God and Jesus same person? Help me understand

[LoveSummerLife]

Can anyone explain the basis for the belief in God and Jesus being the same person? Which bible verses indicate this? I was brought up C of E but my faith has lapsed over the years and part of the reason is I can’t get my head around this. The Son of God made flesh and sacrificing himself to gain salvation for us, okay, but the actual same person? Is there a biblical basis for it or has the church (as an institution) concluded it?
Is it all based on John 1:1? What about other verses where Jesus was referring to his Father in a different way such as John 14:28.
Sometimes John 10:30 and 38 are used to explain it but I think of those verses as being more about unity, a husband and wife are distinct people but might refer to themselves as being “one” on certain issue’s as they are in unity.

TYIA for trying to help me understand

@GoodNews thats very interesting and I (a Christian) appreciate your viewpoint put sensitively.

@Madhairday I'd like to hear more on this, i get really bogged down in scholarly interpretation and theorising.

I find the bible hard to read and I'd really never get round to reading the Quran for comparison purposes. I take the view that all scripture suffers from being ancient and handed down and translated. We are left with so little that we can rely on as a guide we need to use our own experience also. Hence a day to day relationship with God and experience of the holy spirit.

God is not a man in the sky but instead the source and grounding of all beingness. Many non believers have a strange concept of who we believe God to be. Understandably the confusion may be have been sown by medieval art showing the Trinity as three guys, they are also shown this way in Orthodox iconography.

In Judaism and Islam because depicting God is forbidden there is less confusion about the theology underlying their faith.

God is beyond our comprehension or ability to explain. The Trinity is therefore just as incomprehensible but it speaks to the nature of God as creative and relational. When God the source of creation, "thinks" or creates immediately that is a relational reality and that is this concept of the Word. The Word is God and was with God. The Word is Jesus and that essence of God is one of love, The Holy Spirit. So the Trinity is a descriptor of the creative love of God that "spoke" and speaks everything into being. Picturing three men around a table as the Trinity is our very human way of trying to conceive of God.

For us to know God, God had to come as one of us. He had to suffer to truly be one of us, as suffering is part of the human condition. We can't say God doesn't know what we experience.

The theology is very profound and I can't say I have studied it at such a deep level, I know as a Catholic we believe that Jesus had two natures, fully God AND fully man. How that works is something I need to study!

"I believe in one God,
The Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
Of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
The Only Begotten Son of God
Born of the Father before all ages,
God from God, Light from Light,
True God from true God,
Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
Through him all things were made."

This is the beginning of the Nicene Creed which Catholics recite every Sunday.

It describes how Jesus is one with God and was always with God.

Not all Christians have the same beliefs about the trinity. Swedenborg rejects the doctrine of a trinity of persons, teaching the trinity as being one God who took on a physical human manifestation in the world (Jesus Christ). The three terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relate to the process of Jesus being born and going through trials in order to save (us).

Great post, @IdaBWells.

@ZenNudist, you say I take the view that all scripture suffers from being ancient and handed down and translated. We are left with so little that we can rely on as a guide we need to use our own experience also.

Do you mean the Bible in general, the NT or scriptures from different religions, out of interest?

There are an unprecedented number of manuscripts which contain NT passages, some dating from incredibly early on (one gospel fragment of John from early C2 which in terms of historical writings of antiquity is astonishing. Because we have such a multiplicity of fragments - in Greek as well as later translations - we know what we are reading now is very very close to what was being written down. And the gospels and other NT writings are reliable when methods of historicity are applied - multiple attestation within the documents and in early Christian texts, as well as non Christian references from near contemporary histories; coherent with the culture of the early 1st century, with so many details such as names and places completely in keeping with it; the dating is very close to the events - the synoptics all within 25-40 years, the Pauline letters even sooner in some cases and evidence therein of very very early creeds; the continuity and consistency of the writings (the contradictions only add to the authenticity; if it was a massive scam concocted by a few chaps it would be strange that there were any at all, or many other 'embarassing' events which put them in a poor light/would cast doubt on their narrative because of cultural reasons (eg women as witnesses etc)).

I really don't think that we're left with little at all. I think we're left with historically viable documents which we know have not been interpolated or exaggerated or changed. I agree with you about experience, about relationship with God and experience of the Spirit being crucial, but I am blown away by the sheer amount of robust evidence we do have and so are able to get back to who Jesus was, what he said, his death and resurrection and the early life of a church who were impacted then utterly transformed.

@Madhairday it helps to hear that level of confidence from someone who writes eloquently about scripture. In answer to your question I suppose I mean the NT more than anything.

I've been reading fairly popular theology by Dominic Crossan and JS Spong which has got me questioning. My questions would fill another thread ... or 10!

I cant write about religion in the way that you and @IdaBWells do (was so relieved Ida rocked up on this thread, found her response enlightening, thank you!).

I'm trying to understand Jesus' place in our world. It seems like lots of people can and do experience Jesus even now, and/or show such love for Him. Im trying to build up my faith in and love for Jesus. This thread has helped me.

This is one of the ‘mysteries’ or so I was taught.

They are three separate people, but at the same time one. Father (God), son (Jesus) and Holy Ghost (spirit).

The whole point is it cannot be comprehended by the human brain and that’s where faith comes in. You cannot understand it, but your unerring belief in God enables you to accept it must be so.

There are other mysteries in Catholicism that cannot be understood but must be blindly believed as a demonstration of faith. One of the many reasons I gave up the faith........

Interesting thread.
Throughout the passages on Jesus life, he made it quite clear that he had been sent by a being separate to him. He prayed to this being, credited him for his power and wisdom, and directed his followers to do the same. We are helped to understand this relationship with the analogy of a father son relationship. A father son relationship is close, there is shared purpose and values, there are similarities, but there is no confusion about there being two separate beings.
The concept of a trinity is not from the Bible but from pre Christian religions.

there is shared purpose and values, there are similarities, but there is no confusion about there being two separate beings.

I think it is about unity. Ephesians talks about the 'unity of the Spirit' and God is a spirit and there is one God.

Ephesians 4:33*
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

The concept of a trinity is not from the Bible but from pre Christian religions.

The concept of the trinity does originate j. The Bible. There are no pagan religions which uphold the concept of one being or essence with three persons - any similarities are spurious and to do with the worship of three gods together, or one god with different expressions - no concept whatsoever of the one essence God with three distinct persons. Interestingly most of what we know about these pagan systems are only based on evidence found later than C1, eg the Hindu 'threefold god' is only traced to C4 or so iirc.

You're right that the formal doctrine of the Trinity was not expressed fully until later on - that was because the early church realised they needed to formalise the biblical truth because some were arguing about it/twisting it (Arius heresy etc.) But they were only pinning down truth they'd known and celebrated from the earliest church days and that Jesus himself articulated in passages like Matthew 28 v 20 when he encouraged the disciples to baptise people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He held these three persons all as equal, all as fully God, as one essence yet three distinct persons.

NT writers mention all three Persons of the Trinity together many times - and the earliest creeds mention Jesus as of one essence with God. The early believers knew that the Father and the Son sent the the Holy Spirit to be our comforter and bringer of truth. These mysteries were accepted fully by the early church as revealed truth, yet without the label of Trinity - that came later only as a word to sum up the already known doctrine.

Thanks, ZenNudist and so glad the thread is helping you think about these things. I'd suggest James Dunn, NT Wright and Richard Baukham for further reading too, although still all quite bulky and loads to take in! Do ask questions too, or start new threads :)

The trinity is a bit tricky - we had a good sermon on it on Trinity Sunday that I will try and post later from work. I personally find it easier just to let the trickier bits wash over me

triads of gods have absolutely existed in many if not most cultures since ancient times.
The concept was explicitly introduced to Christianity a few hundred years after Christ, alongside quite a few other practices adopted from pagan traditions, perhaps to try make the Christian doctrine more approachable to the masses.
Unfortunately it has created a lot of confusion on who the almighty god, creator is, and the role of Jesus Christ as the messiah, and the role of the Holy Spirit.
I think the analogy Jesus used of father and son is the simplest way to understand it. On no account can this be misunderstood as the same equal being... indeed Jesus did not claim to be equal, rather he was very sensitive to ensure that all praise and glory went to another being, his father, whom he prayed to and sought strength from.
Putting scripture into the trinity model completely loses this distinction.

Funky, with complete unity, I think separateness, division and hierarchy becomes less relevant. If more than one being merged in complete unity where (functionally) is the division?

It is akin to our own bodies hosting more bacterial cells than bodily cells. If all our cells work in unison we are one, a community. It is only where there is division, in purpose, that the separateness becomes an issue.

Jesus is totally at one with God.

The doctrine of the Trinity evolved over centuries after Christ. The shift starts within the New Testament, but there's really only one verse in the epistles which directly supports this doctrine - it's a 4th century addition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

OP, there's a reason you can't get your head around this and it's not your head that's the problem.

triads of gods have absolutely existed in many if not most cultures since ancient times.
The concept was explicitly introduced to Christianity a few hundred years after Christ, alongside quite a few other practices adopted from pagan traditions, perhaps to try make the Christian doctrine more approachable to the masses.

Links to 'triads of gods' are spurious at best. As I said, there was no system which espoused the idea of one God in essence but three persons, and most evidence we have for these pagan religions is only to be found post C1 anyway. The trinity wasn't based off pagan mystery religions, much as the other central tenets of Christianity weren't. For one thing, those systems would have been utter anathema to the first Jewish converts, who were sickened at the pagan practices of child sacrifice, ritual rape etc so would have gone nowhere near them for forming their own doctrine.

Instead, while the formalised doctrine of the trinity was only made official in C4, the actual teaching of God as three persons was implicit (and explicit) right from the start, in the gospels then through the NT and extra-biblical documents. In 2 Corinthian 13 for eg Paul signs off in this manner: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Paul continues this trinitarian message throughout his writings, making it very clear that the three were worshipped and were different persons yet a united Godhead.

In the Didache, the very early first 'catechism' or teaching of the church, believers are instructed to baptise in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit. These are not venerated as creatures but as divine, in one essence.

Loads more early Christian writers made it plain they worshipped God as three in one: eg Polycarp, an early Christian martyr: said, 'I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages.' the persons of the trinity were all worshipped as God.

It certainly wasn't a doctrine forced on the church suddenly centuries after Jesus. It was a well used and understood part of the earliest doctrine, recited in the earliest creeds, then eventually formalised as an official doctrine when dodgy teaching tried to sway believers from it. The evidence is powerfully for it being a progressive understanding, embraced from the start, rather than a sudden decision. Much like the canon of scripture, church leaders made decisions based on the wideness of use and the antiquity of doctrine, ensuring consistency with scripture and early writings.

Truth is simple and is not terribly mysterious or difficult to grasp.

John 17:3 puts it beautifully, there is one true God, and he sent forth Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself shunned direct worship and said it should only be directed to God, who he said was his Father.

Add layers of time and church father writings I can see how this all gets complicated but if you just stick to the original verses and the analogies provided in the scripture, it is nice and simple.

The Catholic church came up with the idea of a trinity 300 years after Jesus. It was an attempt to square the circle that was Arianism, which was the belief that 'Jesus was begotten by God the Father at a some point in time'.

Of course, everyone is free to believe, not believe. That's true freedom. As God tells all human beings in the Qur'an: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.

Muslims are very keen to point this out. The seem less keen to point out that once you have embraced Islam, there very much is a compulsion to stick with it. No changing your mind. The penalty for changing your mind, and deciding that there is no god, or that there is a god but the path to him/her is thru a different religion, is death!

Jesus himself shunned direct worship and said it should only be directed to God, who he said was his Father.

Jesus displayed humility, as fully human as well as divine, but he certainly did not shun all worship - there are countless examples through the gospels of him being worshipped and accepting or even encouraging it - for example, the triumphal entry when he is praised with palm branches - the authorities tell him to calm it down as it's inappropriate, but he says no, if they do not praise the rocks will cry out. When Thomas says 'my Lord and my God' he is acclaimed. Jesus implicitly claims divinity over and over again by forgiving sins, by performing miracles, by claiming he is one with the Father, by using the messianic and divine term son of man. And he earliest Christians worshipped him as God.

If you referring to he passage in Mark where Jesus says 'why do you call me good? There is no one good but God.' - note that he doesn't reject being called good - on he contrary, he draws their attention to the fact that they are calling him good, so what are they really calling him? He's drawing them to the logical conclusion of realising that he does in fact claim to be divine.

The early Philippians 2 creed says that 'at the name of Jesus, every knee will how in heaven, on earth and under the earth.' another early creed refers to him as 'the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (literally 'proceeder') of all creation. By him all things were made...' etc. There is no doubt Jesus thought of himself as.God and was worshipped as such through his life (right from the start, with the Magi 'bowing down to worship him') and in the earliest gatherings of believers.

The Catholic church came up with the idea of a trinity 300 years after Jesus. It was an attempt to square the circle that was Arianism, which was the belief that 'Jesus was begotten by God the Father at a some point in time'

The formalising of the trinity as doctrine was at that point indeed a response to the Arian heresy. But they didn't 'come up with the idea' from nothing in order to address this, they simply legalised in doctrine what was already widely believed and practiced, and had been from the start, and there is overwhelming evidence for this not only in the NT texts but right through early Christian writings - Polycarp, Tertullian, Ignatius, the Didache and much more throughout those 300 years. In fact, Tertullian had used the word in the 2nd century, so even the word wasn't a new.thing at the point of formalisation.

Madhairday thank you, your posts are well explained. Often a dogma had to be declared because of a heresy, as you say, the Trinity wasn’t suddenly developed. It was because Arianism rejected traditional belief that it was reiterated. Just as in the 1600 century when the new Protestant churches decided to remove certain books from the Bible that had been accepted since the beginning of the church. The Canon was reiterated by the Catholic Church, they did not suddenly add seven books. It was the opposite, certain books were being removed which was causing controversy. It had to be explained at greater depth because some Christians were rejecting what had been traditional up to the that point.

It is also true that faith is simple, to love God with our whole minds, hearts and being and to love our neighbors as ourselves. However, we always seem to struggle with this! For me, acknowledging that of course God is a mystery is helpful because it is impossible for us to comprehend. Where did all this “stuff” (the universe) come from, and more importantly, why? Science is completely compatible with faith for Catholics as they are both explorations of truth but asking different questions.

Jesus shows us in our human experience who God is. Personal, relational, concerned about everything and wanting our peace, healing and wholeness (holiness). While also caring deeply for our suffering. But also that a life lived close to God is going to be counter-cultural and come into conflict with culture.

It was because Jesus claimed he was God that the Jewish authorities found him to be blasphemous and offensive. If he was just a nice guy telling us to pray more, then he was not unlike many other Rabbis with followers. What was it that was causing huge crowds to come looking for him? He had many male and female followers that followed him wherever he went. What was so threatening that many people wanted him dead if what he was saying was cosy and unchallenging?

Brilliant posts, MadHairDay.

I was pondering this after Trinity Sunday, thinking about this idea of God as 'Unity in Community' and how it's really key to understanding the idea that 'God is love'.

It doesn't say 'God is loving', which is what God would be if He simply created Jesus and loved Him.

It says 'God is love'. Christian love is something that is all about community, it's not something you can do on your own, so it makes complete sense to me that God, though one God, has internal nature that is, in a way we don't really understand, a 'community'.

Is there anywhere in either the old or the NT mentions anything about trinity? In the Qur'an, God mentioned the following verse:

"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All­ Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." Qur'an, (4:171) - English Translation

Whether to believe in God not is a very personal choice, no one can force you or compel you in any way because true belief comes from the heart and just the lips.

Someone may force you to say something you don't believe for fear of persecution or other harm but, they certainly can't turn you away from what you truly believe.

Hence, the often repeated notion that can force you become a Muslim just doesn't make any sense. A Muslim by very definition means someone who worships God willingly, by choice.

In another verse:

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted. 49:13

I really think unity is a key idea. A whole can have multiple facets / parts which are functionally different from each other but part of the same whole and working in unison.

Just as I can affect the environment in different ways by my sound, my touch, my smell, my heat, these things all reflect the one me, even though people would experience them differently, God is manifest in Jesus, in the Holy Spirit and God the Father.

Just ... wow. I was pondering on this very subject and praying about it and up pops this very eloquent thread! Thank you.

While the layers of theological writings from Roman times onwards are very interesting, they are not the same as the inspired scriptures and they shouldn’t be seen to over ride the simple messages recorded in the Bible from Jesus.

There is no denying from Scripture that Jesus as a being, his works and his purpose, were all of divine origin.

However there is no claim from scripture that Jesus is equal with the almighty God or part of the same being. Jesus consistently explained the distinction between him and his Father who sent him. The term god was used far more liberally at that time and still Jesus paints a really clear picture with words, true to his name as the Great Teacher.

No moving or poetic descriptions should overshadow or dilute Jesus own presentation of who he was in relation to his Father.

For example in John 14 there is a passage where Jesus explains the way in which he is united with his Father in purpose and the role of the Holy Spirit, concluding with the explanation that his father is a separate being, somewhere else and greater, not equal. ‘You heard me say to you ‘I am going, and coming to you.’ If you loved me you would be glad because I am going to my Father, because my Father is greater than I am.’

When Jesus was welcomed by the crowds with palm branches, a traditional way to welcome a king, the verses make it clear this was not a form of deity worship. The passage says he came in the almighty’s name (not actually the same being), and that he was a prophet, nowhere is he identified as the almighty god himself. The children call him the saviour, (in fact this welcome was prophesied for the promised messiah), and the Jewish leaders object to this, and it is on this identification that Jesus puts them right. Even the children have understood who he is correctly.

The Pharisees accuse him of making himself equal to God (I was thinking John 10) but his response is to explain he is in union with his Father and that he is carrying out all these works with his Fathers power. A very simple human explanation of authority and respect not one of a trinity.

You refer to the Mark 10 passage where Jesus starts ‘nobody is good except one, God’; going on yet again To distinguish himself from God as a being, humbly showing that the standards of setting commandments on good and bad belong to God and not to Jesus.

Let Jesus’ own words speak for themselves.