God is the same as the 'subconscious' human mind?

Would God be the 'id'; the 'ego', or the 'superego'?

Keith.

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Amos

Freud really has no territory because he was wrong (I put Frued down after three pages so I really do not know).

The subconscious mind is our soul wherein we are incarnate and therefore eternal. The famous "One Thousand Year Reign" exists in our soul and if we come to know who we really are we dwell in this approximate duration of time.

It contains the vices and virtues of our ancestors (sins of the clan, tribe and nation) but they will be annihilated when understood (Jesus spend three days in the netherworld of his subconscious mind for the realization of these 'sins' in answer to "who am I."

The "human mind" is strictly our conscious mind and opposite this is the "woman mind." The human mind is conscious (TOK) and the woman mind is subconscious (TOL) and the mind of God is the neuter form of Lord God which is greater and includes both the human and woman mind. Some indication of this is the difference in sexual arousal between males and females and also the increased spermcount after intense foreplay (this affirms that God is part of the conscious mind).

The woman mind is our soul and based on this it was held that women do not have a soul . . . which is not to say that females do not have a soul. This whole position become more clear if Mary and Eve are brought into the picture but this is not the place for it.

The id, ego and superego are strange at least. I can go along with two or four identities but never three because there is always two stands needed in a rout and never three. Each of the two stands will have a negative and a positive to make four, but never three.

We can speak of three minds, or three levels of comprehension, but I do not see the superego to be part of this. The first is the conscious mind, the second is the subconscious and the third is these two combined. It is the mind of God or higher knowledge of Pure Reason without emotion.