Understanding John 17

[Burst2Flame]

There seems to be an unending debate on whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same physical being or two seperate physical beings.

Many mainstream Christians argue that the countless verses in the bible that say Jesus and the Father are one, signify that they are one being.

I'm just unclear on how the mainstream Christian view (of them being the same being) interprets John 17 when Jesus offers His intercessory prayer and explains how He is one with the Father by saying:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Any respectful feedback is welcome. Thanks!

[Burst2Flame]

....cricket.....cricket......:)

Edited April 16, 2010 by Burst2Flame

[Jason_J]

There seems to be an unending debate on whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same physical being or two seperate physical beings.

Many mainstream Christians argue that the countless verses in the bible that say Jesus and the Father are one, signify that they are one being.

I'm just unclear on how the mainstream Christian view (of them being the same being) interprets John 17 when Jesus offers His intercessory prayer and explains how He is one with the Father by saying:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Any respectful feedback is welcome. Thanks!

This is a very common misunderstanding of what mainstream Christianity is teaching when it says that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are the same Being. Mainstream Christianity (i.e. Trinitarianism) does not state that the Father and the Son are the same physical being (i.e. they are not the same person, they are not attached to each other, etc.). Trinitarianism is using a different definition of "being" than is commonly used today (i.e. we use "being" and "person" interchangeably). "Being" instead is used interchangeably with words like "essence", "nature", and "substance". The author Olson in his book "The Story of Christian Theology" defines "being" (more specifically the Greek "ousia", which "being" is a translation of) as the "essential attributes of deity", meaning, the characteristics that are necessary for something/someone to be considered divine. The most important "essential attribute", at least according to the Council of Nicaea (which formally defined the Father and the Son as "homoousios", of the same substance/essence/being) was the Son being co-eternal with the Father, meaning that the Son has always (eternally) existed. This was in contrast to the Arian position that the Nicaean bishops were combating, who stated that the Son was a created entity.

With that in mind, Trinitarians interpret the intercessory prayer of Jesus in the same way that LDS do. They both see the Son as praying to the Father. He was not praying to Himself. Similarly, the "us" and "our" in the creation of man ("let us make man in our image") are interpreted by Trinitarians as referring to the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit).

When someone asks how Jesus could have been praying to Himself, a Trinitarian would wonder the same thing. This question is best asked to Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Modalists, etc. Trinitarians reject those groups as heretical.

So, the important thing here (that most non-Trinitarians and many Trinitarians themselves do not understand) is to realize that "being" and "person" are not being used in the way that we do today (interchangeably), but mean two different things in the context of Trinity doctrine (remembering that the Trinity doctrine is over 1000 years old, and the words we are using are translations of the original Greek, which was then translated into Latin). Trinitarians firmly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, one in being/essence/nature.

Finally, I'll end with a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I always quote in these discussions:

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

I hope that helps!

Edited April 17, 2010 by Jason_J

[Burst2Flame]

With that in mind, Trinitarians interpret the intercessory prayer of Jesus in the same way that LDS do. They both see the Son as praying to the Father. He was not praying to Himself. Similarly, the "us" and "our" in the creation of man ("let us make man in our image") are interpreted by Trinitarians as referring to the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit).

When someone asks how Jesus could have been praying to Himself, a Trinitarian would wonder the same thing. This question is best asked to Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Modalists, etc. Trinitarians reject those groups as heretical.

I kind of understand the whole "Jesus praying to Himself" thing, but do you believe when Jesus says "I and the Father are one" throughout the bible it means one in purpose or one in nature/essence/being? (Remember Christ pled to the Father for us to be one as He and the Father are one.)

So, the important thing here (that most non-Trinitarians and many Trinitarians themselves do not understand) is to realize that "being" and "person" are not being used in the way that we do today (interchangeably), but mean two different things in the context of Trinity doctrine (remembering that the Trinity doctrine is over 1000 years old, and the words we are using are translations of the original Greek, which was then translated into Latin). Trinitarians firmly believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, one in being/essence/nature.

What if one were to say that those councils of old were not inspired of God? Is there anywhere in the bible that talks about the Godhead being one ousia and 3 hypostases? It seems like one would need to be a prophet of God to make such a claim. Who are we to define God?

[Jason_J]

I kind of understand the whole "Jesus praying to Himself" thing, but do you believe when Jesus says "I and the Father are one" throughout the bible it means one in purpose or one in nature/essence/being? (Remember Christ pled to the Father for us to be one as He and the Father are one.)

For Trinitarians, this is not an either/or situation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are both one in purpose and one in divine nature. Through "theosis" we become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and therefore we become one with God. This seems to fit quite perfectly with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being one in nature (since we become partakers of that nature), and I assume that LDS do not have a problem with that either (though LDS come for the perspective that we already, at our core, are of the same nature as God).

What if one were to say that those councils of old were not inspired of God? Is there anywhere in the bible that talks about the Godhead being one ousia and 3 hypostases? It seems like one would need to be a prophet of God to make such a claim. Who are we to define God?

Coming from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, the Bible does not need to say that, because the Bible never claims that it has to say everything in the first place (also, the Bible many times does not use many standard Christian words, nor is it a systematic theology/catechism. What is important is if concepts are at least implicitly there). Since Catholics and Orthodox accept the Ecumenical Councils as inspired of God, then that is sufficient for them to claim that the formal, explicit definition of the Trinity is inspired. A Catholic/Orthodox would not be able to entertain the possibility that the Ecumenical Councils were not inspired, since that is central to their theology and ecclesiology (the Catholic Church actually had its last Ecumenical Council in the 1960s, the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, also called Vatican II).

[Snow]

There seems to be an unending debate on whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same physical being or two seperate physical beings.

Many mainstream Christians argue that the countless verses in the bible that say Jesus and the Father are one, signify that they are one being.

That's not really the issue. The Trinity is the idea that the Father and Son are two persons making up one God, comprised of the same substance.

No one who has read the Bible argues that there is even one verse in the Bible that says that... as there is none. On the other hand, I've heard people who aren't familiar with the Bible argue that such verses exist.

[JessicaHarper]

There seems to be an unending debate on whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same physical being or two seperate physical beings.

Many mainstream Christians argue that the countless verses in the bible that say Jesus and the Father are one, signify that they are one being.

I'm just unclear on how the mainstream Christian view (of them being the same being) interprets John 17 when Jesus offers His intercessory prayer and explains how He is one with the Father by saying:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Any respectful feedback is welcome. Thanks!

Being a mainstream Christian I can say that I have never thought the Father and Son to be the same person. I have actually never ran into this teaching in a mainstream Christian church.

I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate beings but are ONE God. You know, that whole Trinity thing.

[JessicaHarper]

...The Trinity is the idea that the Father and Son are two persons making up one God, comprised of the same substance...

Actually, the Trinity comprises the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit.

[Snow]

Actually, the Trinity comprises the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit.

Well - not according to the Nicene Creed of 325 CE but the point was that the Trinity is of multiple persons making up one God and the nature of the oneness is essence - a concept not found in the Bible.

[Hemidakota]

There seems to be an unending debate on whether God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same physical being or two seperate physical beings.

Many mainstream Christians argue that the countless verses in the bible that say Jesus and the Father are one, signify that they are one being.

I'm just unclear on how the mainstream Christian view (of them being the same being) interprets John 17 when Jesus offers His intercessory prayer and explains how He is one with the Father by saying:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Any respectful feedback is welcome. Thanks!

The best method for your own salvation, is to seek the FACE of GOD personally vice speculation on both ends of the spectrum.

[prisonchaplain]

That's not really the issue. The Trinity is the idea that the Father and Son are two persons making up one God, comprised of the same substance.

No one who has read the Bible argues that there is even one verse in the Bible that says that... as there is none. On the other hand, I've heard people who aren't familiar with the Bible argue that such verses exist.

Snow, what I see you driving at in this string, and others, is that the theologies spelled out in post-apostolic centuries comment on the Scriptures, and that those who claim those scriptures actually spell out those theologies in detail are rather guilty of putting the cart before the horse. Am I getting your point?

[Snow]

Snow, what I see you driving at in this string, and others, is that the theologies spelled out in post-apostolic centuries comment on the Scriptures, and that those who claim those scriptures actually spell out those theologies in detail are rather guilty of putting the cart before the horse. Am I getting your point?

I don't know what you mean by cart and horse. My point in Trinity discussions usually are:

1. The doctrine of the Creedal Trinity is not found in the Bible.

2. That some components of the Creedal Trinity are not even implied in the Bible and require post Biblical invention.

3. That prior to 325 CE, subordination, not co-equality was the orthodox position.

4. That the Nicene Creed did not include the Holy Ghost as God.

I am not opposed on ideological grounds to extra-biblical theology. Mormons believe things not found in the Bible. I am opposed, however, to:

1. False and inaccurate claims about what's in the Bible.

2. Irrational approaches to post-biblical doctrinal development. Mormons, for example, believe in continuing revelation. One doesn't have to accept the validity of of said revelations but one must grant that it is a internally consistent approach. Catholics have a methodology for the creation of estra-Biblical belief. I don't agree with the Catholic approach but based on what I know, it's a rational approach.

What I don't understand is how people who reject Catholic Magisterium and deny ongoing revelation (of new doctrine, not the kind of confirmatory revelation you admit) can accept non-Biblical doctrine as valid.