Trinitarian terminology

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Jesus is the Son and a man. As I explained in my first post, this means that Jesus had to have the human essence, a human body, human soul and human mind. What Jesus knew in his human mind, he gained either from experience or from revelation from the divine mind. Jesus in his divine nature is divine and is the second person of the Trinity; Jesus in his the three a different relation than each of relations of which it is comprised?[/b]

In your second post you said, "The incarnation further means that Jesus has two minds, one human and one divine, and two wills, one human and one divine (although always in perfect conformity.)" If they are always in perfect conformity, how is it that "Jesus does not seem to have the same mind and/or will as God?" If in His incarnation, Jesus is not aware of His divine mind, how is He not a manifestation? If Jesus does not have the same mind and/or will as God, how is it that Jesus never sinned? Or does Catholicism not buy into the idea that because of man's "fallen nature" it is impossible for a human not to sin?

The danger is to overly humanise Jesus, to see him totally as a human but with a few freakish divine powers. In Jesus, there are two minds and two wills, a body and soul and the divine spirit. In Jesus, they work as one person. So the two wills are in perfect conformity. Traditionally, this means that the human will is surrendered over to the divine. Jesus says 'Thy will be done' and 'I must do the will of the Father'. There are two wills but Jesus surrenders the human will. In Jesus, there are also two minds. Jesus was fully aware of his divine mind and his human mind. He used his divine mind because he could read minds (such as Simeon the Pharisee's) and see the future (such as on Calvary). Yet because his human mind was finite, he could not grasp God infinitely nor see the full divine plan, such as when the eschaton would happen. Jesus does have the divine will and mind, it is just that he also has a human will and mind as well.

Once again, what is the 'subsistent relation' that is the Father? How can God simultaneously be both "not some separate person" and "in person, God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit"? Isn't the relation between the three a different relation than each of relations of which it is comprised?

The subsistent relation of the Father is paternity; it means the Father exists only as a relation, not as a separate being like other persons exist. To explain this, Western theology has generally used a psychological analogy: when I know myself, I picture myself mentally. That mental image is me completely, yet it is not the same in substance (I am a body and soul; the mental image is however immaterial and intellectual.) When, however, the Father knew himself, the knowledge of himself was himself (just as, in an analogous way, my mental image of myself is myself.) The difference however is that God's knowledge is of the same substance as himself as something spiritual and immaterial. So we have the Father and the Father known to himself (who is the exact image of himself.) The difference between them is not in substance but in relation (the father existed first while the other existed next after the generation in knowledge.) What defines and distinguishes the two is not essence or nature but relation.

The relation between the three is exactly what the Trinity is. The Father begets the Son (so there is a relation of paternity) and the Son is begotten (so there is a relation of filiation); the Father then loves the Son (so there is another relation generally known as spiration from which the Holy Spirit proceeds). There are no other relations possible.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]In your second post you said, "The incarnation further means that Jesus has two minds, one human and one divine, and two wills, one human and one divine (although always in perfect conformity.)" If they are always in perfect conformity, how is it that "Jesus does not seem to have the same mind and/or will as God?" If in His incarnation, Jesus is not awar ...[text shortened]... from which the Holy Spirit proceeds). There are no other relations possible.

Just wondering if you can explain 1Cor 15: 23-28 for me?

Originally posted by galveston75
Just wondering if you can explain 1Cor 15: 23-28 for me?

Hate to use a cliche, but doesn't it speak for itself?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Hate to use a cliche, but doesn't it speak for itself?

So how does the trinity fit here?

Originally posted by galveston75
So how does the trinity fit here?

The Father is God preeminently. The Son and Holy Spirit are God by procession, as God's act of knowing and loving. All creation fundamentally belongs to the Father who is the originator of everything. It was created through the Son and sanctified by the Holy Spirit but always belonging to the Father.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The Father is God preeminently. The Son and Holy Spirit are God by procession, as God's act of knowing and loving. All creation fundamentally belongs to the Father who is the originator of everything. It was created through the Son and sanctified by the Holy Spirit but always belonging to the Father.

But can you comment on the Kingdom that this scripture is talking about?

ThinkOfOne
Sorry to but in but I noticed this question:
Or does Catholicism not buy into the idea that because of man's "fallen nature" it is impossible for a human not to sin?

I think the following syllogism is compatible with Catholicism:

1) Jesus was fully human,
2) Jesus did not share in the effects of original sin,
3) therefore original sin cannot be essential to humanity.

yes Christ is above every other angel or Gods sons, that's the point Paul was making, i thought that would be obvious, it begs belief, that you would try to construe, a letter, written to Hebrews, with full acceptance of the oneness of God, and then claim that Paul was speaking of the trinity?

you have as yet still failed to identify Michael, mentioned in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek, for this point stands out, that you have, of necessity, limited your exegesis, to the Greek portion of scripture, for not one iota can be found in the Hebrew portion, and that my friend is taking things entirely out of context, but such is the nature of this doctrine, that to establish it, all sorts of 'strange', paths must be trod.

as for worship, it is well understood, that it means to pay homage to or to hold in reverence, and why would anyone not like to honour or pay homage to Christ, for he is clearly an outstanding individual, moreover, i think Christ's own words should be used to dispel this line of reasoning,

(Matthew 4:10) . . .Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

quoting from Deuteronomy 10:20

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes Christ is above every other angel or Gods sons, that's the point Paul was making, i thought that would be obvious, it begs belief, that you would try to construe, a letter, written to Hebrews, with full acceptance of the oneness of God, and then claim that Paul was speaking of the trinity?

you have as yet still failed to identify Michael, me t is to him [b]alone you must render sacred service.’”

quoting from Deuteronomy 10:20[/b]

yes Christ is above every other angel or Gods sons, that's the point Paul was making, i thought that would be obvious, it begs belief, that you would try to construe, a letter, written to Hebrews, with full acceptance of the oneness of God, and then claim that Paul was speaking of the trinity?

I accept the oneness of God. One mind, one will, one power. But Hebrews does point to Jesus as God. It calls Jesus the imprint of God's being. This is consonant with other statements, that Jesus is the word, the image and the knowledge of God. I am not saying that St. Paul was talking about the Trinity; I am saying that his writing points to the Trinity.

The main point I was making, however, is that Hebrews clearly distinguishes Jesus from the angels. It does not say other angels. It says that Jesus is something other than the angels. Since Archangel is just another type of angel (the arch- prefix means 'principal' or 'chief'😉, clearly Jesus is not an Archangel.

you have as yet still failed to identify Michael, mentioned in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek, for this point stands out, that you have, of necessity, limited your exegesis, to the Greek portion of scripture, for not one iota can be found in the Hebrew portion, and that my friend is taking things entirely out of context, but such is the nature of this doctrine, that to establish it, all sorts of 'strange', paths must be trod.

I am aware of references to Michael in the Book of Daniel. I see nothing that could connect the Archangel Michael with Jesus.

as for worship, it is well understood, that it means to pay homage to or to hold in reverence, and why would anyone not like to honour or pay homage to Christ, for he is clearly an outstanding individual, moreover, i think Christ's own words should be used to dispel this line of reasoning,

(Matthew 4:10) . . .Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him [b]alone you must render sacred service.’”[/b]

But this just proves the point. Jesus prohibits worship to any being other than God. Yet in Revelations, they worship Jesus, known symbolically as 'the Lamb'. They do not just pay homage because the angel homages John for doing the same to him. It is quite clear, they use the word worship.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]yes Christ is above every other angel or Gods sons, that's the point Paul was making, i thought that would be obvious, it begs belief, that you would try to construe, a letter, written to Hebrews, with full acceptance of the oneness of God, and then claim that Paul was speaking of the trinity?

I accept the oneness of God. One mind, one will, one John for doing the same to him. It is quite clear, they use the word worship.[/b]

it is quite clear that Hebrews does nothing of the sort, the only thing that points to Christ being God, Conrau, is your exegesis, not the Bible, and please we are not so much children that we are unable to distinguish the difference.

Christ is every sense of the word is subservient to the father, these references to these verses, like your attempt through semantics and the definition of terms and philosophical argument, hinges upon the definition of a word, paying homage and to try to assert that is is entirely synonymous with worship. For someone of your learning this is wholly inappropriate, for you know that English is not an exact medium for the understanding of Greek, nor of Hebrew, and what i find, that in very case, trinitarians have tried their very best to utilise the incongruities of language for their own agenda, rather than letting the scriptures speak to us, objectively. This has been my experience and I tell it to you in all honesty.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it is quite clear that Hebrews does nothing of the sort, the only thing that points to Christ being God, Conrau, is your exegesis, not the Bible, and please we are not so much children that we are unable to distinguish the difference.

Christ is every sense of the word is subservient to the father, these references to these verses, like your attemp ...[text shortened]... ures speak to us, objectively. This has been my experience and I tell it to you in all honesty.

Again, I brought up Hebrews 1 not to discuss the Trinity but to show that Jesus is not an angel. I have asked you to provide some justification for the belief that Jesus is an archangel. Since you impose such strict exegetical standards on me, it is only fitting that you abide by those same standards.

it is quite clear that Hebrews does nothing of the sort, the only thing that points to Christ being God, Conrau, is your exegesis, not the Bible, and please we are not so much children that we are unable to distinguish the difference.

Considering that the majority of Christians believe otherwise, I think your accusation lacking. Jesus is called the word, the image, the imprint and knowledge of God; the priests accusing him of 'making himself equal with God'; he says 'I and the Father are one'; he forgives sins; St. Thomas calls him 'My Lord and my God'; Revelations calls him the first and the last, the alpha and omega. The evidence, while not an explicit statement of the Trinity, points to it.

Christ is every sense of the word is subservient to the father, these references to these verses, like your attempt through semantics and the definition of terms and philosophical argument, hinges upon the definition of a word, paying homage and to try to assert that is is entirely synonymous with worship.

But it is synonymous with worship. The word in all examples is 'proskunesein':

Luke 4:8:
kurion ton theon sou proskuneseis
lord the god you shall worship-2nd pl fut
You shall worship the Lord your God

Revelatoins 5:14:
hoi presbyteroi epesan kai prosekunesan
the elders fell and worshiped
The elders fell down and worshipped (the lamb)

Revelations 22:8
epesa proskunesai emprosthen ton podon tou aggelou
I fell to worship before the feet of the angel

Also in Hebrews, the Father says:
kai proskunesatosan auto pantes angeloi theou
and let worship him all the angels of god
and let all the angels of God worship him (the Son)

In all cases, the word is the same. There is no distinction made. Revelations clearly shows that it is right to worship (proskunesein) Jesus but not an angel. I am not conflating homage and worship; you are simply assuming a distinction when none is made.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, I brought up Hebrews 1 not to discuss the Trinity but to show that Jesus is not an angel. I have asked you to provide some justification for the belief that Jesus is an archangel. Since you impose such strict exegetical standards on me, it is only fitting that you abide by those same standards.

[b]it is quite clear that Hebrews does nothing of th ...[text shortened]... conflating homage and worship; you are simply assuming a distinction when none is made.

But can you comment on the Kingdom that this scripture is talking about?
Still waiting....

all these arguments are old hat Conrau, each and everyone has a biblically based counter argument, yes Christ is the Word, yes Christ is divine, yes Christ is a mighty God, eternal father , prince of peace, yes Christ and the father are one, but then in the very same chapter, so are the disciples, and so it goes on and on. The fact of the matter is that he is never ever ever ever ever, in the entire biblical cannon , termed Almighty God, never! you people must get over that fact!

seeing that you are fond of definitions, i suggest that you read this,

WORSHIP

The rendering of reverent honor or homage.

Hebrew and Greek Terms. Most Hebrew and Greek words that can denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. However, the context determines in what way the respective words are to be understood.

One of the Hebrew words conveying the idea of worship (avadh) basically means “serve.” (Ge 14:4; 15:13; 29:15) Serving or worshiping Jehovah required obedience to all of his commands, doing his will as a person exclusively devoted to him. (Ex 19:5; De 30:15-20; Jos 24:14, 15) Therefore, for an individual to engage in any ritual or act of devotion toward any other gods signified his abandoning true worship.—De 11:13-17; Jg 3:6, 7.

Another Hebrew term that can denote worship is hishtachawah, which primarily means “bow down” (Pr 12:25), or do obeisance. Whereas such bowing could at times simply be an act of respect or of courteous regard toward another person (Ge 19:1, 2; 33:1-6; 37:9, 10), it could also be an expression of worship, indicating ones reverence and gratitude to God and submission to his will. When used with reference to the true God or false deities, the word hishtachawah is at times associated with sacrifice and prayer. (Ge 22:5-7; 24:26, 27; Isa 44:17) This would indicate that it was common to bow down when praying or offering sacrifice.

The Hebrew root saghadh (Isa 44:15, 17, 19; 46:6) basically signifies “prostrate oneself.” The Aramaic equivalent is usually associated with worship (Da 3:5-7, 10-15, 18, 28), but it is used at Daniel 2:46 to refer to King Nebuchadnezzar’s paying homage to Daniel, prostrating himself before the prophet.

The Greek verb latreuo (Lu 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Ac 7:7) and the noun latreia (Joh 16:2; Ro 9:4) convey the idea of rendering not merely an ordinary, mundane service but sacred service.

The Greek word proskyneo corresponds closely to the Hebrew term hishtachawah in expressing the thought of obeisance and, at times, worship. The term proskyneo is used in connection with a slave’s doing obeisance to a king (Mt 18:26) as well as the act Satan stipulated when he offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (Mt 4:8, 9) Had he done obeisance to the Devil, Jesus would thereby have signified submission to Satan and made himself the Devil’s servant. But Jesus refused, saying: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of Gr. proskyneo or, in the Deuteronomy account that Jesus was quoting, Hebrew. hishtachawah], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service [form of Gr. latreuo or Heb. avadh].’” (Mt 4:10; De 5:9; 6:13)

Similarly, worship, obeisance, or bowing down to “the wild beast” and its “image” is linked with service, for the worshipers are identified as supporters of “the wild beast” and its “image” by having a mark either on the hand (with which one serves) or on the forehead (for all to see). Since the Devil gives the wild beast its authority, worshiping the wild beast means, in reality, worshiping or serving the Devil.—Re 13:4, 15-17; 14:9-11.

Other Greek words associated with worship are drawn from eusebeo, threskeuo, and sebomai. The word eusebeo means “give godly devotion to” or “venerate, revere.” At Acts 17:23 this term is used with reference to the godly devotion or veneration that the men of Athens were giving to an “Unknown God.” From threskeuo comes the noun threskeia, understood to designate a “form of worship,” whether true or false. (Ac 26:5; Col 2:18) The true worship practiced by Christians was marked by genuine concern for the poor and complete separateness from the ungodly world. (Jas 1:26, 27) The word sebomai (Mt 15:9; Mr 7:7; Ac 18:7; 19:27) and the related term sebazomai (Ro 1:25) mean “revere; venerate; worship.” Objects of worship or of devotion are designated by the noun sebasma. (Ac 17:23; 2Th 2:4) Two other terms are from the same verb stem, with the prefix Theos, God. These are theosebes′, meaning “God-revering” (Joh 9:31), and theosebeia, denoting “reverence of God.” (1Ti 2:10) These two terms correspond somewhat to the German word for “public worship,” namely, Gottesdienst (a combination of “God” and “service&rdquo😉.

citing a one dimensional point of view point, with a one dimensional English word from hand picked scriptures is hardly being objective is it? nor surprising, for both Epi, Jaywill and other trinitarians have tried the same tract and i tire of it.

Obeisance to the glorified Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Christ Jesus has been exalted by his Father to a position second only to God, so that “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Php 2:9-11; compare Da 7:13, 14, 27.) Hebrews 1:6 also shows that even the angels render obeisance to the resurrected Jesus Christ. Many translations of this text here render proskyneo as “worship,” while some render it by such expressions as “bow before” (AT; Yg) and ‘pay homage’ (NE).

No matter what English term is used, the original Greek remains the same and the understanding of what it is that the angels render to Christ must accord with the rest of the Scriptures. Jesus himself emphatically stated to Satan that “it is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of proskyneo], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Mt 4:8-10; Lu 4:7, 8)

Similarly, the angel(s) told John to “worship God” (Re 19:10; 22:9), and this injunction came after Jesus resurrection and exaltation, showing that matters had not changed in this regard. True, Psalm 97, which the apostle evidently quotes at Hebrews 1:6, refers to Jehovah God as the object of the ‘bowing down,’ and still this text was applied to Christ Jesus. (Ps 97:1, 7) However, the apostle previously had shown that the resurrected Christ is “the reflection of Gods glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Heb 1:1-3) Hence, if what we understand as “worship” is apparently directed to the Son by angels, it is in reality being directed through him to God, the Sovereign Ruler, “the One who made the heaven and the earth and sea and fountains of waters.” (Re 14:7; 4:10, 11; 7:11, 12; 11:16, 17; compare 1Ch 29:20; Re 5:13, 14; 21:22.)

On the other hand, the renderings “bow before” and ‘pay homage’ (instead of “worship&rdquo😉 are in no way out of harmony with the original language, either the Hebrew of Psalm 97:7 or the Greek of Hebrews 1:6, for such translations convey the basic sense of both hishtachawah; and proskyneo.

AT: An American translation
Yg : Youngs translations
Ne : English translation

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
all these arguments are old hat Conrau, each and everyone has a biblically based counter argument, yes Christ is the Word, yes Christ is divine, yes Christ is a mighty God, eternal father , prince of peace, yes Christ and the father are one, but then in the very same chapter, so are the disciples, and so it goes on and on. The fact of the matter is ...[text shortened]... rising, for both Epi, Jaywill and other trinitarians have tried the same tract and i tire of it.

citing a one dimensional point of view point, with a one dimensional English word from hand picked scriptures is hardly being objective is it? nor surprising, for both Epi, Jaywill and other trinitarians have tried the same tract and i tire of it.

I acknowledge the plurality of meanings (I find it quite ironic that in one post you deride semantics but in another get really stuck into it.) However, in Revelations alone, proskuneo clearly has one meaning. In Revelations, 'worship' is also joined with 'fall'. People either fall and worship one God or fall and worship the beast. John falls and worships an angel and is instructed only to worship God. However, we also see the elders and the four representing all creation fall and worship the Lamb (5:14, 22:3). Now your interpretation here is that John must have meant something else by this. However, given that John is mainly concerned with the problem of idolatry and the worship of other beings, why would he not be clearer? Why would he use the word 'proskyneo' in one situation to mean 'worship', but in another situation, creating an ambiguity which would undermine his argument about idolatry, use it to mean 'homage'.

Again, why can't you provide some evidence that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? Why are you so evasive? Your criteria for doctrine is that Jesus and the apostles have taught it. So why can't you provide evidence that Jesus and the apostles taught this doctrine?