Jesus Christ the Messiah = Son = Word of God incarnate in human flesh = Word + Jesus’ human nature = hypostatic union of fully Divine + fully human nature
YHWH = Father
Jesus Christ is neither the Father nor even the Father incarnate, but “only” the Father’s Word incarnate
Still, the father’s word & spirit carry fully the father’s divine essence
We must use two distinct yet intimately related terms
One possibility is Deity & Divine
The Father is the Deity
His Word & Spirit are Divine
I want to make it clear at this point that although I am getting to understand where you coming from. I do not agree. I am Trinitarian not Monarchian. There are a lot theological positions of the Eastern Orthodox which I like better than those of the Western church, such as on the issues of atonement, original sin, and the purpose of creation. I also don’t approve of the way the patriarch of Rome ignored the process of the ecumenical councils to dictate a position on the filoque. And I think the Eastern Orthodox with its continued reliance on the ecumenical councils is the more stable and conservative church, and thus more like the first century churches. But this does not in my mind automatically mean they are the better churches. There is also a lot to be said for the value of change and that is why I am not only a Western Christian, but a 5 Solas Protestant and an evangelical as well.
Evidently, Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam are all unitary & Monarchian in theology (with EOC further emphasizing the roles of the father’s word, and the father’s spirit in creation, so being if you would “unitary Pro Plus”)
In other words Jesus was an extension of the Father, which means that when Jesus appears to pray to the Father it was a sham. Also the Crucifixion, as the Quran says, is a lie because God cannot suffer or die.
Having grown up in an Islamic area, that question is near and dear to me–but. Do any of the available explanations of the Trinity explains praying to the Father well?..it’s a bit of a mystery. But that’s ok :).
Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Father is the First. They are not the same Person, but they are both fully and completely and equally God… They communicate to each other through the Third Person the Holy Spirit, Who is Love.
Jesus prayed or communicated to the Father as we do through the Spirit, although we pray (“in the Name of”) though Jesus and the Spirit. All relationships with God have this threefold character involving Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Out of your experience with Islam about which I have written, Would you say that Muslims have a very different understanding of Who God is, based on the fact that they see Allah is absolutely Simple?
Good question. I was born and lived on and off there for a total of 11 years, till about age 20, so I didn’t really study deeply --only more so as an adult, but I absorbed enough mentality (it was about 97% Muslim), that it’s been an interesting subject.
Sunni do tend to have more of a simple view of God, but even that’s not as simple as it looks; the Qur’an, as you know, says that Christians venerate Mary, Jesus, and God the Father, rather than the Holy Spirit. One version of what we believe (from their point of view) is that God had relations with Mary, or had more of a true son–like the Greek pagans. It’s a bit of an abomination reaction they have, as we would, to that sort of melding of God and human natures (as though God were a breeding thing). So, the oneness is reactionary by definition, I think. Talking with some Muslims then winds up unfruitful because we have different definitions in mind–they think we’re believing something rather awful, and we think they think we believe something different–it’s a bit comical, sometimes. Phil Parshall Phil Parshall - Wikipedia and Who is God? have been helpful to me. (not that I’ve read it all). The fact that the Byzantine Empire created “byzantine” as an adjective for the complexities of our attempt to understand Jesus’ nature indicates to me that God is more forgiving than we are about our understanding!
It’s not quite as simplistic, to my understanding, with some versions of Shi’a and many Sufi, some of whom border on the pantheistic (the Pentecostals of Islam).
I know you have written about Islam–congratulations! It’s a deep subject. Maybe you can comment more, and teach me more.
Not for me… For me the answer is quite simple. Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. That 100% human explains it all to me quite well.
Though… perhaps I should add the following… I don’t believe that the 100% God involves any limitations whatsoever, just the opposite. God’s omnipotence includes a power over Himself to be whatever He chooses to be, which is why there is no conflict between 100% man and 100% God. It is the 100% human where all the limitations are implicit.
if you are very careful with your Words 
The Word of God the Father, which He generates (“eternally begets”), is the second person of the Godhead in heaven, and that Word incarnated fully in the flesh (“fully human nature”) of Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ did have a fully human nature on earth which was not itself Divine. That “hypostatic union” of human and Divine, heaven and earth, is our bridge to God (“beatific vision”).
Of course not!
As Saint Thomas Aquinas explains, the Divine essence of the Word incarnate neither died nor departed from Jesus’ human soul, but remained united with it as it descended into Hades to “harrow hell” and bring all the OT saints’ souls to heaven.
The Word of God the father is “generated, begotten”… It’s some sort of emanation from the father spiritually similar to a child son though the usual terms are much better to use
Distinct Person, but one in being essence nature with the Father
Not the Deity of God the Father but fully Divine , Godlike
The Word spoke physical existence into being. Jesus was a joint human and God conception. God literally spoke himself into a begotten position in the womb of Mary in a physical form to grow and experience humanity on our level. Jesus was not just a divine human. There is no such thing as a divine human. That is a Greek mythological conception. There are humans with a divine image of God, but they left earth before the Flood. Or at least left the physical experience. Jesus was born in the fallen image of Adam. Jesus did not receive the God image until after the resurrection. The redemption and experience of the God image was not complete, until after the physical death on the cross. Jesus was still fully God even in a human body. But it was different than us being the image of God. Jesus was actually God.
Your theology is that Jesus was a fallen sinful human being? Really? If I were you I would seriously question the premises which led you to that conclusion!
Jesus was the source of redemption not the beneficiary. He was the 2nd Adam in order to get it right. And there never was nor ever could be any separation between Jesus and God.
That is not what you said before, which is why I asked. Before you said that the “Son” is the Father’s Word indicating that the Son is part of the Father. If the Son is divine because He is part of the Father, then the Son is not a separate Person from the Father.
You indicate that the Word of the Father suffered and died on the Cross, Which is not really a possibility. If a Part of the Father pretended to suffer and die on the Cross, then human beings are not saved.
I always thought that for God Being and Essence are the same. Therefore the Essence of the Father is the Being of the Creator, the Essence of the Son is the Being of the Logos, the Essence of the Spirit is the Being of Love. This would mean that if the Son has the Essence of the Father, He is the Father.
If the Father and Son are One as you say they are, they are not separate Persons Who can carry out God’s plan of salvation.
Why did you add the word sinful? Sin is a choice not a sickness or condition. There is human nature and behavior. But to be 100% human, and a descendant of Adam, there is no divine attribute in human flesh. That is the whole purpose for Jesus to come in the first place.
Sin entered the world but it does not have to define us. Nor is sin a genetic phenomenon. The point was to restore the lost image of God. An image that cannot tolerate sin and the fact that humans prefer sin over obedience to God.
Well, yes, and no see logically essence and being are synonymous or virtually synonymous
But God the father. His word, and his spirit all share the same being the same essence The same beingness.
The word the son is one in being one in essence with the father yet a distinct person. The way you described it would have 3 different essences 3 different beings That would be 3 different gods and wouldn’t be Orthodox
Theologically, the words sunand word are equivalent. A father’s son. Is the fathers and is yet a separate person? That’s the best analogy revealed scripture gives.
Because sin is the difference between man as God created him to be and man as Adam became.
Exactly! Which is why I found what you said so confusing.
To be truly human is to be as God intended us to be. We have two inheritances from Adam: the humanity which God gave us and the example of bad habits known as sin.
I don’t know if there is any such thing as a “divine attribute.” I doubt it. But I quite agree that our being made in the image of God has nothing to do with our physical form.
On the contrary, as you said yourself, sin is a choice, and our choices most certainly do define us.
Excellent! I am glad to avoid that particular pet peeve of mine.
There is nothing in the Bible to say that this image was lost. And the only thing separating us from God is sin. So removing sin is the only restoration needed.
And here is where we will never agree on multiple angles. Jesus is God and had no problem whatsoever associating with sinners, so you can forget that “cannot tolerate sin” garbage right now because I don’t buy that for a second. The problem with sin is not the lack of toleration on the part of God but the destructive nature of sin itself. AND sin has nothing whatsoever to do with disobedience – that is the rhetoric and invention of those twisting religion into a tool of power and manipulation.
“Nature of sin” what is that? Sin is not an entity or being. It is hardly a concept. Sin is the result of a choice. I do not get hung up on manipulation, because to me, manipulation is a sinful choice. It is treating other humans as ignorant and classifies them. God allowing sin into the world was not just for manipulation and control. If we have free will, then sin is the logical conclusuion on where some decisions lead. But to say that we are to strive and be perfect is as much a manipulation as you have accused the point of obedience and disobedience to be. Especially if there is a loving parental relationship at play. Even in loving, we know some decisions will be wrong and result in evil occurring.
Dear Tim, most Christians do not understand the multiple meanings of the word Sin. Sin is Satan, the king of this world, the god of the dead. It is Sin that Jesus came to defeat and break its grip on the world. Sin is also the great sin behind the Fall, that turned Lucifer into Satan and took 1/3 of Heaven with Him. This is the Sin that Jesus came to redeem, not the petty sins of man. These we all need to repay to the last farthing ourselves, following Jesus’ example.
Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sin
The nature of sin is that it brings death.
You have identified sin with disobedience and I refute this. I equate sin with self-destructive habits. Those who who use religion as a tool of power would rather sin be something far less definite so they can use the concept to bend people to their will.
The possibility of sin and evil exists because God chose to value love and freedom rather than power and control.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.