I notice in the argument against the Trinity, the anti-trinitarian (Oneness, Sabelleaus) position makes "person" identical to "being". In addition, I cannot fathom the Oneness notion of Jesus talking to...(?) when he is addressing the Father. Nor can I understand who (else) the Comforter is, if not the Holy Spirit, when Jesus says he will send another.

Anyone here have some good insight into the Oneness position on "who" else is Jesus referring to if not another "person"? --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Person" in English actually doesn't have quite the same connotations as Latin word persona... AnonMoos

No, it doesn't, but I don't think that an over-emphasis on the literal meaning of "persona" is particularly helpful here, in that this implies a sort of modalism. I would argue that our contemporary understanding of "person" as a "locus of relationships" comes closer to what is being expressed in the Trinitarian understanding of God as well as the anthropology that flows from it (see my reply to Mark in the above thread). Mainly, I wanted to respond to Zaphnathpaaneah, who raises an interesting issue. I don't know how these latter-day Sabellians explain these passages, but I do know that they, along with Judaism, Islam, and other nontrinitarians all make the same error: they confuse person with being. I once read, in a Jewish source, a statement to the effect that humanity should be/is called to be one "as God is one." While I certainly agree with that, such a statement can have no meaning apart from a concept of God which, in fact, distinguishes person from being and realizes that the Being of God is, by definition, inherently and eternally communitarian. --Midnite Critic 21:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me thank God I'm an atheist! Isn't it supremely arrogant to accuse Jews, Muslims and other non-Trinitarians of being "in error" (and thus presumably candidates for the fiery furnace either here or in the hereafter)?

OK, I happen to think there is probably no God (on the balance of evidence) but I'm not going to chastise you for being "in error" on that basis. Someone who doesn't distinguish between "person" and "being" is IMO not making any sort of error. Explain please what the difference is! I am of the opinion that the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out over many centuries of church councils as a form of words that could reconcile essentially irreconcilable concepts - the classical idea of Gods begetting men (Julius Caesar claimed descent from Venus), the opaque mysticism of John's Gospel, and the monotheistic theology of Judaism. The idea of a being consisting of 3 persons - or is it the other way round - is meaningless and this is acknowledged by the invitation that Christians always give me to accept this as a "mystery"!

Exile 16:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. Don't you know the difference between a persona and a kind of existence? That is the difference between "person" and "being;" the difference between how something (or someone) reveals Itself and the essence-nature of that something (or someone). Perhaps this would be easier to digest for you if, instead of getting all caught up in these nouns, you tried another strategem of Christian (and Kabbalist) theology and thought of God as a verb, and of the Trinity as the action. Here is what the doctrine says, in the verbal sense. God is One -- the Ultimate Essence, omnipotent, all-pervading, and is both immanent and transcendent. Ultimately, God is ineffable, but God has revealed Itself to us in this way: The Source forever breathes-forth (or "Spirits") the Word (the Wisdom, the Logos). Indeed, as the underlying reality of the whole creation, the Word -- "through whom all things were made" (cf. John 1 and the Nicene Creed) is exactly what the term presupposes: An Emanated Idea. Where Spirit is the Source's life-giving power or energy, Word is the Mind. And Jesus of Nazareth is claimed by Christians (orthodox ones, at least) to have been already completely identified with the eternal Word from birth. So, the Source reveals Itself in-person by linking the Mind of the Cosmos in a unique way with a sentient being of the cosmos, as an example and definitive revelation of Itself. It does this as It does all It's creative action: by way of life-giving power/energy/spirit. When the human being who is at-one with the Word completes the sacrifice of his life -- in the lesson to us about God's eternal self-sacrificing Love that can even save us from ourselves -- that human being (Jesus) makes at-one-ment (atonement). By "putting on Christ" (cf. letters of Paul), we live-our-way-in, in a mystical sense, to that at-one-ment. When this man who is at-one with the Divine Word is called the one Mediator between God and humanity, it is akin to saying that mind is the mediator between spirit and matter (which, again St. Paul notes in saying that the human being -- a "soul" -- is comprised of "spirit, mind. and body," another cosmic echo of the Trinity). When Jesus said he as "sending" the Holy Spirit, he was presumably saying that, in his resurrected state, he was so at-one with the Fabric of the Cosmos that he could directly emanate the Source's life-giving energy to his followers. As the Spirit of God proceeds from the Source (and through the Logos), the Holy Spirit is the gift of the "Father" (and flows through Jesus). And, BTW, are you one of the extremely few human beings who doesn't ever talk to yourself? When Jesus is talking to his "Abba," he is a man -- identified with the Divine Word -- who is trying to realize his conscious contact with his Higher Power, which is within him in a way par excellence. That's exemplary to every person who then follows him.

Nrgdocadams 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Apologies, but, honestly, responses and (what I see as) attempts at explanation like this just make me chuckle. Since when was it ok to arbitrarily parse the word "atonement" as "at-one-ment" and use that to prove the trinity? And to start such an explanation with "Oh please", as if this was completely obvious... --Oscillate 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the parsing is arbitrary -- the English word "atone" apparently did originate from collapsing the phrase "at one". See for instance Merriam-Webster's entry for "atone". On the other hand, I don't see how that etymology can be invoked to support theological claims, especially ones involving documents written in languages besides English. Michael Slone (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Even the etymology does not support the claim. "At-one" meaning to reconcile, to be "at harmony" - not to be the same, which goes right along with my reply to Midnight Critic in the previous section regarding the usage of hen in the Bible to mean "one" in cooperation and unity, not the same entity. --Oscillate 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: "And, BTW, are you one of the extremely few human beings who doesn't ever talk to yourself?" I don't think many people say 'there is something no one else knows, not even I, except myself' or refers to him/herself as deserting him/herself, or that the person does 'nothing of their own will, only that of him/herself', nor defering worship of him/herself to be directed toward him/herself. --Oscillate 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Midnite Critic's reply to Exile: OKay, so I could have been more NPOV in the above; however, this IS a talk page, not the article itself. Just to let you know, I don't hold what I- and Orthodox Christianity as a whole- consider to be theological errors to, in and of themselves, make anyone a candidate for "the firey furnace." And, unlike many Western Christians, I don't find the doctrine of the Trinity to be particularly "mysterious." That's also the case for the mysticism found in the Gospel of John and throughout the Christian tradition. Okay, well, groovy. As Jesus said, "To whom much is given, from them much is expected." Therefore, that makes ME much more of a candidate for hell if I don't avail myself of the grace of God in order to live up to what I know I am called to: "peace with all people, and especially those who are of the household of faith," as St. Paul puts it. --Midnite Critic 13:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Jacob's reply to Zaphnathpaaneah. I realize that this conversation is long since over, but I just read it and wanted to reply from the Sabellian or Oneness position in regard to who Jesus prayed to. Short answer: the Son of God prayed to his Father, who was God. Trinitarians might say, "That's what we believe". The breakdown comes in understanding what is meant by "the Son of God". Trinitarians say that "Son of God" and "God the Son" mean the same thing. They do not. When the Bible uses the term "Son of God", it is referring to the incarnate human being, Jesus Christ. "God the Son" is non-Biblical terminology, much like the number "Three" when used in relation to God. Regarding "the Son of God", was Jesus not a human person? Did Jesus not get tired? Wasn't Jesus tempted to sin? And if Jesus was a human person just like you and me, doesn't it make sense that Jesus would pray just like you and me? The humanity of Jesus was not God and thus needed to pray. Jehovah God integrated His Spirit with the flesh of Jesus, or as the Bible states it, God manifest himself in flesh. This is what the scripture means when it says "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself". It does not say, "God the Son was in Christ" or "God the Father was in Christ". It says simply and wonderfully, "God (in all His fulness) was in Christ".

Most of us probably have some comprehension of the dual nature of Christ -- that he was fully man and fully God. Thus, when interpreting the life of Christ, you must determine if He is acting as a man or as God. When Jesus calmed the storm, He acted as God. But when He said "I thirst", He was acting as a man. In light of this, when Jesus prayed, it was "the man Christ Jesus" praying to God. St. Paul masterfully gave the Oneness view in a nutshell in Ephesians 4 when he said that there is "One body and one Spirit". A few verses later he said that there is "One God and Father of all". Awesome! Jacob 04:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds very similar to how Pope Leo expressed it in the Tome of Leo, which was very influential at the Council of Chalcedon. He gave several similar examples, but the one I always remember is that in his humanity, Jesus wept for Lazarus, but in his divinity, he raised him from the dead. Regarding the "non-Biblical terminology," you should know such language was necessary to refute the Arians and defend the divinity of Jesus. Where were Sabllians when the Arians' influence was waxing? Wesley 05:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, describes the context of the early church councils. What you will find is that Marcellus of Ancyra believed very similarly to Sabellius and was probably Athanasius' closest ally against Arius. Though they believed differently, they formed an alliance because both views recognized Jesus' full divinity. Only after Arius was murdered (it was heralded as a miracle) did Athanasius betray and turn against Marcellus who was later branded a heretic and banished for his beliefs. So the Sabellians were there, but their beliefs were suppressed and later they were brutally persecuted by the Universal Church. Jacob 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

@ Jacob

Amazing how totally I agree with you about the fact that Athanasius and Marcellus were close allies to begin with, and then went fell apart, not because of Marcellus, but because of Athanasius. It is possible to reconstruct Athanasius’ change of mind (after 341 CE, when A. & M. were still defending themselves at the Synod of Rome against the then temporarily prevailing Arians): up to Nicea 325 CE, Athanasius’ main concern was not the homousios doctrine (which P.F. Beatrice from the University of Padua, in his The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity [1] shows convincingly to depend entirely on Constantine’s pressures on the Council), but rather to insist that Jesus Christ really shared God’s nature (homogenes, homophyes). Afterwards, when Athanasius started insisting that the “personality” of the Holy Spirit was “obviously” implied in the Creed of Nicea, he showed to have lost sincerity and integrity.

There is no doubt that Marcellus of Ancyra was a much more important figure than what we perceive him to be nowadays: unfortunately for him, he was regarded with suspicion (inevitably) by both sides, Athanasians and Arians alike. The fact that he (an Easterner!), presented to Pope Julius in 341 the very first recorded text (in Greek) of the Apostles’ Creed; the fact that Eusebius of Caesarea also started quarrelling with him, after Eusebius himself had turned “Nicean” (and Eusebius was the ambiguous character that “sold” Constantine’s problematic homousios formula to the other bishops at Nicea); the fact that he never shared the “orthodox” Trinitarian doctrine, make him a most interesting, albeit elusive figure. I am really looking forward to when Sara Purvis from Edinburgh University [2] publishes her The Extant Works of Marcellus of Ancyra: the Canons of Ancyra 314, the Contra Asterium, De Sancta Ecclesia, the Letter to Julius and the Western Creed of Serdica.

Although Marcellus was persecuted and repeatedly removed from his Episcopal site, he was never formally condemned for heresy (unlike his deacon Photinus). I don’t think he can be tagged as a Sabellian: I believe he cannot be fitted properly in any heretic category, he was simply a defender of the Creed of the Apostles.

As for Arius being murdered, I also believe (as Isaac Newton already did) that he was poisoned, but maybe it was just food poisoning, an ominous historical coincidence.--Miguel de Servet 00:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet, what a great post. You are correct that Marcellus cannot be "labeled" as a Sabellian, but only because we know little of what Sabellius actually believed. We only know what his enemies wrote about him. Nobody today can truly be labeled a Sabellian since we do not know what a Sabellian is. Regarding Marcellus' beliefs however, as you mention, he never shared the "orthodox" Trinitarian doctrine. He was one of the "simple, majority of believers", a term that Tertullian coined in Against Praxeas to describe those who held to strict Monotheism and rejected any division in the Godhead. It can be stated with some certainty that Marcellus held the divinity of Jesus Christ while rejecting the divisions of Persons in the Godhead, which is characterized in the Trinity. For this reason, Marcellus could probably be more aptly called a Modalistic Monarchian. I have never read any of Sara Purvis' works. Thanks for the reference.

You also mentioned Isaac Newton's views regarding Arius. It is a shame how few people know that theology was one of Isaac Newton's greatest passions. His contributions to science eclipsed his contributions to theology, and of course, his views on the Trinity probably have made it easy for many to sweep his theological works under the proverbial rug... even though he was one of the greatest minds in world history. Jacob 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob, you are right that we only kow about Sabellianism indirectly, by what opponents say about it, but we know enough about it to say that not only with it the Trinitarian distinction of persons within God was denied, but also that all distinction between God as Creator, on the one side, and Jesus on the other, was wiped out as simple "modes" of presentation to us humans, with our imperfect understanding. I do not think, from Marcellus' extant works (I have only read his On the Holy Church, though), that he shared this Modalistic view, I think, rather, that he boldly managed to affirm Strict Monotheism, and at the same time a strong belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. This was, by all appearence, also the original belief of Athanasius, until he corrupted his thought with the Trinitarian doctrine (which, as P.F. Beatrice argues convincingly in this essay that I have quoted in my previous post, is directly derived from pagan Egyptian Hermetism). Another authoritative, recent work on Marcellus of Ancyra is Contra Marcellum, by Joseph T. Lienhard [3]. I am glad to see that, by our mutual usernames, we both pay homage to Michael Servetus, the staunch defender, hero and martyr of Strict Monotheism. --Miguel de Servet 14:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also pay homage to Michael Servetus and feel that his is one of the more tragic stories in Christian history. Michael Servetus is a true hero of the faith because he stood up to religious tyranny and paid the ultimate price.

Regarding Marcellus, we cannot fully know and that is the biggest problem with Christian history. History is written by the victors and therefore much of early Christianity has a false Trinitarian slant due to interpolation, persecution and other forms of revisionism. All one must do to prove this is to compare the interpolated longer rescensions of Ignatius' letters with the more accurate middle rescensions. The addition of trinitarian language is appalling. Can anyone say "Johannine Comma"?

Regarding modalism, I claim to be one and wonder at your true understanding of the concept. Modalists do not deny a separation between the "Son of God" and "God the Father". Jesus Christ, as a human being, was and is the Son of God. However, Jesus was not just a man. He was unique in that the fulness of God was in Him bodily, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Thus, "mode" is an imperfect term because Jesus was obviously much more than a mere "mode" of God. Concerning the Holy Spirit, this refers to God's Spirit (or Spirit of Christ, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Father... all synonymous terms) at work in humanity. I saw that you alluded to this in a previous post to TCC regarding II Corinthians 13:14 and the "fellowship of the Holy Ghost". The Holy Spirit is not a separate person from God anymore than our spirits are a separate person from us. Trinitarianism enjoys quoting Genesis 1:26 in spite of Judaism's overt objections, but yet they fail to see the obvious implications of the scripture. We are created in God's image and yet our body, soul, and spirit merely make up one person... not three persons.

Now, having said all this, if Marcellus was not a Modalist (or something very similar), then what was he? Jacob 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob, you “wonder at my true understanding of Modalism”. Let me first reassert where I believe the “original” Athanasius stood, together with Marcellus: they (and I with them) «boldly managed to affirm Strict Monotheism, and at the same time a strong belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ». The difficulty is to reconcile the above position with the refusal of “Ontological” (or “Immanent” – though the term is somewhat confusing, because it is usually opposed to “Transcendent” ) Trinitarianism (or, for that matter, Binitarianism) and with the affirmation of a real Divine-human Jesus. You quote Paul (Col 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”). I accept it, but I think it is necessary to combine it with John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) and John 1:14 (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us …”). What do I mean by this? I mean that it is not generically Godhead (“God-stuff”) that “inhabited” in Jesus Christ, but, more specifically, God’s Word (or Logos, Wisdom, Sophia, Hochmah). But, unlike in the Trinitarian dogma, this Logos is not for me (and I “feel” also, perhaps, for Athanasius, and certainly for Marcellus) a personal and pre-existent entity, but an eternal attribute of the One and Only God, the Father, YHWH, who bestowed his Logos, by generation, on His Son Jesus Christ:

"Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that is the Messiah, announced by the Scriptures, who has dwelt among us as a man, and who will return in the Glory. Jesus is Son of God not “from eternity”, but generated by God in the fullness of time from the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is true God and true man, inasmuch as He joins in Himself by generation the Divine nature of God his Father and the human nature of his Mother, the Virgin Mary. This is the greatest Miracle and Mystery of Christianity. In Jesus has been fully expressed God’s Wisdom, which had already been deployed at Creation. The Word, or God’s Wisdom, is therefore not a distinct person neither from God, nor in God, and it is not even a “project” of Creation, but an eternal attribute of the Eternal God." (from my comment to the Apostles’ Creed, In The Apostles’ Creed There Is All That Is Essential!)

As for the Holy Spirit (Pneuma, Ruah) I also consider it (similar to the Logos) an “attribute” of God. Using a beautiful image, derived from Deuteronomy, Michael Servetus says that God’s Word and God’s Spirit are His two “arms”:

Deut 33:27 “The eternal God [is thy] refuge, and underneath [are] the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy [them].”

Having said all the above, I claim to be (I claim the above defines) a Strict (Christian) Monotheist. And I make as bold as saying that, for what I know of him, also Marcellus (unlike Sabellius, probably) was one. --Miguel de Servet 01:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet, I fully affirm all that you have written, with one possible qualification. We fully agree on the place of the Pneuma or Ruach. This is not a separate person, but rather as you call it, an attribute of God or “arm of God” to quote Servetus. We call this a manifestation of God, or one of the ways that God reveals Himself to and in humanity. I see no differences here in our beliefs.

The one possible qualification that I have is in your characterization of Jesus as being an expression of God’s Wisdom. If you mean that only this single attribute of God was manifest in Jesus, I would disagree. If you mean by Wisdom, that the full mind and plan, and indeed all of God was manifest in Jesus, then I agree wholeheartedly. I think you may have misunderstood my post in that it is only “God-stuff” that is in Jesus. This is not what I believe. It is not “God-stuff”, but rather all of God (YHWH, Jehovah, the one God of the Old Testament) that dwelled fully and completely in the man Christ Jesus. To say that it was only an “attribute of God” that was in Christ is to imply that He was not fully God. Modalism does not say that Jesus was a mere mode of God, but that the “Sonship” was a mode in which God worked to redeem fallen humanity. Jesus Christ is God (in flesh). To quote the only Biblical time where the word person is used in relation to God, Jesus is the express image of God’s person. My impression is that you and I are on the same field, but we are using different markers (terminology) to designate our positions. For instance, Michael Servetus’ analogy of “arms” succinctly describes what I believe.

It has been my experience that Modalism has best (though not perfectly) maintained strict monotheism while still affirming the full deity of Jesus. What you are describing may be subtely different, and depending on where you fall on whether or not Jesus is YHWH manifest in flesh (Isa. 9:6, II Tim. 3:16) will tell if we hold the same belief. Great discussion! Jacob 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob,

there is something paradoxical in our exchange, a risk that I am sure you also perceive, but that nevertheless I want to point out. We both refuse the existing dogma (Trinitarian etc.), but we run the risk of falling, by our debate, in the trap of creating yet another dogma. So, with this caveat in mind, I will say that I strongly believe that all (all!) the Church dogma should be reduced to the Apostles Creed, and anything beyond it should be either forbidden (but this requires an accepted authority), or considered strictly personal, and therefore not binding.

Bearing in mind the above disclaimer, and that it is very hard to go beyond the conceptual and verbal level we have already reached, I will try to reply your questions with some further clarifications on my (strictly personal!) positions.

• YHWH is a fully personal God, and, to me, He coincides with One Person, that is the Father. Quoting myself again:

The God of Christians, YHWH, is not a “force” that moves the world, bur a real Personal God, He is strictly One, He is the same God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob in whom Jews and Moslems believe. God is called Father because he loves His creatures, and most of all human beings, who are the ultimate purpose of His Creation. (from my comment to the Apostles’ Creed, In The Apostles’ Creed There Is All That Is Essential!)

• Jesus Christ is Son of God, and as such (as I have already written in my previous post), not only he is miraculously conceived of God’s Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary: he is Son of God in a deeper, mysterious way. Somehow he received from his Father, by birth, something essential of the Father’s Divinity: the Evangelist John identifies this “something”, unambiguously, with God’s Logos. So, although the Logos remains an essential and exclusive attribute of God, the Father, yet through generation God endowed Jesus with a “good measure” of his divinity, and in particular of his Logos. May I note here that, while the Scripture, and in particular the NT, declares that Jesus is Son of God, nowhere does it say, simply, that Jesus IS God. You may object that this is hard to reconcile with Col 2:9 (“For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”). I will quote the verses immediately following:

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. [Col 2:10-12]

Most exegetes (and I with them) consider Col 2:10-12 an expansion and an explanation of 2:9. It is the resurrected and glorified Jesus Christ that Paul is referring to.

• You write: “Sonship” was a mode in which God worked to redeem fallen humanity. Your “Sonship”, with brackets, indicates strongly that your position is close to that criticized by Tertullian in his Adversus Praxeas, and called “Patripassianism”: “The Father is so impossible to distinguish from the Son – remember that for you, Jacob, they are not two distinct persons – that we may say that the Father-Son suffered the passion on the cross”

• You write: Modalism has best (…) maintained strict monotheism while still affirming the full deity of Jesus. Historically, this is not so, and in fact you admit that historically given Modalism is something that we can only reconstruct from what its enemies say about it. AFAIK, the only modern form of “modalism” is the one proposed by the Swedenborgian The New Church. In spite of the alleged similarity between the conception of Servetus and of Swedenborg (which I intend to dispute in the Discussion page of that entry), I believe that Servetus was a “rationalist exegete”, because he based his understanding of the Godhead entirely on a rational exam of the Bible’s text, whereas Swedenborg’s system was some kind of “theosophy”, entirely dependent on his “visions”.

There is also a deeper reason for my rejection of the Trinity, and it really has more to do with Incarnation: I will expand on this in a next instalment. --Miguel de Servet 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For an explanation of the "deeper reason" I have now added a new Talk section, Trinity and Incarnation: two reflections --Miguel de Servet 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

God, according to Genesis, made man “in His image and likeness”

Now, if by “man” we do not mean human society, but the real and concrete human being of flesh and blood, the concrete human being that each of us is, then God can only be One Person, and Trinity is nothing but the symbolic expression of the inner Life of this Person, of His Creative Power, His Loving Wisdom and His Vivifying Spirit.

If, on the other hand, we do not mean “man” as concrete human being, but rather as human society, we may likewise argue that God is a Society of Persons, and in this case the dogma of Trinity is not a symbolic expression, but a literal truth.

This latter position, which can be perfectly upheld from a rational point of view, has the main disadvantage that it is not supported anywhere in the Scriptures. Neither in the Old Testament, in which God’s Oneness only is proclaimed, and when God’s Wisdom or Spirit are spoken of, there is no reason to assume that what is referred to is anything other than attributes of the One God and Father. Nor in the New Testament, in which, rather, it is insisted that God is Abba, Father.

Things become even more complicated with the dogma of Incarnation. Assuming, in fact, that in God there subsist a Trinity of Persons, and that in Jesus human nature has been united to the divine nature of the Eternal Son so as to constitute one Person, how is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, posited with respect to this Trinity? Two only are the possibilities: either the divinity of the Son has been changed and somehow “enriched” by the humanity of Jesus, or the humanity of Jesus has been entirely “absorbed” into the divinity of the Son.

In the former case it is God’s immutability which is questioned, in the latter case it is the very reality, value and meaning of Resurrection which dissolve into a haze.

--Miguel de Servet 23:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am rather surprized that, while Trinity and Incarnation (II) caused ample and immediate response, nobody touches this T & I (I). Does it mean to say that what I say here is not controversial? I doubt it! But it is here that I laid out the fundamental logical and rational criticism of the traditional dogma of Trinity and, most of all, of Incarnation.
--Miguel de Servet 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my tormented relationship with Christianity I have developed a total repulsion for the Doctrine of Trinity, as it is proposed by the Catholic Church and more in general by all the Christian churches, Orthodox, Protestant etc., with the single exception of the Unitarian Church.

For a long time I believed that the motivation of my attitude was due to several facts, amongst which I mention the main ones:

• the Doctrine of Trinity has no foundation upon the basis of the Old Testament, and not even of the New testament,
• that there is an obvious evolution that has carried from the first formulations, tied to the necessity to distinguish the role and the nature of Jesus Christ with regard to God the Father, to the definitive formulation (three persons, equal, distinguished and co-eternal),
• that there are obvious contributions from stoic philosophy, as well as middle-platonic, neo-platonic in the various Trinitarian formulations,
• that the complete formulation of the dogma (as can be found in the s.c. Athanasian Creed) erects a true verbal "eidolon" to the Trinity.

Without modifying anything of the above exposed convictions, I gradually came to realize that the true problem for me is above all that of Incarnation. It appears difficult to me to accept and to believe that Jesus Christ can be the Incarnation of God (or more exactly, according to the Dogma, of the second person of the Trinity) and that therefore, inasmuch as God, he cannot not enjoy divine attributes, in particular Omnipotence and Omniscience, that we consider necessarily associated to the notion of God.

How can in fact such Man-God actually suffer the limitations imposed by human nature? What kind of redemptive value has for humans the death of Someone who ultimately only has "up to a certain point" shared the human condition? Which is the meaning and the value of the Resurrection of a Man-God who, in inasmuch as God, cannot really suffer death and, inasmuch as man, whose nature is intimately connected to his divine nature, from this same divine nature would have received, so to speak "by dragging", victory over death, making therefore superfluous to think of the intervention of the One God Father, which however is expressed without possible misunderstanding in the NT, and in particular in Peter’s speech in the "Acts of the Apostles"?

Therefore, thinking to overcome my repulsion for the doctrine of Trinity, but in fact (as I came to realize) above all in order to overcome the difficulties with the Doctrine the Incarnation (difficulties that, it is worth noticing, do not depend on the formulation according to the Trinitarian Dogma, but indeed would be aggravated by a “Unitarian", "Patripassian" formulation of the Incarnation), I have thought to find a satisfactory solution to both problems in the enunciations that follow, which constitute some kind of "personal creed":

• The God of Christians is not a “force” that moves the world, bur a real Personal God, He is strictly One, He is the same God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob in whom Jews and Moslems believe. God is called Father because he loves His creatures, and most of all human beings, who are the ultimate purpose of His Creation.
• Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that is the Messiah, announced by the Scriptures, who has dwelt among us as a man, and who will return in the Glory. Jesus is Son of God not “from eternity”, but generated by God in the fullness of time from the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is true God and true man, inasmuch as He joins in Himself by generation the Divine nature of God his Father and the human nature of his Mother, the Virgin Mary. This is the greatest Miracle and Mystery of Christianity. In Jesus has been fully expressed God’s Wisdom, which had already been deployed at Creation. The Word, or God’s Wisdom, is therefore not a distinct person neither from God, nor in God, and it is not even a “project” of Creation, but an eternal attribute of the Eternal God.
• Creation is tied to the One God Father by a twofold bond. Creation is Nature, which obeys the laws that God imposed upon it in His Wisdom. In Nature the Divine Providence expresses itself as Order and Harmony, with reference to the General (although Nature includes also breaches of order and catastrophes). But God acts also directly upon Creation, with actions that are addressed to the Particular. This direct action and presence of God in His Creation, is called by the Scripture Holy Spirit. God manifests Himself by His Spirit both as inspiration in humans chosen by God, and as miracle in Nature’s extraordinary events.

This "creed", with its heterodoxy, has somehow satisfied the primary requirement to refer to God as a Personal Entity, present in the world created by Him and acting on it with Wisdom and Love.

Besides this requirement, but of no less importance , this "creed" allows me to feel that the call to sharing with Jews and Muslims the same One God of Abraham is neither strained nor fictitious.

But if on one side this creed helps overcome my repulsion for the doctrine of Trinity, and my perplexities regarding the doctrine of Incarnation, I cannot deny that a different problem arises. A God Father, who loves His Creation so much as to give it His One-begotten Son, in the end is also the one who sent Him in this world without any warning of danger, who literally gave Him the illusion of the imminent foundation of God’s Kingdom, and of the possibility to establish this Kingdom in a non traumatic way. This can be clearly perceived from the Gospels in the first phase of the mission of Jesus, until the "crisis of Caesarea" and in the tragic character of the rest of the mission of Jesus, until the epilogue on the Cross.

Therefore a choice is inevitable. On one side the doctrine of Trinity and of Incarnation, which attempts the impossible (and for me sacrilegious) combination of the "God" of philosophers with the One and True God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and inevitably transforms Incarnation itself in some kind of "sacred representation", of "comedy", "pedagogical action" by God (but which God?) towards Humanity, without any true sharing of "human condition", in spite of every well-meaning apologetic effort. On the other side a creed that apparently introduces the notion of "cruelty" in God the Father, even towards His Beloved Son.

I believe that this apparent cruelty is the true key to understanding the Sacrifice of the Cross. We must think of Jesus who, as reads the "Letter to the Hebrews", "learns from His suffering", who at Gethsemane prays that He be spared the bitter cup (but only "if it is still possible"), who reminds Pontius Pilate that a legion of Angels could free Him, if only He should ask His Father. Jesus who in the supreme moment does not resort to His relationship with God the Father in any form other than obedience. Who affirms His Regality only by means of His Word. Who knows well the precariousness and unreliability of every human solidarity, even from one’s most trusted friends. Who finally, so His humanity can manifest itself in the fullness of its limits, is and feels totally abandoned by God the death, and like every human being faces the supreme moment with that fear of the unknown that every human being must experience and that God Father, abandoning Him totally to death, interrupting the intimacy with which He has always supported Him, lets Him taste in all its horror.

This is the Jesus who, "approved by God”, is resurrected by God. He has defied death and He has conquered it not because, inasmuch as Son of God, He could only win, but because, "first of the resurrected" God has put Him as a Guide of Humanity until the final Victory. Jesus has received from God, His Father, a mission to accomplish. He has gradually understood it and freely accepted it, up to the Sacrifice of His Life. We must think that Jesus could have failed, but that he had the Courage to endure to the end, for our Love.

--Miguel de Servet 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating reading. Question: If Christ is truly Logos, specifically the attribute of the Wisdom of God, I find your formula conflicted. How could he not know the plan or the purpose of his very existence? Was not Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac a type of the future sacrifice of the Son of God? Surely wisdom would know that man was in a situation of both spiritual and physical death and in need of a Savior. More importantly, Jesus would know that only a supreme sacrifice could atone and bring life eternal to man.

I am convinced this was known to Christ. He was not acting in conscious void or without understanding. He knew who he was as evidenced by his statement that he was about his father's business. Could he still fear the sacrifice? Of course, but he accepted it and was completely subservient to the will of the Father. He began to pay the price in the Garden when he bled from every pore and finished it upon the Cross.

It is also puzzeling why God would play a charade of different names and different entities or attributes. I cannot agree that just did that for our benefit...a benefit that has left mankind in a position where truth is hidden and thousands if not millions have lost their lives because they disagree with the prevailing concept of who God is. How on earth does one sit on the right hand of himself? Why continue the charade? If what you say is true, wouldn't it have been easier for Stephen to look into the heavens and saw God? That is not what he saw. He saw two indivdiuals. It is a delimma that you have not answered.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Miguel and forgive me for butting in. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider,

I am overjoyed that my contrib had caused an immediate response, and that it is sensible and reasonable: I believe this is what a "Discussion page" should be eminently for (I hope Rholton agrees on this!?). As the points you bring up are "sensitive", and need to be carefully dealt with, and besides it is a very late hour for me, I will reply in due course, a.s.a.p. --Miguel de Servet 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added the header as a subtle(?) hint that this is not an appropriate use of a discussion page on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially the section What talk pages may be used for.–RHolton≡– 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

--Miguel de Servet, I find your post to be quite extraordinary. Thank you for sharing it as you have a gift for words. Just a few comments:

For one, Unitarianism is not the only Christian organization that rejects the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals reject it as well, the primary of which is the United Pentecostal Church International, which enjoys a membership of several million worldwide. For more information on their beliefs, read Oneness of God by David Bernard. I caution you to not read the Wikipedian article on them as it is a gross misrepresentation. Please read their own writings, not what Trinitarian authors say about them. It will give you a better understanding of modern day modalism as *I feel* you have some misconceptions regarding how modern day modalism views the relationship between the Father and the Son.

"Patripassionism" was coined by Tertullian to ridicule Sabellius' beliefs, not to represent them. Sabellius used the analogy of the sun, light, and heat to describe God. The sun being God the Father, the light being the Son of God, and the heat being the Holy Spirit. You can see the similarities between this and Servetus' analogy of God's arms. Thus, even though the Spirit of the Father was in Christ, to wit God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, it was the Son who died upon the cross, not the Father. A spirit does not have flesh and bones, and seeing how God is a Spirit (John 4:24), He cannot die. So it became necessary for a body to be created for the purposes of redemption. Acts 20:28 says clearly that God purchased the church with his own blood. In Malachi 3:1, it is prophesied that John the Baptist would be sent to prepare the way for Jehovah, the One God of the Old Testament (prepare the way before me). Of course, the New Testament shows this One to be none other than Jesus Christ. How else can Isaiah 9:6 be interpreted, which clearly and unambiguously says that the name of the son is the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God? When Philip asked to see the Father, Jesus' direct answer was "Have I been so long with you and yet have you not known me.

You spoke of the image of God. Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God. Thus he told his disciples, when you have seen me you have seen the Father.

Colossians 1:15 says Jesus "...is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature".

When these scriptures are taken together you see that Jesus is fully God manifest in the flesh and not just a human being with specific, unique attributes of God and not just God the Son manifest in the flesh. To me, when understood fully, this view answers the concerns regarding the Trinity and the Incarnation and truly, is not too terribly different from what you have written. Jacob 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, you ask, "How on earth does one sit on the right hand of himself... If what you say is true, wouldn't it have been easier for Stephen to look into the heavens and saw God? That is not what he saw. He saw two indivdiuals."

I ask you, did Stephen see the Father? What of John 1:18 which says, "No man hath seen God at any time"? Or of John 6 which says, "Not that any man hath seen the Father save he which is of God"? The Biblical symbolic significance of the "right hand" is that of power and birth right. Jesus is the first born of every creature and He is the power of God unto salvation, or at the right hand of God. You cannot attempt to squeeze doctrine from symbolic visions. If so, where are the eternal Son and Holy Ghost in Isaiah's kingly vision in Isa. 6? Where were the Son and Holy Ghost when Satan presented himself before God in the book of Job? When John the Revelator looked up into heaven, he beheld "one throne and one who sat upon the throne". No man can see God, who is invisible, except through the man by which God has chosen to reveal Himself (Col. 1:15). Again I refer to Isaiah 9:6, "the son shall be called Everlasting Father, the Mighty God". Jacob 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

All conversation about God invites His Spirit to attend. If for no other reason, this is a worthy discussion albiet probably one that should take place on our personal discussion pages.

Agreed, one does not squeeze doctrine from every vision, but I think there is more to the vision of Stephen than what you present. I honestly believe that the record is an accurate account of what Stephan saw with his eyes.

Also, one must be careful to use every single scripture to prove every other single scripture; context is important. Also, an understanding that what we call scripture is nothing more than the interpretations of man about the workings of God. The Holy Spirit is the one great qualifier of truth and personal revelation is the goal of all disciples. I harken back to Peter when Jesus asked, "But whom say ye that I am?" and Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." How great an example and wonderous the encouragement for all of us...to seek that sweet, small voice that unshakles the spirit and lifts the heart unto God.

I am comfortable with the appelation Everlasting Father, the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace. (Makes you want to sing doesn't it!) However, what if Jesus was the intermediary at all times; through the old Testament and the New. He was the God of the Old Testament as he is the Son of God in the NT. We speak of mysteries. I am a monotheist and believe in one God, the Father. I do not explain the oneness of the Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit, but they are one God and yet three. I am also not a Trinitarian. I may approach this from a simple position, but it works for me. If modalism were an absolute truth, why would God put on such a ruse; what purpose is achieved calling one attribute the Son and another the Holy Spirit. Why ever present any manifestation as anything but the reality of the oneness of God. There would be no need for this confusing Son, just say what was so. The NT is at best ambiguous about this issue and the scriptures can support a wide variety of beliefs. I come to some conclusions: either it is not significantly important that God specifically clarifies the issue, the scriptures have been grossly translated and are not accurate in their description of the Godhead, or God wants us to seek Him out for His guidance in understanding scripture. There are many more twists to the issue, but you get some of where this is going.

God bless you and I will further study the issue. I find that I enjoy those termed heretics as much as I do reading about the Saints. In truth, I often think they are the same thing. His peace unto you. Let's move this off the page before they direct us off of it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I find your post to be written very clearly and in the spirit of charity. You are correct that we must use every scripture to interpret all other scriptures. I also hold to scriptura solara, so I place little emphasis on early church councils which claim that somehow the writers of the New Testament did not do a good enough job in explaining the Godhead. I find this line of thinking to be truly offensive. That we need to borrow terminology from Greek philosophy to improve upon Paul's explanation of God is simply absurd. The problem for these 4th century Christians was that they had divorced themselves completely from Judaism (no Jews were allowed to attend Constantine's councils) and Paul used Old Testament Jewish terminology to describe God. So often this debate pitts the O.T. vs. the N.T. and Judaism against Christianity. When this happens, we have failed already. Any true belief in God and of His Christ will marvellously marry the two together. This is what Sabellianism, Unitarianism, Swedenbourgianism, the original Miguel de Servet, and men like Isaac Newton were attempting to accomplish.

Regarding the logic on the terminology of Son, Holy Spirit, etc. and why not just say what was, I will endeavor to use the same logic that you have used. You believe regarding God "they (plural) are one and yet three". If God is a they and there is an inherent threeness to God, why does the Bible never simply say so? Trinity, which means three in unity, is not in the Bible though some would say it is implied. The only absolute truth that we know scripturally is that God is one, strictly and numerically one. If there were any threeness to God, why would this threeness never be mentioned? Why would early scribes have felt it necessary to add a threeness to the Bible in I John 5:7? The only path that scripture leaves us, that is supported by literally hundreds of scriptures throughout the O.T. and the N.T., is that God is absoluteley one. Anything that weakens or lessens this absolute truth should be rejected. Therefore, to even ascribe a threeness to God in any sense is unbiblical and teetering on heresy.

If my posts do not come across with the same sense of charity as yours has, I am truly sorry for this. If it does not come across, please know that it is intended. Jacob 18:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, What talk pages may be used for:

The talk pages of controversial topics can often be very heavily used. See for example Talk:Abortion, Talk:Capitalism, Talk:Socialism, Talk:Jesus Christ.[evidence mine]

@ RHolton: would you not agree that "Trinity" is just about as controversial as "Jesus Christ", if not more? So where is the "guideline problem"?
And I dare say the topic I have initiated hardly qualifies as "general chatter".Perhaps the addition of a

would do?
--Miguel de Servet 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I will try to reply your questions as I best can:

• There is non doubt to me, from a reading of the Gospels unencumbered by traditional “packaging”, that Jesus’ consciousness of his Messianic role undergoes a development, and does not obviously include the awareness of the inevitable Passion and Death from the start. In the first part of Jesus public life, Jesus, IMMO, is displaying a strong persuasion, in accord to his forerunner and harbinger John the Baptist, that “the Kingdom of Heaven is nigh”: here, on earth, and in the immediate future. Otherwise, how could one explain this passage, from the “First Commission” to the Apostles: «But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.» (Mat 10:23)? The turning point is at Caesarea. Jesus realizes that the masses rather than seeing his miracles as “signs”, perceive him as a Wonderworker King, while the Sadducees and the Pharisees keep asking questions in bad faith and do no accept his reinterpretation of the “Law and Prophets”. So, somehow paradoxically, non sooner does Peter proclaim «Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.» (Mat 16:16), that Jesus announces the inevitability of his Passion, Death and Resurrection (Mat 16:21), and rejects Peter’s “diabolic” temptation (Mat 16:22-23). Did Jesus know this “Passion path” since the very beginning of his public “career”, nay since his youth, childhood, or even birth? I simply find no reason or ground to assert it. It is the Wisdom, the Logos that God has instilled in him, it is God’s Holy Spirit by which God and Jesus communicate and make Jesus virtually “one with the Father” that make things gradually clear for Jesus, along his earthly path.

• That “only a supreme sacrifice could atone and bring life eternal to man” is certainly the core of Paul’s reflection on the sense of Jesus’ life, passion death and resurrection. But we must remember that Paul never knew Jesus during his earthly life, and inevitably saw the “sense” of all from the perspective of the glorious conclusion, once he dramatically converted to believing that Jesus was the Christ, viz. the awaited Messiah of Israel (and of all Humankind, as Paul came to understand). Once again, if we do not want to make of Jesus some sort of “Superman”, ultimately with very little in common with Humanity, I think we must believe that, like every man, he came to his full comprehension partly through his reason, and partly through God’s inspiration. Would a Jesus with full knowledge and certainty that Resurrection was the other side of “death’s tunnel” really “still fear the sacrifice”? I do not think so. In fact this is for me the strongest objection to the traditional (Trinitarian) doctrine of Incarnation, as I have amply explained in my “Trinity and Incarnation (II)”

• God does not “would play a charade of different names and different entities or attributes”. The doctrine of Trinity (and of Incarnation) is an entirely human construction, a systematic distortion of the Scripture, Christianity’s Self Inflicted Wound, to use the expression from the title of Anthony Buzzard’s book.

• It was the Resurrected Jesus in his glorious, pneumatic body and spirit, that Stephen saw in his vision, next to God the Father: « But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”». (Act 7:55-56). I point you to the last paragraph of Trinity and Incarnation (I), for my remarks on the absurdities that the traditional (Trinity and Incarnation) doctrine of the Resurrection inevitably entails.
  --Miguel de Servet 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from What talk pages may be used for:

Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. (For an alternative forum, see the m:Wikibate proposal.) Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research. (Emphasis mine).

I have no objection to the quantity of the posts, nor to their quality, which seems quite high. However, this discussion is not about how to improve the article, and thus is not appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page.–RHolton≡– 12:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rholton, that these talk pages should serve the purpose of improving the article. I will say briefly though to Miguel de Servet, that I do not believe that you have truly rejected the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; instead, you have rejected a distortion of it. Personally, I found On the Incarnation by Athanasius to be helpful in intellectually understanding the Trinity, but spending time in the prayers of the Orthodox church much more so. The Orthodox belief in God as Trinity is based on scripture, and sometimes expressed using language borrowed from Greek philosophy, but it is also the way generations of Christians have encountered and experienced God in prayer and worship. I'm sure I can find a citation for that in a couple different places, probably in Bishop Kallistos Ware's writings like The Orthodox Church or The Orthodox Way. Wesley 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RHolton: Lets put two critical lines from the very same "guideline" What talk pages may be used for next to each other [evidence mine]:

• Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues.
• The talk pages of controversial topics can often be very heavily used.

You quoted (only) the first (which, BTW, is rather clumsily and even ambiguously phrased, what with "are also not strictly a forum"?), I quoted (only) the second, but they are both from the same "guideline". How do you reconcile them? You simply don't. IMMO, you have to accept the fact-of-life that some issues (the "guideline" even gives relevant examples, are more controversial than others.

As for your remark that "this discussion is not about how to improve the article" your opinion obviously carries more authority and consequence for the simple fact that you are a wiki-administrator, so ultimately you decide, but I don't agree: for instance the Dissent from the doctrine section of Trinity's main article can benefit from this discussion.

More in general, I believe the Discussion page of an article should not be seen simply as a "technical tool for contributing users", but I am sure it is appreciated by most wiki-users (regardless of how heavily they contribute) as a resource in itself, as a "second layer" for the entry.

In conclusion, I strongly advice not to resort to "disciplinarian decisions" just for the sake of respect of neat guidelines (they are not "neat" anyway). Nobody means any harm, and it is not, repeat NOT, a waste of precious wiki-resourses.
--Miguel de Servet 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel

It sounds to me like you are reading into the guidelines (eisegesis) what you want them to say, instead of reading out of them (exegesis) what they actually say. To take the statement that some talk pages can be heavily used, and conclude that therefore they may be used in ways that are otherwise not allowed—well, it just does not follow. If you look at Talk:Jesus, or the other controversial talk pages that are heavily used, you will see that they are heavily used for discussing changes to the article, not for personal essays or prolonged conversations tangential to the article content.

As for your suggestion that this conversation may benefit portions of the article–I can't see how. Wikipedia does not allow original research in articles. In fact, it's discouraged on talk pages (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought).

The only "disciplinary decisions" I would consider would be to simply remove (or archive) the conversation—something that does not require an administrator. Like most administrators, I am not on any sort of power trip. Instead, I became an administrator so that I can more easily deal with blatant vandals, and because I believe in the goals of Wikipedia. However, I must admit when I see what seems to be the attitude of "lets do as much of this admittedly out-of-guideline activity as we can before we get stopped", I begin to seriously question the participants sincerity in improving Wikipedia.

–RHolton≡– 00:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wesley,
let’s take advantage of this talk section for enlightening exchanges while we can. I see from your Bio that, after a rather interesting “religious route”, you are now at home with the Orthodox Church in America.

You say you “do not believe that [I] have truly rejected the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; instead, [I] have rejected a distortion of it”. I love that: I am (unless the formally excommunicate me) a Roman Catholic (I live in Italy) by Baptism and education. I made my Strict Monotheist "outing" with my vicar (“parroco”) last year. After he read my Trinità e Incarnazione (I and II) he said that "my conception of the Logos as a non-personal attribute of God Father until the Incarnation is a huge stumbling-block". I honestly agreed that my ontological (or "immanent", as thay call it for some funny reason) conception of the Godhead is incompatible with "traditional" orthodoxy. So he turned me to the bishop of our diocese, who liquidated the whole matter by recommending to me to be “humble”. So, since then, I simply write to the Pope (it’s easy, benedictxvi@vatican.va), trying to convince him to the “mission impossible” of turning Christianity’s clock back beyond Constantine, all the way back to the Apostles’ Creed: yes, because I believe it really is of Apostolic origin! This is the core of my personal belief (not easy to digest for a EO Christian, I know)

I am very familiar with On the Incarnation by Athanasius, and I believe the introduction by C.S. Lewis is very inspirational. I think the fundamental problem with Athanasius is that, somewhere along the way (after the synod of Rome with Pope Julius in 341 CE, when he was still a close ally of Marcellus of Ancyra), he lost sincerity and integrity (see my posts at Modalism vs. Strict Monotheism. I have been already in deep discussions about “the Orthodox belief in God as Trinity based on scripture, and sometimes expressed using language borrowed from Greek philosophy”: I believe (and I can solidly argue) it is all (self) delusion, a case of “finding” in the Scripture what has been previously put there by hyper-exegesis (or fanta-exegesis), or should we say even, sometimes, by a sleigh-of-hand, a conjurer’s trick.
--Miguel de Servet 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob (18:20, 29 June 2006) may I butt in your exchange with Storm Rider.

I subscribe to every single word in your post, except for something you have not written.

• You say that you reject all Greek philosophical “pollution”: very good.
• You say it is blasphemy (“truly offensive”) to say that we need Greek philosophy to “improve” on the terminology of the NT: very well.
• You only want to resort to the Scripture (sola Scriptura): and here is the problem, because you will find plenty of verses that say Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but NOWHERE will you find written that Jesus Christ is God.

Otherwise, please show where (no fanta-exegesis, though, that is incompatible with your stance).

Also, I would like to know, what you mean by the expression “original Miguel de Servet”?
--Miguel de Servet 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob (05:07, 29 June 2006) only now do I reply your previous post. Thank you for the kind words. And now a few remarks:

• The image used by Sabellius (sun-light-heat vs. Father-Son-Spirit) was certainly not his invention, in fact it can per proved to originate (rather embarrassingly), in early Gnosticism (“Hieracas [said]: as from a torch to another, or as [the flame of] a lamp divided into two...” quoted by Arius in his letter to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria)
• All the passages you quote, analysing them accurately, have a non monarchian-modalist explanation (and, a fortiori, a non Trinitarian one!). For instance, Acts 20:28 (“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”): it is more than obvious that the “blood” it refers to is a metonymy for “Son” (it could have been “seed”, just the same). Or Isaiah 9:6, where “Everlasting Father” is the improper translation of the Hebrew from the terms ‘ab (father, but more in general fountain-head) and ‘ad (future), so the proper translation is “father of the coming age”: referred to Jesus and his Messianic Kingdom.
• You say: “Of course, the New Testament shows this One to be none other than Jesus Christ.” So, if Jesus Chris is the “Son who died upon the cross“ and if God is strictly One, and therefore must also coincide with the Father, where is the distinction between the Father and the Son? It is an insoluble conundrum.
  --Miguel de Servet 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet, do not hesitate to "butt in" to any of my conversations. Your independent thinking and willingness to question what has been passed on through tradition is refreshing. I too was Catholic (my grandfather came to America from Sicily), and having come to some of the same problems as you, I left the Catholic church. I found in the teachings of Sabellius, and dare I say, Servetus, the answers to my questions. By stating the original Servetus, I simply mean the original Servetus, thus distinguishing between him and those of us who have honored him through our usernames. Had I just said "Miguel de Servet", I could have been mistaken as referring solely to you. I was not referring to you, but please take no offense to this as none was intended.

The distinction between Father and Son is easily solved by understanding the difference between body and Spirit. Jesus was fully man (Son), but the Spirit that was inside of Him was fully God (Father). Read Ephesians 4 when Paul states of God that there is "one body and one Spirit, one God and father of all".

Now, regarding Isaiah 9:6, I must completely disagree with your interpretation on the Everlasting Father as well as point out that you failed to comment on the more serious appelation of Mighty God. עד, or ad does not simply mean "future", but rather "perpetual", "forever". It is used 55 times in the Old Testament, and almost always translated as "forever". According to your interpretation, Psalms 10:16, "The Lord is King forever and ever" only refers to a future state. Father, אב or (ab), is used 1136 times in the Old Testament, 1120 of which are simply translated as "Father, fathers, father's". To claim that this instance of אב means some generic fountainhead where the other thousand or so uses mean father is, as you say, fanta-exegesis. Isaiah unambiguously saw the Messiah as both given son and Everlasting Father.

Now, let's look at Mighty God. The word used for God is êl. The word used for Mighty is גּבּור (gibbôr). Isaiah uses the same exact terminology in Isaiah 10:21, "The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God." Jeremiah uses this exact terminology in 32:18 when he says, "the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name". So to infer that this is not what Isaiah meant is an incorrect interpretation since Isaiah himself used the same exact terminology elsewhere of Jehovah. Jacob 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob, thank you for your clarifications and also for the more personal bio info. BTW, no offence regarding the “original Servetus”, I was just puzzled! Let’s leave scriptural exegesis aside for the moment: you bring up interpretations of some verses, I counter with different ones. The fact that the “critical” and conflicting interpretations, have been around for ages, by now, simply means to me that there is a certain amount of ineliminable ambiguity: we could argue for ages, to no avail.

So let me tackle the problem from a different angle. As you have noticed, from my initial post Trinity and Incarnation (II), my ultimate reason for rejecting the Trinity, and, at the same time for claiming an ontological difference between God as Creator and Father on one side, and Jesus Christ, as Son of God and Man, on the other, in terms of what I refer to as Strict Monotheism is that I cannot find it satisfactorily provided in any of the several theories of God’s Oneness (like the Monarchians, Modalists, Sabellians, Swedenborgians, The New Church, Pentecostals etc.).

In my original post, I wrote:

It appears difficult to me to accept and to believe that Jesus Christ can be the Incarnation of God (...) and that therefore, inasmuch as God, he cannot not enjoy divine attributes, in particular Omnipotence and Omniscience, that we consider necessarily associated with the notion of God.

I also wrote, in essence, that if Jesus Christ was fully God, and not (as the NT only says – and you have not given replies to this observation), Son of God (and consequently, somehow, “inferior” to God the Father), then his divinity would “burn out” his humanity, and his “humanity” would be in fact just “walking on earth”, "sacred representation", "comedy", "pedagogical action". A “humanity” that would not ultimately save our humanity, because, what would it really have in commmon with it?

You may ask: «In what does this Strict Monotheism differ form Arianism?». The answer is very simple. God is truly, "genetically", the Father of Jesus, but not "from all eternity", not "before all creation", in fact "in the domain of time", to wit: Palestine, year 6 BCE.
--Miguel de Servet 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet, I will follow your changing of direction for a moment. Let's say then that Jesus cannot be the incarnation of God for the reasons that you have stated, which are as follows:

• Jesus cannot enjoy divine attributes of Omnipotence and Omniscience and still be considered truly human

• If Jesus were divine as the Son of God, he would be somehow inferior to God

• If Jesus were God, his humanity would be so removed from ours as to not have any commonality and thus not truly be able to save us

Let me now submit your conclusions to this selfsame logic. You say that Jesus is filled with the divine Logos, which is an attribute of God. And that this Logos has been uniquely given to Jesus so that he is the Son of God in his humanity as well as in a more mystical sense. But your main point is that, though he is not God, He is unique from all other men in the history of the world because of the Logos. I ask, what is the difference? We are now debating about the measure of God that was inside Jesus. To you, it is but a unique attribute of God. To me he is fully God. Regardless of the measure, Jesus was different from all other humanity and therefore (according to you) could be considered a "humanity that would not ultimately save our humanity, because, what would it really have in commmon with it?" Truly, according to your logic, Jesus could have absolutely no difference between himself and the common man for his death to be effective. Unfortunately, this logic is already doomed due to the virgin birth. Whether Jesus was fully God (Col. 2:9, Isa. 9:6) or partially God, He was still completely different from all other humanity. As to his omniscience and omnipotence, Jesus exhibited both in his lifetime ministry.

Now briefly back to exegesis of Isa. 9:6. I have not given an interpretation, merely a definition of terms as well as shown context and alternate usage. Isaiah clearly said that Jesus (Messiah) would be called the Mighty God, êl גּבּור and used the same terminology he used elsewhere for Jehovah. I, for one, will go ahead and align myself with Isaiah and say that Jesus is the Mighty God, Jehovah of the Old Testament and Son in his incarnate humanity.

Regarding Acts 20:28 and the blood (αιμα) of God, in all 99 occurrences in the New Testament it means and is translated as literal blood, never even implying seed. Jacob 15:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Miguel, when I said I thought you were in fact rejecting a flawed understanding of the Trinity, I wasn't just saying that because I think no one could possibly reject the real Trinity. I was saying that based on your statements about the Trinity doctrine that you find so repugnant. In particular: A God Father, who loves His Creation so much as to give it His One-begotten Son, in the end is also the one who sent Him in this world without any warning of danger, who literally gave Him the illusion of the imminent foundation of God’s Kingdom, and of the possibility to establish this Kingdom in a non traumatic way. This can be clearly perceived from the Gospels in the first phase of the mission of Jesus, until the "crisis of Caesarea" and in the tragic character of the rest of the mission of Jesus, until the epilogue on the Cross.... a creed that apparently introduces the notion of "cruelty" in God the Father, even towards His Beloved Son. I would also find it repugnant to believe in a God Father who would send his Son into danger with no warning, who acted towards him with cruelty rather than love.

That you have been raised in the Roman Catholic Church rather confirms rather than refutes my perception that your understanding is flawed. Between the filioque clause (which sometimes apparently leads some Roman Catholics to call the Holy Spirit the "product" or "result" of the love between God the Father and Jesus Christ -- very bizarre to me), and the atonement theories of Augustine and especially Anselm, I think the Roman Catholic doctrine of the trinity runs into real problems when you examine it closely, as you are clearly doing. This essay, originally delivered as an oral address, illustrates how Western theology has unintentionally undermined the notion of God's goodness and love: The River of Fire. Regarding Athanasius and On the Incarnation, surely you're aware that he wrote it while he was still quite young, before he was bishop and probably before he was even a priest, at least a couple decades before the 342 date you suggested when he "lost sincerity" or what have you. If you don't like his theology presented there, what earlier work of his do you think presents a different view?

Can I presume that you're already familiar with the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, which attempt to explore and set the boundaries regarding Jesus' simultaneous humanity and divinity? Wesley 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob (15:20,30 June 2006),

first of all, Let me say that you have summed up fairly my argument, in your three points. Except, perhaps, I should rephrase better my previous remark: even admitting that a fully divine (Omnipotent and Omniscient) Jesus was in fact capable of saving humanity, I would find this an abominable travesty, a theatrical adoption of a humanity which is not really shared. But, perhaps, this is more a matter of style than substance, a bit too Dostoevskijan. So, let’s concentrate on the logic.

I confirm that my view that Jesus is Son of God in the twofold sense that he was miraculously generated, in the domain of time, from (ek) the Virgin Mary and also, mysteriously has received through generation something essential of God’s nature, which I (with John the Evangelist), identify with a “good measure” of God’s Logos (not only, maybe, but that, at least is biblical). So, inevitably Jesus is (my expression is deliberately trivial here - I hope everybody understands it is not irreverent or blasphemous) God-man: God on the Father’s side, and man of the Mother’s side:

• This is what makes him perfectly capable to communicate fully with God, the Father, so much so that he can truly say «I and the Father are one» (Jhn 10:30): but only as much and as long as the Father deems fit, and for instance, on the Cross “God Father, abandon[s] [Jesus] totally to death, interrupting the intimacy with which He has always supported Him, lets [Jesus] taste in all its horror” (see last-but-one paragraph of Trinity and Incarnation (II)).

• This is what makes him so human, not only sharing human weaknesses, but also being truly less than omnipotent (Mk 6:5, “And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed [them]” ; Mk 8:22-26, the blind man healed in two “instalments”); truly less than omniscient (Mk 13:32 and Mt 24:36, Jesus declares that he himself does not know when the last day will occur). Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (Lk 2:52). In Hebrews 5:8 we read that Jesus learned obedience. And, at the Gethsemane, Jesus prays the Father to let the bitter cup pass him, but accepts that it is for God, his Father, to decide (Lk 22:32, Mc 14:36, Mt 26:39).

• My logic, far from been “doomed due to the virgin birth”, in fact highlights God’s ultimate secret, the very secret that He has reserved to confound the hypocrites, who pretend to believe in a personal God, but cannot sincerely believe that, in His Omnipotence, He can beget a Son from a Blessed Virgin. This secret did not affect at all Jesus’ relationship with his fellows and opponents: everybody around him believed he was, and for what they were concerned he was, the humble son of Joseph and Mary. Even Muslims, though they consider Jesus to be man only, believe that he was miraculously born from the Virgin Mary. Should what is accepted by devout Muslims be a stumbling block for Christians?

As for blood (αιμα – Strong’s 129) surely you meant, as is correct, that is occurs 99 times in the NT in general, and never, thank Goodness, is it referred “literally” to God. But I must concur that αιμα never seems to mean, metonymically, “son”, “progeny”. So I am sure it refers to Jesus’ precious blood, which Paul rightly considers as God’s own blood, and twice so, because it has been shed by Jesus who is God’s Son and also God’s perfect victim.
--Miguel de Servet 17:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have confused Luke's words that "God purchased the church with his own blood" to actually refer to God. Maybe this scripture refers to someone else and Luke mistakenly left that person out. Or... Jesus is God.

Or "All the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ". Paul must have really meant only a singly attribute and not the fullness of the Godhead. Paul really should have done a better job of explaining himself. Or... the fulness of the Godhead really does dwell bodily in Jesus.

Or when Jesus said "I am the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end". John the Revelator probably missed the qualification, "but I am not the God of the Old Testament who is also the First and the Last". I am sure there is no problem with multiple firsts and lasts. Or, Jesus Christ is God, the First and the Last.

I can really go on and on with this, but it is unneeded. You still have not commented on Isaiah's Mighty God and I suspect you cannot. I hope we will join hands one day and laugh about these exchanges and make fun of each other for how wrong we all probably are. Jacob 18:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob, please believe that I am perfectly capable of resorting to humour, if I want to, but I was not, in my previous post. As I have already remarked, no single quotation from the Bible is a knock-out, otherwise everybody who thinks differently would be either ignorant, or stupid, or in bad faith: are you implying one (or all) of these?

Just a comment on “Mighty God” (‘el gibbowr). You know, as well as I do, that even Jesus, when they tried to “frame” him for a supposed improper reference to himself as Son of God, replied not certainly equating himself even to God, but remarking that also the Judges of Israel are referred to as “Gods” (see John 10:34, which in turn refers to Ps 82:6, and in turn to Ex 22:28). BTW, Martin Luther (a Trinitarian!) translated the expression ‘el gibbowr at Isaiah 9:6 as “divine hero”.

And, for that matter, you could have resorted also to a verse of the NT:

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God ( o theos), will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. (Heb 1:8)

Where God, the Father, speaks unambiguously of His Son (other than him).

So, whether Hebrew or Greek, God (or rather god), does not automatically mean “The One and Only God YHWH”. You need to be discerning.
--Miguel de Servet 22:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"God", yes. "Mighty God", no. Please show me one Biblical reference where the appellation Mighty God was used in reference to a mere man. Please be discerning. As you said in an earlier post, God in Christ is the greatest mystery in the Bible, whether a portion of God or God in His fulness. Either way, you and I run into the same wall. "How can these things be?" However, what of the "I Am"s of Christ? Could a mere man cause the Roman soldiers to fall down just by stating "I AM"? Another vantage point comes from the Jews. Many have historically claimed to be the Christ (Messiah) yet none of them received the same response from the Jews as Jesus did. The Jews perceived that Jesus was not merely claiming to be the Messiah (whom they expected to be the Son of God). To them, Jesus was somehow claiming to be more. For this Jesus was crucified.

An understanding of the dual nature of Jesus (humanity and divinity) fully explains your questions. I agree with your conclusions on Jesus' humanity, a fact that many Christians do not understand. Jesus, in his humanity was distinct from God. But the Spirit that was in Christ was fully God. Great discussion! Jacob 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not commented on Heb 1:8, and I suspect … you cannot! :)
Anyway, when all is said, I do confirm my main objection (psychological, if you like): I would consider an Omnipotent, Omniscient God walking on earth under human guise pure theatre. There are some theologians (Trinitarians and also Oneness Pentecostals) who openly accept, in fact support this POV (the leading RC was Hans Urs von Balthasar, who even minted the word "theodramatics"). If this becomes the official view of the Catholic Church, I am going to found the UJCMLFY (United Jewish, Christian, Muslim Liberation Front on YHWH)!
--Miguel de Servet 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Heb 1:8, what a beautiful scripture for Jesus being the human image of God! You failed to point out the context of this scripture, so I will. Look at Hebrews 1:3, which calls Jesus the express image of God's person? This has a tremendously modalistic meaning. Jesus is literally the "representation or exact engraving of God's essence". This is how Jesus can say "When you have seen me you have seen the Father". Please explain to me John 14:9, and spare me the mumbo-jumbo of the unity between Father and Son. Jesus was not referring to a state of unity, but rather a physical reality. No man would answer this question to see their Father as Jesus did. The Father is the invisible God. Yes He is personal, but He has no body or form... that is until He created a body, the Son, and placed His Spirit inside the Son.

Continuing with context of Hebrews 1:8, do angels worship a man? No. Yet they worship Jesus. We never find angels worshipping other men who were figuratively called "gods". As I have repeatedly stated, the distinction between Father and Son is found in the distinction between body and Spirit. Jesus, as a man, was not God (which you believe). But the Spirit that was in Jesus, was the everlasting Spirit of God. What of Jesus' name, "Emmanuel"? Or Jesus, "Jehovah is salvation"? Jacob 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please send me an invitation to the UJCMLFY inaugural ceremony! Also, I am curious as to which Oneness Pentecostal you are referring to as embracing the theodramatics viewpoint? Jacob 23:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Heb 1:8 was just a test really: you have convinced me for good. I will make my previous statement into a shibboleth:

An Omnipotent, Omniscient God (whether Second Person of a Trinity, or One-neat) walking on earth under human guise is (would be) pure theater.

As for the UJCMLFY, the foundation is not decided yet. It all depends whether I manage to (re)convert the Pope to Strict Monotheism.

As for theodramatics, in the case of Oneness Pentacostals, I must admit I had mostly in mind some scenes of "speaking tongues".
--Miguel de Servet 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! Please have your vicar give me a call, as I'm sure he would like to thank me for convincing you (but he is on his own as far as the Trinity goes).  :) I will be celebrating the US' Independence Day this week so I will probably be away from the computer... maybe not. You have a great weekend. Jacob 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

RHolton (00:28, 1 July 2006)

eisegesis? Moi? I could just as well reply you are “eisegesis-ing” into my intentions. My (few so far) contributions to Wikipedia (please check), albeit sometimes controversial (see Pontius Pilate), are IMMO useful, informed and constructive. I must admit I find the “nothing new, please” business a bit too insisted, and also, when carried beyond the “ideal type”, even a bit blockheaded.

Anyway, I agree this Talk sub-section has run its course. I suggest not to remove it, but, if necessary, to archive it (or part of it). So, it can be consulted for additions/deletions/corrections to the Dissent from the doctrine section of Trinity's main article, as I have already suggested.
--Miguel de Servet 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wesley (16:57, 30 June 2006),

even if RHolton, very much ill at ease, has hurriedly filed this section (with others) in Secret Archive #5, let me comment on your latest post, so as to leave everything in order, with t’s crossed and I’s dotted.

[W]hen I said I thought you were in fact rejecting a flawed understanding of the Trinity, I wasn't just saying that because I think no one could possibly reject the real Trinity [uh?]. I was saying that based on your statements about the Trinity doctrine that you find so repugnant. In particular etc. [Wesley]

You did not read carefully, I am afraid you will have to re-read (if you care at all, of course!). The reasons why I find the doctrine of the Trinity so repugnant are summed by saying that I consider it a “gradual forgery”, and are even itemized. Then I added that possibly I feel even more ill at ease about Incarnation (of course, the s.c. orthodox incarnation, that is the one which is congruent with the a.m. Trinity). Then I proposed my “personal credo”, which, in fact, I consider not only congruent with the Apostles’ Creed, but I make as bold as saying that it is the only truly apostolic exegesis of the words Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit (see The Apostles' Creed: text with notes on Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Only then did I say that the reject of the traditional and “orthodox” doctrine of Trinity and Incarnation imposes an alternative choice: that is the inevitability of having to explain (if Jesus, the Son of God, NOT a purely imaginary God the Son is neither omnipotent nor omniscient), what I referred to as God’s “cruelty” (please note the “inverted commas”) and apparent cruelty (please note the: apparent).

If you re-read slowly and carefully the last two paragraphs of my initial post, you may (may!) have (like I did) the consolation and sudden revelation that the “cruelty”, or apparent cruelty, is only apparent, and is in fact no cruelty at all: it is the wonderful and corageous way (yes, corageous, even G. K. Chesterton uses this expression about Jesus in his Orthodoxy)in which Jesus Christ, Son of God the Father, and inspired by God the Father, recognized gradually, accepted and carried through, to the bitter end, our Salvation, and, been resurrected by God, opened for all humankind the gates of God’s Kingdom: a Kingdom which he only planted the seed of, with his mortal life, but most certainly God will make appear on earth, when He will have put “all enemies of His Son under his foot as a stool”.

Does it all sound terribly JW? Perhaps, but soundly biblical nonetheless. The JW main mistake is their “arianizing”; besides, of course, their foolish and uncharitable belief that God is so mean minded as they are, and will only save the ones who believe along their guidelines.

I will leave out Athanasius and Pope Leo, as this would reopen a debate which has been decreed for the archives :)
--Miguel de Servet 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Miguel de Servet. Oh! What inglorious cruelty of having all of our hard work relegated to "Archive Five"! I suppose that now, having been removed from the lime-light of front page discussion-hood, we can make nice and be friends. Truly I feel that the loss of Jesus' humanity is one of Christianity's biggest tragedies. We (those who believe he is God) have so lifted him up as only God that we have lost much of the meaning of Jesus' life. You are correct that if Jesus were only God, his life would hold little meaning... a sort of Docetic puppet show. In our discussion over whether or not Jesus is God, of course my opinion will over emphasize his Godness due to the context of the debate. However, I in no way intend to minimize his humanity. The overall purpose of Jesus' life was his humanity. To borrow from Swedenbourg, Jesus was "God in time".

The great mystery to me is how that Jesus could be both God and man. This I do not know, and cannot know in this life. I do know that Jesus was fully man with a human mind, will, and spirit. He was capable of failing. He said that he did not know the last days that the Father holds in his hand. He admitted that his Father was greater than he was. Jesus, as a human being, referred to his God. But after deep study and prayer regarding Jesus' life and his place as the "image of the invisible God", a deeper reality seemed to spring from Jesus' life. A reality that points to something greater than just an aspect of God, for he too often reaches back to the Old Testament and speaks with the voice of Jehovah and moves in Jehovah's might. I recognized that He was filled with God's Spirit, not as we are today, but fully and completely. Jesus is both mediator and Judge, but in the two different natures that indwell him. Where I find the truth in your words is in saying that Jesus' humanity was not God. Anyway, I have truly enjoyed this discussion. God bless. Jacob 05:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)