bobinator Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 1 Cor. 11:3 "But I want you to know Christ is the head of every man, and the husband the head of every wife, and God the head of Christ." "[i]Head[/i]: The Greek word [i] Kephale[/i] never connotes authority or superiority; "source" is the only appropriate meaning here." -The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. (1.) "It is a hybrid model, for it grafts onto a strictly theological scale of existence (1 Cor. 3:21-23) the hierarchy of sociosexual relations prevalent in the ancient world: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relations his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man woman." -Footnote from the New American Bible. (St, Joseph Edition). (2.) 1. But if God is the source of Christ wouldn't that mean that God (the Father) created, or was before, Christ? I know of John 1:1 and that there are plenty of verses in the bible that state Christ's preexistence with the Father, but since the bible cannot contradict itself, this verse is puzzling. 2. Again, why is there the "functional scale" if Christ, being a member of the Trinity, is equal to God the Father? 1 Cor. 3:23 " and you to Christ, and Christ to God." "The [i] ad hominem[/i] character of the argument in vv 21-22 is underlined by the formal statement of the relation of all to Christ, and his subordination to God." -The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Does this mean Christ is subordinate to God the Father, and therefore of a lesser nature than God? Any clarification on these points with any biblical references is much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 No, God the Son (Jesus) is not subordinate to God the Father. They are not seperate entities. The Father and the Son are of the same essence; He is the incarnate Person, the Divine Logos of the Holy Trinity. Christ is consubstansial with the Father. Christ has always been and always will be. The idea that Christ came "after" God the Father, or that Christ was "created" is Arianism, a heresy. The Gospel of John makes this clear: [i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [/i][i]The same was in the beginning with God. [/i][i]All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made…[/i][i]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us... [/i](John 1:1-4). Christ is God made flesh; His nature and will is of the same hypostasis. To be honest, I dare say you put too much stock into footnotes and commentaries left in Bibles, which I think are useless, because they are giving an "opinion" or "private interpretation" which I believe to be dangerous. I am curious to see how others will respond, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 [quote name='Selah' timestamp='1319295764' post='2325144'] No, God the Son (Jesus) is not subordinate to God the Father. They are not seperate entities. The Father and the Son are of the same essence; He is the incarnate Person, the Divine Logos of the Holy Trinity. Christ is consubstansial with the Father. Christ has always been and always will be. The idea that Christ came "after" God the Father, or that Christ was "created" is Arianism, a heresy. The Gospel of John makes this clear: [i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [/i][i]The same was in the beginning with God. [/i][i]All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made…[/i][i]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us... [/i](John 1:1-4). Christ is God made flesh; His nature and will is of the same hypostasis. To be honest, I dare say you put too much stock into footnotes and commentaries left in Bibles, which I think are useless, because they are giving an "opinion" or "private interpretation" which I believe to be dangerous. I am curious to see how others will respond, however. [/quote] [quote name='bobinator' timestamp='1319262832' post='2325049'] 1 Cor. 11:3 "But I want you to know Christ is the head of every man, and the husband the head of every wife, and God the head of Christ." "[i]Head[/i]: The Greek word [i] Kephale[/i] never connotes authority or superiority; "source" is the only appropriate meaning here." -The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. (1.) "It is a hybrid model, for it grafts onto a strictly theological scale of existence (1 Cor. 3:21-23) the hierarchy of sociosexual relations prevalent in the ancient world: men, dominant, reflect the active function of Christ in relations his church; women, submissive, reflect the passive role of the church to its savior. This gives us the functional scale: God, Christ, man woman." -Footnote from the New American Bible. (St, Joseph Edition). (2.) 1. But if God is the source of Christ wouldn't that mean that God (the Father) created, or was before, Christ? I know of John 1:1 and that there are plenty of verses in the bible that state Christ's preexistence with the Father, but since the bible cannot contradict itself, this verse is puzzling. 2. Again, why is there the "functional scale" if Christ, being a member of the Trinity, is equal to God the Father? 1 Cor. 3:23 " and you to Christ, and Christ to God." "The [i] ad hominem[/i] character of the argument in vv 21-22 is underlined by the formal statement of the relation of all to Christ, and his subordination to God." -The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Does this mean Christ is subordinate to God the Father, and therefore of a lesser nature than God? Any clarification on these points with any biblical references is much appreciated. [/quote] The doctrine of Holy Trinity is like a discussion going in circle and the participants ended up in saying, ‘It is beyond our finite mind to comprehend because, it is a mystery of God’. You are going circle because you are caught in a cage. Christ is the mystery of God and not the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 [quote] The doctrine of Holy Trinity is like a discussion going in circle and the participants ended up in saying, ‘It is beyond our finite mind to comprehend because, it is a mystery of God’. You are going circle because you are caught in a cage. Christ is the mystery of God and not the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. [/quote] First of all, there is a doctrine of the Holy Trinity that is both accepted and understood. We do, however, understand that we cannot comprehend it, in the same sense, that does not mean the Church does not hold a teaching on what we know it to be. And that is, Christ is consubstansial with the Father. This was discussed at the First Ecumenical Council, where Arius was declared a heretic for saying Christ was "created". We know what has been revealed, and as such any heretical beliefs about Christ being subordinate, created, or somehow separete from the Father must be rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Selah' timestamp='1319298793' post='2325180'] First of all, there is a doctrine of the Holy Trinity that is both accepted and understood. We do, however, understand that we cannot comprehend it, in the same sense, that does not mean the Church does not hold a teaching on what we know it to be. And that is, Christ is consubstansial with the Father. This was discussed at the First Ecumenical Council, where Arius was declared a heretic for saying Christ was "created". We know what has been revealed, and as such any heretical beliefs about Christ being subordinate, created, or somehow separete from the Father must be rejected. [/quote] It is obvious that you accepted and understand it the way early Catholics understood it. But do you think Holy Prophets are one with you in accepting this kind of belief? Do you think Holy Prophets are Trinitarian too? Edited October 22, 2011 by reyb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 What "holy prophets"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Christ is eternally generated (begotten) from the Father. There was no time when Christ was not, and the Father was. "Dominant" and "submissive" tend to have the connotations of "greater" and "lesser," which isn't the case here. Just as Christ is not "lesser" to the Father merely because God is the head of Christ, so too women are not "lesser" to men because men are the "head" of women. I wonder if you're giving too much weight to this functional scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 [quote name='Selah' timestamp='1319301993' post='2325195'] What "holy prophets"? [/quote] For example Abraham (you called him Patriach). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) [quote name='reyb' timestamp='1319304948' post='2325222'] For example Abraham (you called him Patriach). [/quote] Our understanding of God and how He works grows over time, and so too our expression of our understanding of God (aka theology) also grows. In this way it's really no different than other human pursuits. Take biology - over time humans study and learn more about how our bodies work and our knowledge of it grows. The way biology fundamentally works doesn't change - it's already all there. We just come to understand it better, a progression from "humors" to brain chemistry and so forth. Why would that concept not also apply to God, whom is infinitely more complex than human biology? He's already given us the fullness of revelation through scripture and holy Tradition. We just have to keep working it out and come up with better ways to explain the complexities of that revelation. Abraham may not have understood God as Triune, but in Abraham's time monotheism itself (even just monolatry - worshiping one god above all others) was pretty darn revolutionary. To say that our theology should stay exactly the same and never build on itself denies the noble pursuit of truth and our understanding of it. Edited October 22, 2011 by Basilisa Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='bobinator' timestamp='1319262832' post='2325049'] 1. But if God is the source of Christ wouldn't that mean that God (the Father) created, or was before, Christ?[/quote] The simple answer is, no. We humans live in time, and so when with think of the Son proceeding from the Father, we imagine a time when the Son did not exist. But we have to remember that in God there is no time. God is in an eternal "now." Thus, there never was a time when the Son did not proceed from the Father, and never a time when the Father was not the font of Divinity. (See John 5:8 as an example of this.) [quote] I know of John 1:1 and that there are plenty of verses in the bible that state Christ's preexistence with the Father, but since the bible cannot contradict itself, this verse is puzzling.[/quote] The verses you mention above speak of Christ as man. [quote]2. Again, why is there the "functional scale" if Christ, being a member of the Trinity, is equal to God the Father?[/quote] God the Son willingly assumed the limits of human nature, and took on the role of a servant. But this is not to undermine his Divine Nature: [b][color=#0000FF][sup]5[/sup] In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:[/color][/b] [b][color=#0000FF] [sup]6[/sup] Who, being in very nature[sup][[/sup][/color][sup][url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phillipians%202:5-7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29398a"][color=#0000FF]a[/color][/url][/sup][color=#0000FF][sup]][/sup] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; [sup]7[/sup] rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[sup][[/sup][/color][sup][url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phillipians%202:5-7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29399b"][color=#0000FF]b[/color][/url][/sup][color=#0000FF][sup]][/sup] of a servant, being made in human likeness.[/color][/b] [b]Phillipians chapter 2, 5-7[/b] [quote]Does this mean Christ is subordinate to God the Father, and therefore of a lesser nature than God?[/quote] No, because Christ is God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Jesus is both fully man and fully divine. The man had a beginning and was created through natural birth. But Jesus cannot be subordinate to God because of his full divinity. God and Jesus are consubstantial, one in spirit but were separate in the form of Jesus as man. It's almost a paradox but yet not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Hope this helps. [img]http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/images/trinity_diagram.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now