I have been reading your comments and explanations with great interest. Actually, the questioin of the Trinity has been occupying my mind for several years. First of all I would like to ask Theokrat and Peter the following question: Is the question about Jesus being God or not a question of salvation like it used to be in the historical church; or are you open to accept each others as part of the same mystical body of Christ? Secondly I would like to challenge both your view, Theokrat and yours, Peter. In your discussions you seem to try to show if Jesus is God himself or ‘purely’ (even though as you well noted this should not imply ‘only’) a man. One of these two.

What I want to suggest,though, is not to ask questions that didn’t seem to be asked in hebrew and 1 st century times. In the OT, and correct me if I am wrong, there was never a discussion going on or a statement being made if the messiah, or the Christ, or the ‘son of man’ in Daniel would be of the same essence than God or not. Apparently it was enough that he would be the ‘Christ’. Consequently in the NT in my opinion there was never the ‘ontological’ question raised. Obviousely the greek mind in the 3 rd and 4 th century felt the need to raise and answer this question - which brought about persecution and killing of Christ believing people.

But obviousely in the NT this question was not brought up. Why is it not enough for us to say that Jesus is the son of God; that he is the Christ, that he is the saviour?… Why do we so badly have to decide which exact nature he is of?

Another observation I want to make. If you read the Bible and while you do that try not to be too much concerned with philisophical constructs like the Trinity etc; it comes so naturally to understand most references (of course there are some few exceptions) of God as referring to the Father. As an example take most of Paul’s introductions to his letters. Just as one example out of many: Paul an apostle sent not from men nor by man - but by Jesus Christ and God the Father…. (Galatians 1.1); ‘Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God’ (Ephesians 1,1)…. Here and in so many other verses it would just be artificial (i am not suggesting it is impossible) to assume the doctrine of the Trinity. Always and always again there is Jesus and there is also God (meaning the Father)and in Ephesians 1,1 with ‘by the will of God’ no one really should think of Jesus being ment here. Another observation I have made is that today many Christians take the doctrine of the Trinity (and not the stories of the Bible!) as a foundation of their expressions of faith. In theological seminary, for example, one teacher said: since we believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, why should we not pray to the spirit? Let’s pray to him… I am not saying God has a problem when we pray to the Spirit; but what I am suggesting is that a greek model of ‘how God works’ should not be the center of our faith.

Going back to the nature of Christ. I suggest to call his nature ’ son of God’ or ‘Christ’. Why, on earth, (or in heaven) should there only be two natures plus angels available? In my understanding both of your views; Theokrat and Peter; are disproved with Hebrews chapter 1 through 3. I mean if Jesus was God himself - why spending 3 chapters discussions about why is Jesus greater than Moses and Angels etc. I mean if Jesus is God himself it would be enouugh to say Jeus is God fullstop. Everybody knows that God is greater than the angels - you don’t have to explain that one. In the same time, if Jesus was merely man - it is enough to say that, too. But since Jesus is Christ and the son of God - the writer of Hebrews is actually taking its time to properly place Jesus in the heavenly realm. This is very much noteworthy.

The most interesting verse in those texts I find: Hebrews Chapter 1, 9: …therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy’. This is one example that Jesus is of its own kind. Saying Jesus was the Almighty God just doesn’t work here (and elsewhere). How can the Almighty God have a God above?

At the same time, Theokrat, it should become clear through Hebrews that Jesus is of a different kind than ‘purely’ man. Also Ephesians 1,1 as quoted above should confirm that.

Something else I want to comment on, Theokrat. In one of your posts you have stated that you do not know of any verses in the NT where humans prayed to Jesus. Well here are some:

‘While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’. (Acts 7,59)

‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Romans 10.13) that Jesus is ment here should become clear in verse 14 and 15. And last but not least; the second - to - last verse in the Bible: ‘come, Lord Jesus’.

To the question raised whether a mere human being can bring about salvation, or whether it should be God himself. You suggest, Theokrat, that God himslef is not needed for this job. And you, Peter, doubt that the job can be done just by some human that happens to not sin. what about a savior that belongs to neither of those categories fully or exclusively; but belongs to the kind: ‘the son of God’?

looking forward to your reply!