General Question

pcmonkey's avatar

What is the concept of God and Jesus?

Asked by pcmonkey (424 points ) July 28th, 2012 from iPhone

Ok, I’m a Christian and I originally thought that Jesus was the son of God. However, last week I went to church and they were saying that Jesus IS God. Huh? I’m confused. Are Jesus and God the same thing? I thought God was God and Jesus was God’s son who was just as holy. Please explain. Thanks.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

49 Answers

bookish1's avatar

The Roman (Catholic) Church had to get together and decide on which conception of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to support. For instance, you might be familiar with the Nicene Creed (I know I used to recite it in church.) This expresses the decisions arrived at in the first Council of Nicea in 325, which was an attempt to come up with a consensus definition of orthodox Christian doctrine, as opposed to competing ‘heresies’ such as Arianism. It was modified in later church Councils to clarify some points and refute more heresies. As far as I know, the Nicene Creed is still the basis of the understanding of the Trinity in both Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant).

But there have been many, many ‘heresies’ throughout history which provided alternative conceptions of the Trinity contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Fyrius's avatar

The idea, I believe, is that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are said to be three things, but are also simultaneously the same thing.
I’m not sure how it works either, and frankly I’m not sure if anybody really understands how it’s supposed to work. Maybe everyone just sort of takes for granted that it’s not really supposed to make sense. In the church I used to go to, that seemed to be a common sentiment. It’s a mystery. You’re not supposed to think about it, you’re supposed to just believe it. Even if you still don’t entirely know what it is you’re believing.

(To a lot of people, things like this sound cooler if they don’t make sense, anyway, so it’s easy to see how beliefs like these can catch on. It’s mysterious and deep-sounding, yet if you’re vague enough about it, it can feel like you understand something, and that’s enough. Few can tell the difference.)

phaedryx's avatar

There are actually many Christian religions that believe God and Jesus are separate beings, e.g. LDS (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, some Pentecostals, etc.

However, most mainstream Christian groups believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are three different manifestations of the same substance. It is often compared to the different phases of water: solid, liquid, and gas. The states exhibit different characteristics and appear to be different things, but are all two hydrogens and one oxygen when you look at the atomic level.

zensky's avatar

That was great @phaedryx.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Nullo's avatar

GotQuestions says, ‘Essentially, God has three centers of self-consciousness. Yet this one Being (the triune God of Scripture) possesses one indivisible essence. There is only one Being that is God, and this one Being is tri-personal, with each of the three Persons having full possession of the divine nature.”

SavoirFaire's avatar

@pcmonkey The concept of the Holy Trinity is one of the recurring problems of theology and philosophy of religion. If you are confused, then at least know that many of the greatest minds throughout history have also been confused by this issue. The basic problem runs as follows. According to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity:

• the Father ≠ the Son,
• the Son ≠ the Holy Spirit, and
• the Holy Spirit ≠ the Father;

but:

• the Father = God,
• the Son = God,
• the Holy Spirit = God.

Since it is a basic principle of logic that if a = b, and if b = c, then a = c, it becomes difficult to see how all of the above parts of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity could be true at the same time. The task of the theologian, then, is to figure out a way to reconcile the non-equivalence of the various persons of God (i.e., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) to each other with their shared equivalence with God.

Most theologians agree that the way to solve the problem relies on understanding the way in which the three persons of the Trinity are non-equivalent is different from the way in which they are equivalent. Consider 6, VI and 110. These are all different numerals, but they are all the same number. So in one sense, 6 ≠ VI ≠ 110; but no one is saying that 6, VI, and 110 do not all pick out the same number or quantity of things.

Given all that, then, there are many ways of attempting to solve the problem of the Holy Trinity. The answers given by @phaedryx and @Nullo represent two of the more popular responses, though both have their problems. The response given by @phaedryx is difficult to keep separate from the Sabellian (or modalist) heresy, whereas the response given by @Nullo faces the problem that it conflicts with standard Christian solutions to problems of ensoulment wherein self-consciousness is, or is an indicator of, essence and/or substance.

That there are these conflicts, however, does not mean that there are no resolutions to them. Those who give @phaedryx‘s response simply have to be very careful about how they articulate it. Those who give @Nullo,‘s on the other hand, must be careful about how they describe the essential relationship between God and His parts on pain of being forced to accept some patently implausible views of personal identity. There are lurking problems for each, but that does not itself prove that either proposal fails.

Finally, it is worth noting that the doctrine of the Trinity is ultimately one of the Christian Mysteries. That is to say, humans are not necessarily supposed to fully understand all of the details and inner workings of God and His existence in three persons. The task of theologians is to show that the doctrine is not absurd (in the logical sense, where absurdity means impossibility). It is not their task to give a complete blueprint of God’s Being.

gailcalled's avatar

Here’s a sonnet by John Donne (one of the metaphysical poets of the 17th century) that I love;

BATTER my heart, three personed God; for you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow mee,‘and bend
Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new.

I, like an usurped towne, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.

Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy:
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again;
Take meto you, imprison me, for I
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Fyrius's avatar

@phaedryx
Indeed. I’m sorry if I offend, but that analogy is just what I meant by “being vague enough about it to feel like you understand something”.

Unless I’m mistaken and this is a true understanding. In that case, can you tell me how far the analogy goes?
Water can’t be liquid, solid and gas at the same time. Can God be all three at once?
Water changes phases based on temperature. I’m told God is everywhere. Are cold places more Jesus and warm places more Holy Spirit? If not, how does God change phases?
Is God denser than the Holy Spirit but less dense than Jesus?
Was the Holy Spirit inside Jesus when he was still walking around on earth? If you pour steam into an ice container, it melts and condenses into water. Why didn’t Jesus turn into God the Father?

How does it work?

And what is this God thing, anyway?

@SavoirFaire
I find it strange that you’re evaluating explanations of what it supposedly a fundamental part of the real world, by the criteria of whether or not they sound like heresy. Shouldn’t the theologians try to find out what’s actually true?

(Maybe I’m taking too much of a realistic point of view on this question.)

Judi's avatar

The best example I can think of to explain the trinity is an apple. It has a core (for now, let’s call the core God the father) it has the meat, ;let’s call that the Holy Spirit) and it has the skin, (we can call that Jesus.) it’s all one apple, with three parts.
Even in Genisis God says, “Let US make man in our own image. ”
I’m not here to convince you of the validity of the trinity or argue with anyone. I just thought I would give you an explanation from an old Christians perspective.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Fyrius First, I am not a Christian. This is an entirely academic debate to me, and I am not personally evaluating any of the explanations. Nor was I suggesting that the similarity of @phaedryx‘s explanation to the modalist explanation is problematic due to the status of modalism as a heresy. The problem is merely one of maintaining distinctness. This is important because of the way the dialectic here works. Theologians do not offer their explanations in a vacuum. They offer their explanations as alternatives to existing explanations, thus it is problematic for one theory if it collapses into another. At that point, it no longer counts as an alternative. This is even more problematic if the theory it collapses into is precisely the theory that the alternative was intended to avoid. As such, any theory given in an attempt to avoid modalism that turns out to collapse into modalism is flawed. Theologians are interested in getting at what is true; but if they believe that modalism is clearly false for some reason or another, that is all the more reason to make sure that one’s preferred alternative does not collapse into it.

zenvelo's avatar

Consider the shamrock! That’s how St Patrick described the Trinity to the Irish.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@Fyrius, This is based on faith, which by definition requires no scientific proof. Metaphysics, not physics.

Let me put my theology professor hat on!

Pretty deep theology, but very basic to orthodox (small“o”) Christian beliefs. This is considered the central mystery to the faith. A mystery, in Christian theology, is something that can not be understood by humans, but is believed by faith.

When I was a student in a Roman Catholic seminary, I studied theology (no surprise). What follows is an overview of how I understand the Trinity.

The relationship of the Trinity (One God in three Persons) is most often described as the Procession. I will use the Nicene Creed (Latin and English translation) to describe this.

First line of the creed goes, ”Credo in Unum Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem,
factorem coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
In English: ”I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth (and of) all things visible and invisible.”

Pretty straightforward and easy to understand.

Next line: ”Et in Unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei Unigenitum
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, Only-begotten Son of God.

Here’s where it gets difficult to understand. The Second Person of the Trinity (The Son) is begotten by the Father. Begotten or generated, not created. More on this later

“Sed ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula”
“Born of the Father before all ages”

This procession happens eternally, independent of time. There never was, nor will there ever be a time when the Father exists and the Son does not, or vice versa.

“Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum Verum de Deo Vero, genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri, per quem omnia facta sunt.”

“God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten, not made, one in being with the father, by whom all things were made.”

This line established that the Son is God just as the Father is God.

“Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostrum salutem, descendit de coelis, et incarnatus est de Spirito Sancto, ex Maria virgine, et homo factus est.”

“Who, for us man and our salvation, descended from heaven, and was incarnated by the Holy Spirit, through the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

Here is the answer to the OP’s question: Jesus, as the Only-begotten Son of God, is one in being with the Father; He became man for us and for our salvation.

Fyrius's avatar

@SavoirFaire – Noted.
(As a side note, I still personally think this concern of distinctness is a lot less relevant than you’d think from the attention it’s always being given, in theology as well as in philosophy and science. I’m not sure yet about its value in fiction and other art.)

@Yetanotheruser
I’m sorry, scientific proof? I wasn’t talking about that at all.
I’m talking about what it means to understand something. And that regardless of whether an explanation is reliable or not – i.e. your subject, proof and the need thereof – in order to be an explanation at all, it needs to explain.
Vague talk doesn’t explain, it just elegantly dodges the question while pretending it’s answered now. This water analogy – what does that tell us? It seems to me that it just points at something else that looks a bit like the unexplained thing, without even bothering to address the question whether the similarities come from the same underlying mechanisms, i.e. whether it’s really the same thing or it just looks the same. That ain’t kosher thinking, whether it’s thinking about physics or scripture.

I’m not criticising you personally, @phaedryx – I know this isn’t your analogy, you’re just bringing it up.

As a side note, I don’t think you’ve got the definition of faith right. My faith in the things I believe relies on proof, be it scientific or anecdotal or intuitive proof. I think that’s healthy. Proof is the foundation of healthy faith.
Proof can also be “people I trust believe so”, even if that’s not very good. As long as it’s something.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@Fyrius Sorry for the misunderstanding. We all need faith by your definition. All reality is percieved by faith that if I see “red”, it’ll be the same thing you see as “red”.

Fyrius's avatar

@Yetanotheruser
Very true.
And some forms of faith are better supported than others. I try to make the strength of my faith match the evidence I can base it on. It makes it easier to recover from mistakes if you do it right.

I also have an addendum about what you said about the Nicene Creed.
Um. I don’t know about the OP, but I still don’t really understand, and I don’t feel like I understand either. Doesn’t this just sort of repeat the very same paradox that started all this confusion?
God gave birth to Jesus, but God and Jesus are also the same person, and Jesus is just as old as God.

I’ve also got some other questions that I don’t expect answers to, that I’m just going to post to be a smart-butt.
Where was Jesus throughout the Old Testament, how come he’s never mentioned in there if he was always there as a part and not-really-a-part of God? “Begotten” and “genitus” both mean someone coming into existence – how is that possible if there was never a time when Jesus wasn’t there yet but God was? If “happening eternally” means that process is stretched throughout the entirety of time, would it be proper to say God is still in the process of begetting Jesus right now?
And where does Mary fit into that, is Jesus’ mom eternal too? Does the eternal Jesus have some Mary in him, or did he literally get everything from his father? If he did, what did they even need her for – why was Jesus born and not descended from the heavens as a 33 year old man in 33 AD?

And how did those people in Nicaea know any of this, anyway?

phaedryx's avatar

@phaedryx no offense taken, I actually have some of the same questions about the trinity.

Here are a few scriptures that I think are interesting:

Genesis 1:26 – “God said, Let us make man in our image” (note the plural) where other references in the old testament are singular, e.g. Leviticus 19 (“I am…”)

Luke 3:21–22 – only instance I can think of where all three members of the trinity are present simultaneously (Jesus in the river, Holy Spirit descending, voice of the Father from heaven).

Luke 22:42 – Jesus is praying to God the Father and says that He’d rather not do what God requires, but will submit His will to God’s

John 17:21–22 – Jesus prays to God that “all of them [his followers] may be one… even as We are one”

John 10:30 – in this and several other places Jesus says “my Father and I are one”, but I haven’t (yet) found bible verses where it says either “the Holy Spirit and I [Jesus] are one” or “the Father and the Holy Spirit are one”

(Also, I don’t consider this a “mystery you shouldn’t think about”, but a challenging puzzle I like to consider from time to time.)

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Yetanotheruser As a philosopher, I have to say that I am not comfortable with the implicit parallel you draw between faith vs. science and metaphysics vs. physics. Metaphysics is, when done properly, a logically rigorous enterprise that is highly sensitive to evidence from both a priori and a posteriori sources. Faith may lead to metaphysical conclusions, but that is not to say that invoking it as a reason is doing metaphysics in the philosophical sense of the word. A minor point, I know, but one I wanted to make anyway.

@Fyrius Distinctness matters for at least the following reason: it’s important to know what you’re talking about, and you haven’t properly clarified what you’re talking about if your view is equivalent to another view yet also contains as a central claim the falsity of that other view. If we don’t know what the options are, we cannot decide between them or know when we are merely talking past one another.

@phaedryx I know you were responding to @Fyrius and not to me, but I just wanted to clarify that “mystery” doesn’t mean “you shouldn’t think about it” (at least, not the way that I was using it). It just means “think about it all you like, but expect to only get so far.”

Aethelflaed's avatar

@SavoirFaire How are 6 and 110 the same?

SavoirFaire's avatar

I can’t believe I forgot to make a note that I was using Arabic, Roman, and binary numerals. Mea culpa.

Aethelflaed's avatar

Eh, it happens. It was an otherwise great point.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@Fyrius the last line in my post read Jesus, as the Only-begotten Son of God, is one in being with the Father; He became man for us and for our salvation.

It would be more accurate to say, The Second Person, as the Only-begotten Son of God, is one in being with the Father; He became man as Jesus for us and for our salvation.

In an excerpt from Turris Fortis, a website for Roman Catholic apologetics, the author states:
“So the Son proceeds from the Father in the unique form of generation, of being begotten of – not by creation or manufacture – and the Father has beget the Son from all of eternity. There has never been a Father without the Son nor a Son without the Father…”

Which is to say that although there was never a time that the Son existed with out the Father, nor was there a time that the Father existed without the Son, there was, however, a time that the human Jesus did not exist. Jesus is said to have two natures, the nature of God and the nature of Man. The Man Jesus did not exist until the Incarnation.

The phrase “happening eternally”, the way I see it, means it is happening independent of time. This is a concept that may be difficult to wrap one’s brain around (it surely was for me!), because everything we experience is sequential, and has a before, during, and after. The biblical phrase which is usually interpreted as “in the beginning” (Latin In principio) can be seen as synonymous with another phrase in the Nicene phrase …ante omnia saecula… usually interpreted into English as “before all time” or “before all ages”.

@phaedryx the various times it is mentioned that Jesus was praying are illustrations of His Human nature. The prayer in the garden is often mentioned as proof that Jesus, as a Human, freely chose to suffer and die for the rest of humanity.

@savoirFaire, I did not mean to imply the parallel of faith/science and metaphysics/physics. I was only pointing out the non-empirical nature of the discussion.

phaedryx's avatar

@Yetanotheruser the reason that I think that particular prayer is interesting is because it shows God the Father and Jesus have separate wills, they don’t always will the same thing, but when they differ Jesus follows God’s will.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Yetanotheruser I figured as much, and it’s a good point to make. But it’s my professional responsibility to be pedantic about this. Otherwise, I’ll be demoted to “guy who goes to book stores and complains that the ‘metaphysical’ section should really be labelled ‘mysticism’ instead.” I do not want that job. The pay is terrible, and the hours are even worse. ~

gailcalled's avatar

^^^But the dress code is very relaxed, in either department.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@gailcalled Well, it’s not like we do any real work. It’s called the ”Unemployed Philosopher’s Guild” for a reason. ~

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@SavoirFaire Pedantic Schmedantic! You’re just looking for lurve in all the right places!

mattbrowne's avatar

When modern Christians say Jesus is the son of God this has a symbolic meaning, not a biological one. It’s wrong to assume that 23 chromosomes come from Mary and the other 23 chromosomes come from God. Jesus, as a human being, had a biological father. Christians sometimes also talk about humans being children of God. Another symbolic term. There are also children of the American Revolution and we have no problem with this. No one would assume that the American Revolution entity has an uterus and a birth canal. When Christians speak of Jesus being God, they mean God in essence. Symbolism has a long pre-Christian history. It’s human nature to like using symbols.

Yetanotheruser's avatar

@mattbrowne I understand your point of view. However I believed the SO was asking from a POV of traditional Christian dogma and theology, and as discussed with @SavoirFaire, not from a scientific or empirical stance.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Yetanotheruser – I know. But traditional Christian dogma and theology is only supported by a minority of Christians. At least in Europe. And I think the modern Christian view can still be helpful to understand the more traditional one. Christianity is an evolving religion. It has evolved for the past 2000 years and will continue to do so.

phaedryx's avatar

@mattbrowne I’m surprised that “modern Christians” reject the virgin birth of Jesus.

Judi's avatar

@phaedryx, not all of us, but some of us still respect each other even if we don’t always agree on all the details.

bkcunningham's avatar

You don’t believe in the virgin birth, of Christ, @Judi?

Judi's avatar

@bkcunningham. I do but @mattbrowne doesn’t. We disagree on that point but still respect each others views. (At least I think he respects mine. No reason to believe he doesn’t. )

mattbrowne's avatar

Modern Christians believe in science. Myths are an early form of human psychology. Parables are about conveying deeper meanings. No modern Christian thinks that a snake can talk. And when Jesus talks of people being light and salt, no modern Christian would think of shredding people and put their remains in salt shakers.

From what I know, virgin is actually a mistranslation. In the ancient Greek language the original words actually means young woman.

Yes, modern Christians respect each other even when there are differing views as long as human beings are not harmed. When Creationists want to hijack the science curriculum of public schools we can’t allow this. This can’t be tolerated because children need special protection.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@mattbrowne I’m fairly sure that @Judi is not speaking to us from the 14th century. As such, it seems a bit presumptuous to make declarations about “modern Christians” as a group (rather than, say, “modern-ized Christians”). Perhaps what you are discussing would be better described as “Christian humanism”?

phaedryx's avatar

@mattbrowne I guess I’m surprised because, as opposed to the concept of the trinity, virgin birth of Jesus seems pretty obvious in the bible (Luke 1:26–35). That is, Gabriel shows up, says she is highly favored, says she is going be pregnant and and tells her she will bear a son. She wonders how it is possible because she has never had sex (she is a virgin). Gabriel says that the power of God will make it happen.

Also, we live in a world of in vitro fertilization and fertilization without sperm, but somehow this miracle is beyond the power of God?

mattbrowne's avatar

@SavoirFaire – Progress is built into one of the core tenets of Christianity. People are seen as sinners who are imperfect and should therefore search ways to get closer to God. Christianity therefore encourages autonomy and curiosity and creativity. Enlightenment and humanism are Christianity’s offspring. At some point this can be very overwhelming to people. So they look for stability. Permanent change can become a burden. Many Christians don’t want Christianity to evolve further, so they stick with an interpretation that existed at some point in the past. Biblical literalism for example developed in the 19th century. There are several reasons for this and one important one was Darwin’s discovery of evolution.

So when I talk about modern Christians I’m talking about the large groups within the numerous denominations that want Christianity continue to evolve. Sometimes the speeds are different. The Vatican for example is evolving very slowly. It took them centuries to rehabilitate Galileo. And it also took them about a century to embrace the theory of evolution. Which they do now, unlike the backward Creationists in the US.

@phaedryx

Gabriel is an angel. And angels are mythical beings. They are not physical entities. I’ve quoted Michael Shermer again and again about the nature of myths, but I’m happy to do it once again:

“Myths are about the human struggle to deal with the great passages of time and life—birth, death, marriage, the transitions from childhood to adulthood to old age. They meet a need in the psychological or spiritual nature of humans that has absolutely nothing to do with science. To try to turn a myth into a science, or a science into a myth, is an insult to myths, an insult to religion, and an insult to science. In attempting to do this we have missed the significance, meaning, and sublime nature of myths.”

So if a talking snake is not a real snake, why should Gabriel be some human being with wings who can actually talk to Mary? I’m not sure why Luke wrote about Mary not having had sex, because she must have had sex otherwise no pregnancy. God does not violate the natural laws that he created. He is not Harry Potter waving a wand turning an unfertilized female egg into an embryo in Mary’s womb. Maybe the not having had sex was introduced by Luke (who never personally met Mary by the way) to symbolized the divine nature of Jesus. I’d have to research this. I’m sure some modern theologian has some ideas.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@mattbrowne The main problems with your response are that it (a) doesn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, and (b) doesn’t in any way answer the point I actually made. The term “modern Christian,” by definition of the words that comprise it, refers to any Christian living in the modern age. It therefore includes @Judi, @Nullo, @phaedryx, and all of the “backward Creationists in the US” whom you would prefer to exclude.

It’s one thing to argue about the proper interpretation of Christianity, it’s another to arrogantly dismiss others because they do not agree with you. Indeed, yours is just a different manifestation of the same attitude that leads some to say that Catholics or liberal Christians (including Christian humanists like you) are not “real Christians.” Such accusations are nothing more than argument by assertion with a patina of scorn on top, and as such add nothing to the debate.

phaedryx's avatar

@mattbrowne
“Gabriel is an angel.”

I agree

“And angels are mythical beings. They are not physical entities.”

Again, this is surprising to me. I can see how a talking snake could be symbolic, but angels are in numerous stories and are literally messengers sent from God.

I guess where you and I disagree is that I think some parts of the bible literally happened; that Gabriel had a conversation with Mary to put her at ease and explain what was happening.

“because she must have had sex otherwise no pregnancy”

As I already pointed out, there are many, in modern times, pregnancies without sex. Why are you so certain that the bible is wrong? That God is incapable of doing something that doctors do every day?

“God does not violate the natural laws that he created.”

Okay, but why does He have to follow only the natural laws that we know about? Certainly there is more that we don’t know.

For example, if you only knew chemistry you’d claim “matter cannot be created or destroyed” but E = mc² says matter can created from energy or matter can become energy.

If you only knew about gravity, but not aerodynamics, you’d think that planes couldn’t fly.

You might think that turning lead into gold is impossible alchemic foolishness until somebody with a particle accelerator actually does it.

The idea that God is only as capable and smart as (or slightly less than) humanity seems contrary to the Christian concept of God who can create worlds.

mattbrowne's avatar

I see your points. Perhaps you prefer the terms progressive and traditional Christians. In terms of physical reality there is no difference between talking snakes and talking angels for progressive Christians who fully embrace the Age of Enlightenment. In 18th century Biblical criticism, the term higher criticism was commonly used in mainstream scholarship.
About 2000 years ago most people had no idea about a human organ called the brain. They had no explanation for dreams that occurred during sleep. The roots of the myth of the angel Gabriel telling Mary about her pregnancy could be a dream that was interpreted as a sign from God. For progressive Christians angels are not to be understood literally.
Mary might not have had intercourse, yes. Still, God is not the biological father. I don’t know of any incident in recorded human history where natural laws were suspended or modified. Do you?

phaedryx's avatar

“I don’t know of any incident in recorded human history where natural laws were suspended or modified. Do you?”

Doesn’t matter, totally irrelevant to my argument.

Take many of the things we do in our day-to-day lives. I work for a company that sends invisible beams to objects high in the sky which relay the information to us. We know what is happening thousands of miles away in the middle of nowhere, almost in real-time. If I went back a time a thousand years, they would think I was performing a miracle. Am I breaking or suspending any natural laws? Nope. However, their limited understanding might make it seem so.

Just because something isn’t explainable with our current understanding, it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen or that natural laws were suspended.

ryan_nishant's avatar

This is what the Catholic Church Says , which has been Handed down from the Living tradition of Apostles and the Early Church ( I.e which was Taught by Jesus to Peter and was handed over to the Apostolic see).
“There is only one God. In God there are three persons- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus suffered, Died on the cross and was Resurrected on the 3rd Day. Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead”

Further, the “Apostles Creed” is the creed of the Apostles. And, When say God’ we refer to Father, Son and Holy spirit. The Church says this ” We believe in only one God according to the testimony of the Sacred Scripture, there is only one God and according to the laws of logic, there can be only one.” [ Canon 200–202,228].

Hear ,O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.[ Deut. 6:4].

Our God is not solitude but a God of perfect communion.[ Canon 232–236, 249–256,261,265–266].

So when we say Jesus is God, we refer to his Divine nature his Divine Being , which is the person in the Holy Trinitarian God. Jesus is the son, the second divine person when we pray, “In the name of Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit” (Matt 28.19) [243–260].

Wherever there is Love,there is trinity:a lover, a beloved and a fountain of Love: [Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Church , AD 354–430].

gailcalled's avatar

^^^ Cite the source, please.

ryan_nishant's avatar

@gailcalled The source is Canon Law , and the respective section are in brackets, if you want it to be specific.

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

The objection with Non-Communion churches is that ‘Every one has its own version of Christ, which is totally impossible.’’ Instances, there are churches which bless same sex unions, Ordination of Women and Other things. Further, when Martin Luther was doing the Reformation he still believed in much of what the catholic church believed But then Now every Non-Communion churches think they can have ’‘Jesus of their Convenience’’.

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH- WHAT WE BELIEVE. The Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scripture. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#I).

Further,Jesus means in Hebrew: “God saves.” At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, “will save his people from their sins”. in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men. [430]

In the Old Testament, “son of God” is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings.It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called “son of God”, it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus “son of God”, as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.[441].

God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant for ever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.[73].

References:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm#III

gailcalled's avatar

Thank you. Knowing the source is always helpful.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther