tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post7354210859400584695..comments2024-03-25T14:27:40.121-05:00Comments on Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength: "My Father is greater than I" - the road less traveledWeekend Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-18637895741490753592023-06-18T17:30:04.777-05:002023-06-18T17:30:04.777-05:00"I'm not talking about the easy solution ..."I'm not talking about the easy solution that many non-Trinitarians have taken, where they likewise assume that Jesus was talking according to his human nature -- and this because they assume the human nature is the only nature he had."<br /><br />Reading scripture as an adult who has been studying Christianity, I agree that the idea of the Trinity has been an effort to maintain the monotheism of the Old Testament while acknowledging the divinity of Jesus. There seem to be just enough verses to make the Trinity sound plausible, yet too many inconsistencies and contradictions to make the Trinity plausible. The Trinity is orthodoxy now and dissent is heretical, thanks to the bloody retributions of Athanasius and other early church leaders (on each side of the debate).<br /><br />Why can't we let ourselves be content to say we really do not know the true relationship of Jesus to the Father, yet one day we will? I truly wish that had been the course the church had taken from the beginning - we can conjecture, but we won't know for sure till the day comes when every eye is opened.<br /><br />Did Paul or James or Peter feel the need to dive into the 'hypostatic union, the communicatio idiomatum or perikhoresis' etc. during their travels from village to village? If they did, I must have missed it in their letters. Yet these trinitarian doctrines are taught with such vehemence today as to result in rapid fire accusations of HERESY if one does not take the knee unquestionably.<br /><br />We also do not know much about the seven spirits that stand before God's throne or the heavenly council or why God calls them Sons of God. Or why Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven (and I presume no sex), yet the angels were capable of having sex with humans? What?? God created angels with the capability to have intercourse with humans and produce human/angel offspring?<br /><br />Yes, it is interesting to dwell on these topics, yet Jesus' and the disciples message was simple. God sent his Anointed One to tell us of God's love for us and how to live.<br /><br />I am not blaming the author or any of the posters as the object of my rant. It bothers me that it seems the orthodox leaders of today are quite similar to the Pharisees of the second temple era in their demand for total adherence to their own doctrines.<br /><br />(deleted original post because I forgot to add that I believe Jesus is divine and the Lamb of God and that God is one. From what I have read, Jesus and God are separate Beings and Jesus is subordinate to God. I will find out how that works one day when God raises us to Himself. In the meantime, I will spread the good news as I believe the disciples did - simply - using God's words and the words of God sent through His Son and the Old Testament). <br /><br />signing out - your saved hereticchillihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697132552895407686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-42938070541807308612023-06-18T14:35:30.403-05:002023-06-18T14:35:30.403-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.chillihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697132552895407686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-75328534057244485982010-06-03T07:51:16.567-05:002010-06-03T07:51:16.567-05:00I haven't. Thanks for the tip.
Take care &am...I haven't. Thanks for the tip. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-62921428788373985382010-06-02T22:16:13.720-05:002010-06-02T22:16:13.720-05:00WF,
Being a Lutheran, have you read Robert Jenson...WF,<br /><br />Being a Lutheran, have you read Robert Jenson's writings on the Trinity? I found him particularly insightful, especially on the Father as unoriginate. But He might have Jesus say of the Spirit, "He is greater than I."Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11727689682452973822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-2385115063976360732010-06-01T22:15:19.327-05:002010-06-01T22:15:19.327-05:00Hi Scott
I had a chance to listen to that audio. ...Hi Scott<br /><br />I had a chance to listen to that audio. Interesting stuff. I didn't know that St Vlad's did that kind of thing. They could stand to drop the musical overlays, but it was good material. <br /><br />Thanks for linking to that.Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-81346557227476999062010-05-31T19:52:35.973-05:002010-05-31T19:52:35.973-05:00Hi Howard
Actually, I think so. Not that I'm ...Hi Howard<br /><br />Actually, I think so. Not that I'm necessarily someone whose advice is respected in the field or anything -- I'm a programmer for goodness' sake -- but what you're saying seems sound. The Son and the Spirit are often described in their relationship to creation. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-8099694941755249742010-05-31T15:51:31.502-05:002010-05-31T15:51:31.502-05:00"The Father is greater as the one who sends, ..."The Father is greater as the one who sends, the one who is the origin. Jesus did nothing apart from his Father's will; it was not the other way around. The Word of God reflects the Father whose Word he is; the Son of God is in every way a true image... Jesus is the Word of God, is fully of God, is uncreated, likewise the Holy Spirit is fully of God and is uncreated. And yet both have their origins in God the Father".<br /><br />Very well phrased, and touching on some of the most profound matters we can consider, so I'm not sure my thoughts here are going to add much, but, for what that thought is worth, the expression (at least from this side of eternity) of God through the persons of the Son and the Spirit would appear to be deeply connected to the creation, sustaining, redemption and final glorifying of His handiwork - would that be reasonable to say? I'm in no way seeking to imply that such understanding concludes the profound relationship of the Godhead, merely that their will - to convey the understanding of their nature through creation - is done towards that handiwork in this work. Would that be valid?Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707181627588121525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-86826139262117667102010-05-31T12:45:44.730-05:002010-05-31T12:45:44.730-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-16236687880779390882010-05-30T13:48:38.691-05:002010-05-30T13:48:38.691-05:00Thanks!Thanks!Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-66751854206847830012010-05-30T13:45:02.131-05:002010-05-30T13:45:02.131-05:00Your post reminded me of something I had listened ...Your post reminded me of something I had listened to a while back. It struck me then as truer than much I had heard. Not really yet at a point where I feel there's anything I can say to add to this particular discussion, but went back and found the link to share. It seems applicable to me.<br /><br />http://www.myocn.net/index.php/201001152231/Special-Moments-in-Orthodoxy/Explaining-Trinitarian-Theology.htmlScott Morizothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17825458003284098965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-7620068838026350202010-05-30T08:58:01.984-05:002010-05-30T08:58:01.984-05:00Hi ichthus
I'm glad for someone to discuss wi...Hi ichthus<br /><br />I'm glad for someone to discuss with. Thank you for commenting. <br /><br />You wonder whether "interpersonal relations within the Trinity" is an anachronistic reading of John. While the language we use is something John wouldn't have known or recognized, I think that the interpersonal relationship (if you will allow the phrasing) between Jesus and the Father is, on the face of it, precisely the point of "My Father is greater than I." <br /><br />You seem to be saying that "The Father is greater than I" is a temporary thing caused by the lowness of this world compared to the world above, and not something Jesus said to teach us about the intrinsic relations between himself and the Father. (On that view, was it really helpful for Jesus to have said that the Father is greater than himself?) The key point of your proposal is the limited glory of the Son while on earth, but only while on earth. <br /><br />I went and read through the references to glory and glorify in GJohn, & I wondered -- how does that view fit with the idea that "*Now* is the Son of Man glorified" -- spoken right as he was going to his arrest? And again, "The hour is come, glorify thy Son" spoken right before the arrest? (13:31 and 17:1). There is another glory (17:24) that pertains to the world above ("that they may be with me where I am"), but that is not the only glory spoken of. <br /><br />I also find it very interesting, tracing the "glory" theme, that Peter was also going to "glorify" God by his death (21:19) and that the disciples would glorify God by bearing much fruit (15:8). That reads almost like a trajectory of God's glory coming into this world from the world above, so that this world is no longer merely all the dreary and dispiriting things mentioned at the outset of your comment, but is being in some sense transformed or redeemed into a place that knows the glory of God by the presence first of Christ (2:11, 11:40, 17:4), then of those faithful to Christ (15:8, 17:10, & even 21:19 though we're not inclined to think of death as glorifying God, it seems GJohn does). <br /><br />Re-reading the passage in John 14:28 & neighborhood in light of your thoughts on glory, the immediate context is more to do with the Father sending the Son and the Father commanding Jesus and Jesus doing what the Father commanded; just before that, of Jesus planning to ask the Father to send the Comforter (14:16). I wonder was Jesus glorified at the time he asked the Father to send the Comforter? But the Father is the one doing the sending, and Jesus the asking. <br /><br />I know we're not really supposed to point out these things since so many people believe that they lead straight to a merely human Jesus which is foreign to GJohn, or to some other theological attempt that has been found wanting. And while there have been many theological attempts found wanting, I also don't think we've done a great job of understanding what GJohn is saying. <br /><br />I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. <br /><br />Take care & God bless<br />Anne / WFWeekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15860677.post-49330517911123192932010-05-30T07:24:42.224-05:002010-05-30T07:24:42.224-05:00Hi there,
I wonder if this this approach takes us...Hi there,<br /><br />I wonder if this this approach takes us away from GJohn's own intentions though, by trying to think of what it means for the interpersonal relations within the Trinity. Might this be somewhat anachronistic?<br /><br />We should observe that Jesus prefaces 'the Father is greater than I' by telling his disciples that they should rejoice because he is <i>going back</i> to the Father. Within GJohn the world below is constantly contrasted with the world above (3:31; 8:23), and is associated with sin (16:8), darkness (1:5) and an evil ruler (14:30). On the other hand, the world above is associated with righteousness (16:8) and light (1:9). As Barrett points out, “There is a good deal of difference between ‘the glory which I had with thee before the world was’ (17:5), and the place in which Jesus is exposed to condemnation and death.” Thus, explicitly within the historical setting of Jesus’ ministry, the Son-on-earth has a more limited ‘glory’ than that of the uninterrupted majesty of the Father-in-heaven. Even his ‘signs’ are inadequate to explain who he truly is during his earthly ministry (cf. post-resurrection – 20:28!). Indeed, Jesus expects to regain that exalted glory once his mission has been completed and he returns to the Father (17:1, 5, 24). Thus, John is not situating Jesus on a lower rung in a hierarchical order than the Father, but has Jesus telling the disciples that if they truly loved him, they would be glad that he is leaving behind the limited glory of the Son-on-earth to return to the place where he belongs, and to his Father-in-heaven whose ‘glory is greater than mine’. <br /><br />A few more thoughts about this would include that the "origin" motif fits well with a "father" being seen as the origin of his family and that the sending motif is part of John's portrayal of Jesus as the Father's "agent" in the act of redemption. I think we'd need to be very careful not to short circuit these 1st century contextual motifs when reflecting on the economic revelation of the Trinity for our understanding of the immanent. That's my two-pence worth anyway ;)<br /><br />All the best,<br />Jonathanichthus888https://www.blogger.com/profile/04687528741043734586noreply@blogger.com