Im so confused about the trinity, a little help???

mazza

Hi Guys,

I have a question, you might have heard it before but I honestly need a correct answer.

When Jesus was on the cross, he said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?". Jesus and God are one, so why did he call on God. Isn't that just like calling on himself?

The same when he said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." Also, in the gospel of the second coming, Jesus says, "No one knows when the second coimg is...nor the angels in heaven, nor the Son of Man, only the Father...", again, Jesus and God are one, so shouldn't they both know?

Don't get me wrong, I believe that the father, the son and the Holy Spirit are one. Like the sun gives heat, rays and light, but is one, I just want to know the answer to those questions.

Sorry if im confusing anyone else.

I would love to hear your replies,
Mazza
God Bless

WMA

Hi mazza, I read a book not too long ago called "The Seven Words of Our Lord on the Cross" by H. H. Pope Shenouda III, and it discusses why Jesus said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me". I'll quote the most relevant parts:

This statement does not mean a separation of the divine
nature of Jesus Christ from His human nature, nor does it
mean that the Father has forsaken the Son. It means rather
that the Father has allowed Him to be tormented.....

An example that may make the meaning easy to grasp:
Suppose a parent accompanied his child to the hospital for
an operation, let us say for the removal of an abscess; that the
parent was holding the child's hand while the surgeon went on
with his incision. The child would then start to cry and plead
with his father not to let that happen to him saying to him,
"Why did you forsake me? "
44
In fact, the father did not desert his child, he only allowed
him to suffer since the operation was for his own good and he
had only total care and love for his child.....

A great number of theologians do believe that the Lord
when saying, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken
Me" was reminding the Jews of the Twenty-second Psalm
which starts with the same verse.
They were referred to as those who, Do not knowing the
Scriptures (Matt. 22:29) while those Scriptures testified of
Him (John 5:39). So the Lord Christ chose to remind them
of this particular Psalm. Actually the system of numbering
the Psalms was not known to the Jews. They used to
identify each Psalm by its opening verse, as it is the custom
among the Egyptian monks nowadays...
What does this Psalm tell us about Jesus Christ?
"They have pierced My hands and My feet, I can count all My
bones; they look and stare at Me; they divide My garments
45
among them, And for My clothing they cast lots. "
(Ps 22:16-18).
It is all evident that David the Prophet, who composed this
Psalm, had nobody pierce his hands or feet. Nobody parted his
garments or cast lots upon his vesture. This verse was actually
an inspired prophecy about Jesus Christ - as if Christ on the
Cross was telling the Jews: "Go ahead and read the Psalm,
starting with: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
and see what has been told about Me. You will see also that the
following has been said about Me:

This is only a small portion of what is written in the book, and if you want to read the rest ou can find it here: http://tasbeha.org/content/hh_books/svnwrds/index.html

Regarding the Son not knowing when the second coming is, I heard an answer before from a protestant Christian, but I am unsure as to wether the Coptic Church takes the same view, so I will leav that for some better equipped to answer.

WMA

Ok, did a quick search, and found an old thread discussing the issue of the Son not knowing the hour. It can be found here: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=819

Here are a few replies from there which you may find helpful:

Very good question, here is the answer I got from a Bishop... well Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, so if he responds with I dont know when is the end of time, he is does not lie, because no human knows it... and really he did not want to say. here is an example if someone went to the grave where jesus laid, and knocked and asked "jesus are you dead" and if Jesus replies with yes, Jesus wouldve not been lying, but saying the truth, because jesus the human died, but jesus the God lived, the never seperate, but sometimes jesus didnt wanna say something, but he never lies

and also

I think when referring to the "Son" it means the humanity of Jesus not His divine nature, because by His divine nature He knows everything.....
I think it just meant that we shouldnt be concerned when the end of the world really is...because no one knows when they will die...

I also found a mention of this verse in the article on "The School of Alexandria and Philosophical Attitudes"

IV. St. Athanasius writes a book on the "incarnation of the Word." His purpose is to confirm Christ's divinity without ignoring His humanity. He says:

If then He wept and was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh, and if too He besought that the cut might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper to the manhood.

He knows (the day and hour), but as showing His manhood, in that to be ignorant (Mark 13:32) is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was ignorant, being in which He said according to the flesh: "I know not."

The full article can be found here: http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/patrology/schoolofalex/I-Intro/chapter5.html

I hope my answers have helped at least a little bit.

Unknown

WMA,

Here are a few replies from there which you may find helpful:

Quote:
Very good question, here is the answer I got from a Bishop... well Jesus is 100% human and 100% God, so if he responds with I dont know when is the end of time, he is does not lie, because no human knows it... and really he did not want to say. here is an example if someone went to the grave where jesus laid, and knocked and asked "jesus are you dead" and if Jesus replies with yes, Jesus wouldve not been lying, but saying the truth, because jesus the human died, but jesus the God lived, the never seperate, but sometimes jesus didnt wanna say something, but he never lies

and also

Quote:
I think when referring to the "Son" it means the humanity of Jesus not His divine nature, because by His divine nature He knows everything.....
I think it just meant that we shouldnt be concerned when the end of the world really is...because no one knows when they will die...

I should emphasise with all due respect to the posters that you quoted, that they have innocently used terrible language in their genuine attempt to convey the point that Christ was ignorant according to His humanity.

The Oriental Orthodox Church, of which the Coptic Orthodox Church is part of, is the only Church in history that maintained the pristine purity of Ephesian Christology i.e. the Alexandrian Christology propounded by the great St Cyril of Alexandria at the Third Ecumenical Council - Ephesus 431. As such her understanding on Christological issues concerning the relationship between Christ's divinity and humanity and His personhood, has been the most enlightened since her struggle to maintain that Ephesian Faith from those who sought to compromise it. Unfortuantely, some laity (the posters in question are examples of such laity), have not been well-educated in such significant matters of the Church's dogmatic theology and history, such that they use careless (and hence incorrect) language which the martyrs of the Church shed their blood against.

One must never speak of Christ's humanity or divinity as separate natures, as if they possess their own independent subsistence or actualisation. We do not speak about "Jesus the God" and "Jesus the man", we speak exclusively of "Jesus the God-man".

If we wish to emphasise Jesus acting with respect to the capacity of either His divinity or humanity, for example of Jesus being ignorant of certain information, we do not assert: "Christ's humanity was ignorant", or "Christ the human was ignorant", or even "The human Christ was ignorant"; these are all expressions which at their face value convey heretical Christologies. the correct expressions to use include: "Christ was ignorant in His humanity" or "Christ was ignorant according to His humanity" or "Christ was ignorant by virtue of His humanity".

What are the relevant differences between the former and latter lists of expressions concerning the ignorance of Christ?

1) In the latter expressions, the subject of ignorance, is always Christ, whereas in the former expressions, the subject of ignorance is always the human nature of Christ. It is a fundamental principle of basic metaphysics that the PERSON is always the subject of all activity and experience. Our everyday speech conforms to this principles does it not? For example, do you not say: "Iqbal is writing this post"? Or do you say "Iqbal's hand is writing this post"? Obviously you attribute the subject of writing to my PERSON (i.e. Iqbal); my hand is merely the means by which I write.

The same principle applies to when speaking of Christ. If we attribute the subject of His activities and experiences to a particular nature, we in effect personify that nature, we imply that it has the capacity to act in and of itself, which means it must possess subsistence and personhood in and of itself. This is clearly heretical.

Furthermore, note that we identify PERSONS by NAME. My person is identified by my name i.e. Iqbal. Christ's person is identified by His name i.e. Christ, God The Word, The Son of God etc. So it is befitting that when ascribing experiences and activities to the person of Jesus that we refer to His NAMES and not His natures. For the sake of being explicitly clear, the most appropriate name to designate the person of Christ is "God the Word" - since many in the past have abused names such as "Christ" and "Jesus" using them to refer to the "external historical person" rather than the metaphysical subject that co-existed with the Father and Holy Spirit since time eternity and descended into the womb of the Virgin.

2) The latter list of expressions, in contrast to the former list, indicate the appropriate relationship between Christ and the humanity of Christ i.e. it is HIS humanity. This is a fundamental corollary of the Incarnation. When God The Word took human flesh, He hypostatised that humanity i.e. it became HIS VERY OWN. The former expressions lack thsi relevant indication, and treat the humanity of Christ as an independent subject, when in fact it is a subject only to be understood according to its hypostatisation by and hence possession by the Person of Christ.

NOTE: The Person of Christ, is in fact God The Word - the Second PERSON of the Holy Trinity.

mazza

thank you both for your replies, however, I do see Iqbal's point on the 'ignorance' issue, that was a little unorthodox.

I have a better understanding now :)