How is Jesus serving as High Priest to God if he is God?

[firedragon]

I have read both many times. See no proof that they are correct. Just somebody's opinion.

I am not here to debunk the trinity LWDS. I was only responding to a claim that Jesus is the in-between being between God the father and man or like a representative. So I just said that is against the Trinity because the trinity teaches they are both coequal and coeternal, etc according to the Athanasian Creed.

Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

the One God (the Father) and mankind contradicts the Trinity then I suggest that you study the matter.

Sure. No problem.

I highly recommend St. John of Damascus' Exact Exposition, St. Gregory of Nyssa's works on it, St. Gregory of Nazianzen's Theological Orations, and so on, for a clearer picture. For that concept of mediation is built into it.

From my perspective, what anyone else says or thinks is not the bench mark to read what the trinity is in the Athanasian Creed. Gregory of Nyssa is after the trinity canonisation. Being a homousian, not only him but many other people have tried to reconcile some of the bible verses that say Jesus is Gods representative in one way or the other. But that is in direct contradiction with the trinity where Jesus, God and there Holy Spirit are 3 but of homooosia.

Its contradicting.

 

[Lain]

From my perspective, what anyone else says or thinks is not the bench mark to read what the trinity is in the Athanasian Creed. Gregory of Nyssa is after the trinity canonisation. Being a homousian, not only him but many other people have tried to reconcile some of the bible verses that say Jesus is Gods representative in one way or the other. But that is in direct contradiction with the trinity where Jesus, God and there Holy Spirit are 3 but of homooosia.

Its contradicting.

(All that follows is my opinion.)

Are you saying that the benchmark for Trinitarian doctrine is a Creed that a whole wing of the Church doesn't even accept? Why would that be the case? Why is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is recited by every Church every Sunday (or even every day) as the Confession of Faith not be the standard?

Who is after what is irrelevant in a faith whose doctrines are eternal. Abraham was a Trinitarian, St. Gregory of Nyssa was a Trinitarian, I am a Trinitarian. The doctrines are unchanging, it doesn't really matter.

In all you said (which ultimately was not very clear) you have not shown a contradiction. If you know of one I'd like to see it, and please write in a more clear fashion when you do. That way I do not have to guess around as to what you're trying to say.

This is the Creed recited in the Churches and which is the standard of faith by the way, just so you know my standard and the standard of all Trinitarians, and in my opinion all Christians:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

So if you want to show a contradiction you can start there or elsewhere.

(All the above is my opinion.)

 

[firedragon]

Are you saying that the benchmark for Trinitarian doctrine is a Creed that a whole wing of the Church doesn't even accept?

Yes.

If you are from another church who have a different doctrine, then its your prerogative and I have no right to say its false. So in that case, this conversation is irrelevant.

 

[Lain]

Yes.

If you are from another church who have a different doctrine

There is no variance in Trinitarian doctrine (in my opinion). What makes you think that this Creed is the benchmark?

 

[firedragon]

There is no variance in Trinitarian doctrine (in my opinion). What makes you think that this Creed is the benchmark?

Because the Creed is the Creed. You cannot measure yardstick with the cloth.

 

[Lain]

Because the Creed is the Creed. You cannot measure yardstick with the cloth.

Yeah I think the point was missed here, not to mention that the Athanasian Creed is most certainly not the "yardstick" of Trinitarians because it is historically later than the actual yardstick by many centuries.

Either way, as I personally have no problem with the Athanasian Creed, what is the contradiction between it and "Christ is the mediator between the Father and us," which is what I said when you said that it "violates the Trinity."

 

[firedragon]

Yeah I think the point was missed here, not to mention that the Athanasian Creed is most certainly not the "yardstick" of Trinitarians because it is historically later than the actual yardstick by many centuries.

Either way, as I personally have no problem with the Athanasian Creed, what is the contradiction between it and "Christ is the mediator between the Father and us," which is what I said when you said that it "violates the Trinity."

If you deny the athanasian creed, that's not a problem for me personally. I am not here to discuss the validity of the trinity, or the logical problems.

I have repeated that the athanasian creed defines the trinity. If you dont accept it, its your prerogative. But believing as a doctrine that Jesus as a person in the trinity being homousia while also being the representative of God or mediator between the father and us directly contradicts it. It is a subordinationism declared a heresy I believe at the end of the fourth century.

IT is a logical contradiction to say the Christ is also the mediator, while also being coequal with the father and the Holy Spirit.

You can have it as a dogma if you want. But its still a logical contradiction.

 

[Soapy]

So? The Bible says God had a son.

Who let the lunatics out of the asylum?

 

[Soapy]

Sure. No problem.



From my perspective, what anyone else says or thinks is not the bench mark to read what the trinity is in the Athanasian Creed. Gregory of Nyssa is after the trinity canonisation. Being a homousian, not only him but many other people have tried to reconcile some of the bible verses that say Jesus is Gods representative in one way or the other. But that is in direct contradiction with the trinity where Jesus, God and there Holy Spirit are 3 but of homooosia.

Its contradicting.

Hi Firedragon. You are right in what you say… so far.

But I see the problem (the elephant in the room, so to speak!). If someone says their ideology is trinitarian then it is pointless claiming that they are wrong on some point or other about trinity.

It is THEIR belief that IN TRINITY IDEOLOGY Jesus is God….!

That cannot be disputed.

But if the claim is about the scriptures and the truth of its rendering… then trinity ideology IS FALSE and is worthy to dispute it.

The difference: The first is unprovably ridiculous. The latter is fully disputable in favour of trinity teaching being false ideology.

Think of telling a philistine that the God he believes in is not true. YOU cannot prove it to him that his god is worthless! Things he believes his god can do CAN happen BY ACCIDENT… whence he will claim that if was his god that made it come true!!

But, if you argue from a COMMON BELIEF… You both process a math equation. You both get different answers… It is IMPOSSIBLE … so one of both of you is wrong…. Now it is fully possible to deduce who os right and who is wrong.

The problem is that the one who is wrong will be angry and refuse to accept that he is wrong… he will try to devise all manners of ‘getArounds’ to try to claim he is right and you are wrong.

That is how it is with the Trinitarians.

You cannot say that trinity belief is wrong TO a trinitarian.

But you CAN PROVE that the SCRIPTURES does not present a trinity ideology!!!

The trinitarian will then writhe, squirm, coil and recoil like snakes in a box, trying to present a trinity twist on the truth. He is not trying to prove the truth of the scriptures… he is trying to prove an unprovable (and non-reasoning) rendering of the scriptures… it’s like trying to draw a straight line using a wonky ruler and blunt broken tipped pencil.

I was watching a tv programme just now where a man and a woman were finger testing the temperature of a Jacusi.

The woman said,:

• “That water is way to hot for me!”

The man replied:

• “No it’s not… it’s the perfect temperature!!”

…. ‘Nuff said!!!

 

[Soapy]

Yes.

If you are from another church who have a different doctrine, then its your prerogative and I have no right to say its false. So in that case, this conversation is irrelevant.

Ha ha ha…. So so so true!!!!

 

[firedragon]

Hi Firedragon. You are right in what you say… so far.

But I see the problem (the elephant in the room, so to speak!). If someone says their ideology is trinitarian then it is pointless claiming that they are wrong on some point or other about trinity.

It is THEIR belief that IN TRINITY IDEOLOGY Jesus is God….!

That cannot be disputed.

But if the claim is about the scriptures and the truth of its rendering… then trinity ideology IS FALSE and is worthy to dispute it.

The difference: The first is unprovably ridiculous. The latter is fully disputable in favour of trinity teaching being false ideology.

Think of telling a philistine that the God he believes in is not true. YOU cannot prove it to him that his god is worthless! Things he believes his god can do CAN happen BY ACCIDENT… whence he will claim that if was his god that made it come true!!

But, if you argue from a COMMON BELIEF… You both process a math equation. You both get different answers… It is IMPOSSIBLE … so one of both of you is wrong…. Now it is fully possible to deduce who os right and who is wrong.

The problem is that the one who is wrong will be angry and refuse to accept that he is wrong… he will try to devise all manners of ‘getArounds’ to try to claim he is right and you are wrong.

That is how it is with the Trinitarians.

You cannot say that trinity belief is wrong TO a trinitarian.

But you CAN PROVE that the SCRIPTURES does not present a trinity ideology!!!

The trinitarian will then writhe, squirm, coil and recoil like snakes in a box, trying to present a trinity twist on the truth. He is not trying to prove the truth of the scriptures… he is trying to prove an unprovable (and non-reasoning) rendering of the scriptures… it’s like trying to draw a straight line using a wonky ruler and blunt broken tipped pencil.

I was watching a tv programme just now where a man and a woman were finger testing the temperature of a Jacusi.

The woman said,:

• “That water is way to hot for me!”

The man replied:

• “No it’s not… it’s the perfect temperature!!”

…. ‘Nuff said!!!

I am not interested in all of that Soapy.

 

[Lain]

But believing as a doctrine that Jesus as a person in the trinity being homousia while also being the representative of God or mediator between the father and us directly contradicts it. It is a subordinationism declared a heresy I believe at the end of the fourth century.

IT is a logical contradiction to say the Christ is also the mediator, while also being coequal with the father and the Holy Spirit.

You have not shown how it is a logical contradiction, you've just said that it was. The fact that you are saying it is leads me to believe that you have not even read the Athanasian Creed. The fact that you think it is subordinationism leads me to believe you do not even know what that means. Perhaps not even "mediator" or "co-equal" as well. It appears to me that your statements have no truth in them and no evidence to show that there is truth in them, which is not at all surprising for me as any time someone says "there is a contradiction with the Trinity" or "this verse contradicts the Trinity" that is always the case without fail. But all that's just my opinion of course.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I am not here to debunk the trinity LWDS. I was only responding to a claim that Jesus is the in-between being between God the father and man or like a representative. So I just said that is against the Trinity because the trinity teaches they are both coequal and coeternal, etc according to the Athanasian Creed.

Hope you understand.

OK Thank you. Actually teaching that they are both equal proves the trinity doctrine wrong because Jesus himself said the father was greater than himself.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Who let the lunatics out of the asylum?

Are you saying that the Bible does not say God had a son?

 

[Lain]

OK Thank you. Actually teaching that they are both equal proves the trinity doctrine wrong because Jesus himself said the father was greater than himself.

The Father is greater than the Lord Jesus (both as to His humanity for it is created, and in the Divine Person as the Father is the cause/aitia of the Son), this is part of Trinitarian teaching. If you didn't know, now you do.

St. John of Damascus, one of the divinely inspired Church Fathers says:

"But if we say that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son (for through His agency He made the ages), or superiority in any other respect save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that fire proceedeth from light, but rather light from fire. So then, whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of causation."

(All the above is my opinion of course.)

 

[firedragon]

You have not shown how it is a logical contradiction

I think you didnt follow the post you replied to.

Tell me something. How could subordination be coherent with coequality? Can you explain?

 

[Lain]

Tell me something. How could subordination be coherent with coequality? Can you explain?

(All that follows is my opinion.)

Co-equal according to the divine essence is not at all incompatible (and frankly has nothing to do with) with the Son assuming a human essence (which is not equal to the divine essence) in addition to His divine essence and mediating between the Father and humanity with it. If you had actually followed the Athanasian Creed instead of misinterpreting what it was saying you'd know this, for it is in the second portion of it which deals with the Incarnation. See the rest of it:

"He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God. He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ. [[He died for our salvation, descended into Hell, and rose from the dead on the third day. He ascended into Heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty.]] From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire."

Notice the part bolding in red, this refers to the events of mediation. How is this known? Let's look at two relevant passages describing it:

Hebrews: "But [[Christ has arrived as a high priest of the good things to come.]] Through the greater and more perfect tent not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, and not by the blood of goats and calves, but [[by his own blood, he entered once for all into the most holy place, obtaining eternal redemption.]] For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled sanctify them for the ritual purity of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God? And [[because of this, he is the mediator of a new covenant,]] in order that, because a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions committed during the first covenant, those who are the called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

1 Timothy: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, [[who gave himself a ransom for all,]] the testimony at the proper time..."

Now, let's talk about the Athanasian Creed: show me two statements in it that contradict one another, and explain why it is a contradiction. All that is bolded in red is referring to the same events. I have ignored your term "subordination" because you didn't define it.

The fact that you did not use this is why it leads me to believe you did not read it. So again, strictly from the Athanasian Creed: show me two statements that contradict.

(All that is above is my opinion.)

 

[Soapy]

I am not interested in all of that Soapy.

Ooops, sorry. Ok.

 

[Soapy]

(All that follows is my opinion.)

Co-equal according to the divine essence is not at all incompatible (and frankly has nothing to do with) with the Son assuming a human essence (which is not equal to the divine essence) in addition to His divine essence and mediating between the Father and humanity with it. If you had actually followed the Athanasian Creed instead of misinterpreting what it was saying you'd know this, for it is in the second portion of it which deals with the Incarnation. See the rest of it:

"He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man. As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh. He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity. Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ. And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God. He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person. As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ. [[He died for our salvation, descended into Hell, and rose from the dead on the third day. He ascended into Heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty.]] From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire."

Notice the part bolding in red, this refers to the events of mediation. How is this known? Let's look at two relevant passages describing it:

Hebrews: "But [[Christ has arrived as a high priest of the good things to come.]] Through the greater and more perfect tent not made by hands, that is, not of this creation, and not by the blood of goats and calves, but [[by his own blood, he entered once for all into the most holy place, obtaining eternal redemption.]] For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled sanctify them for the ritual purity of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living God? And [[because of this, he is the mediator of a new covenant,]] in order that, because a death has taken place for the redemption of transgressions committed during the first covenant, those who are the called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

1 Timothy: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, [[who gave himself a ransom for all,]] the testimony at the proper time..."

Now, let's talk about the Athanasian Creed: show me two statements in it that contradict one another, and explain why it is a contradiction. All that is bolded in red is referring to the same events. I have ignored your term "subordination" because you didn't define it.

The fact that you did not use this is why it leads me to believe you did not read it. So again, strictly from the Athanasian Creed: show me two statements that contradict.

(All that is above is my opinion.)

Jesus is neither sinful man nor glorified God.

The mediator that we speak of cannot be ‘Man’ nor can he be ‘God’.

The point and purpose of a mediator is that they take an issue from one party and put it in a moderate term to a second party … and vice versa.

As such, since sin is abhorrent to God it would be impossible for Jesus (as God) to receive it.

Oppositely, man cannot face God (because of his sinful nature) so what God has to put to him must go through a third party (Jesus).

This is illustrated exactly by the purpose of the high priest - the only person allowed to carry the sacrifice of the sacrificer to God in the innermost sanctuary.

((Please check in the temple worship procedure for details showing the high priest was regarded as sinless))

Therefore, there is a straight analogy between Jesus Christ and the High Priest in the temple.

If anyone is saying that Jesus is BOTH God AND Man as High Priest … then that person must also say that the temple high priest IS ALSO GOD and man!!

So, then, Jesus is SINLESS MAN… just as the temple high priest was regarded as SINLESS.

Jesus CANNOT be GOD because the temple high priest (and the Spiritual high Priest) must receive from the sinful man… and God cannot receive from a sinful person!

This is why only the prayers and sacrifices of truly worshipful ones are received in threats of God… Jesus Christ WASHES and sanctifies the prayers of the sinful ones who offer their sacrifices and prayers to God.

This is what it means to ‘Pray in the name of Jesus Christ’, it is to pray with:

• Integrity
• Faith
• Unselfishness
• Regret for sins
• Piousness
• Reverence
• Glory and praise to the Father
• Honesty
• …

The model prayer (‘The Lord’s Prayer) from Jesus completely underlines everything in the bullet points above. Praying ‘in the name of Jesus’ is not merely saying “In the name of Jesus!” at the end of a prayer to God…

So, question:

• If we pray THROUGH Jesus Christ to reach GOD … and Jesus Christ IS GOD… ….?
• If we pray THROUGH Jesus Christ to reach the Father (who is God)… and Jesus Christ is, himself, GOD that we are praying TO…. …?

Hmmm…. I see a problem with that claim!!!