In the Trinity the word “person” takes on a specific meaning that does not corelate to the secular usage. There are three persons in the Trinity, but it is one being not fractured into three. The “person” of Christ in Trinitarian language does not corelate to a human “person”. The meaning is different.
It ain’t about incorrect. Not for me to say. Especially to one so charming. But it ain’t orthodox. I understand why you would believe it. It’s a folk Christian thing that you can see in the NT. I did for 40 years.
I’m now only interested in the disinterested application of rationality to theology. Hah!
And minds immeasurably superior to ours did that for a thousand years, centuries before the sideshow of the Reformation. Including Islamic ones.
All the people of the Book agree. God cannot die. I agree. Independently. With my too little, too late, fading rationality.
The only rational conclusion from all the data, the clues, is that Jesus was a fully human manifestation of God for 33 years. He wasn’t a Person of the substance God. He had the fully divine nature of such a Person.
All the data includes science and rationality beyond it. The extrapolation of uniformitarianism to universes. And incarnations.
The Persons of God are inseperable. Immutable. One of them cannot become coterminous, once upon a time, with a human ovum, after eternity, once for all eternity, to be the Earth local human saviour for the actual infinity of peoples who will never hear of Him.
Please note: I had to make an edit to the original post I made. It’s in the last response. Thank you!
Not Orthodox? Folk Christian thing? Please explain.
Well, if we are saying that “God cannot die” as in “God cannot cease to exist”, then we are agreed there, of course. God the Son did not cease to exist. But He did taste physical death on the cross, and the imperfections and taint of our sin. For one so holy, such a thing would be more excruciating than death itself, I’d imagine. He also tasted spiritual death, which is separation from the Father, the ultimate agony since He had never before been separated from the Father but had always been in perfect and loving unity with the Father, what with being the second of the Trinity.
A theophany? Is that what you’re referring to?
I’m afraid this statement is beyond me, my friend.
Wasn’t that part of the point of the Son’s death? A lack of communion with the Father?
Let me make sure that I know what you’re saying, as you have a very interesting way of speaking (or writing, if we want to be nitpicky).
Are you saying that God the Son did NOT take the form of human flesh through conception of the Holy Spirit via the virgin, Mary?
If so, I disagree. My reason for disagreement is because the Scriptures and Church Fathers appear to agree that God the Son did become so, through the Holy Spirit. Hence the inclusion of His conception and of Virgin Birth in the Apostles Creed.
I’ve seen elsewhere that you believe in the multiverse. I do not share this view, which may be part of the reason for our disagreement.
It may. As it is a rational fact. A given. Nothing changes. God or no. Including God. So a finite anomaly after infinite time is impossible. Infinitely complex. Etc, etc. Your milage varies. Good luck and God bless.
Including God means it is impossible for God to not be God. It doesn’t matter what lesser stories we make up. It is impossible for God to change. To collapse in to any form He’s thinking. To cease to think the thing He’s thinking by just becoming it only. Again, YMMV.
Jesus was an ultimate theophany. One of infinite from eternity. As Jesus’ contemporary Philo knew. Whether he knew it or not.
Jesus was the full, fullest possible, revelation of God in a human. I cannot imagine how or why He needs to be anything other.
This is a very interesting thought, but I don’t think that it is the only conclusion we can make. I’m assuming you’re familiar with various arguments against an eternal cosmos?
We are agreed here. We are also agreed that God is immutable. I wouldn’t say that God, by becoming human, “collapsed” into some form, nor that He ceased to be God. He simply became human as well. This is a divine mystery, much like the Trinity–how can God be one and three? Divine mystery, revealed to us in Scripture.
I would agree–depending on how you mean this. God became human. For me, this is one of the most beautiful aspects of the Christian faith. God became human. Like us. Suffered and died. Like us. Knew sin when He knew no sin. Like us. And all of this, for us. We didn’t deserve it. God owes sinners nothing. But He is love.
This incarnation is one of the most important themes in the letter to the Hebrews. It is also prophesied, for example, in Isaiah 9:6. The child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Mutiplicity is now common in technology at least. Your mobile phone has many functions: camera, phone, calendar, to name a few, why should God in three functions cause so much mystery? Your phone does not fracture when you employ a different App, why should God fracture because we have identified three different aspects of Him (She, it… genderism accepted)
This is not modalism, it is accepting that having different functions, eg leg, arm, heart, brain, does not make it fractured on incoherent. Be it as a father, or in the power of the Spirit, or in Human form, God is still one being. The white House is more than the oval office, why can’t God be more than a father? You can be father son, Office worker all at the same time without being mysterious. Calling the Trinity mysterious causes more problems than it solves. Maybe we do not have to give an accurate allegory just accept it as being.