a reply to:
WakeUpBeer
This was all sorted out in the fourth century, and I'm content with the way the creeds put it.
The incarnation- that Christ is BOTH God and man, with a divine nature and a human nature. Those two aspects being distinct, but not separate. What is
visible in the gospels is the human aspect of Christ, and in that respect he says "My Father is greater than I". The N.T says that the Word, the
divine aspect of Christ, existed before the world was created- in fact "all created things were made
through him."
If there is an Incarnation, with Christ as an aspect of God, then there must be a relationship of some kind between the divinity of Christ and the
divinity of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. Whatever that relationship is, is the Trinity. Again, the balanced conclusion is that they are
distinct, but not separate.
I have done threads on the Incarnation. There is no point in arguing about the Trinity, because the Trinity debate follows on historically and
logically from the teaching about the Incarnation. Until the Incarnation is accepted, the Trinity doesn't become an issue.
You can have it in the more technical language of the Athanasian creed;
"Our Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, is God and Man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds
And Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world.
Perfect God and perfect Man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting
Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.
Who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two but one Christ
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God.
One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ."
I'm a little surprised, because I did not have you down as a believer in Jesus in any sense. You're not doing a little trolling, are you?
edit on 29-1-2020 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)