Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief.

Hello everyone. I could say “Welcome back to Deeper Waters,” but in reality you’re the ones who are welcoming me back. I hope everyone had as good a weekend as I did. Now I know that we’ve been going through the Summa Theologica, but readers also know that whenever I see a movie, I always like to blog about it. Well this weekend I saw “Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief.” Be prepared everyone. There are spoilers in this so if you want to see the movie, don’t go forward. Wait until you come back.

When I was younger, my sister gave me a book she had of Greek mythology. I loved that book. I wish I’d really had the mindset of examining ideas back then. I didn’t, but I was able to absorb many of the stories and learned them well. A personal favorite of mine was reading about the labors of Hercules. On the other light note, I did love Kid Icarus on the Nintendo. Is it any wonder I love Pit on Smash Brothers Brawl? Greek mythology has just been an interest of mine.

Naturally then, a film like this had my attention.

Apparently in 2,000 years, much hadn’t changed. The Greek gods were still going around cavorting with humans and having children. Now however, Poseidon and Zeus are getting into it. Zeus has had his lightning bolt stolen from him, the most powerful weapon ever, and he thinks one of Poseidon’s kids did it, particularly Percy Jackson, who has no idea he’s a demigod. Zeus gives Poseidon a two-week deadline to recover the bolt or there will be war. Sadly, the movie never addresses the philosophical problems with calling Zeus omnipotent and him needing at the same time something external to himself like a bolt and being unable to find the bolt on his own.

Which was the problem in many ways with the Greek gods. They couldn’t really be seen as gods unless by god you meant a superhuman. In the biblical worldview, man is created in the image of God, but in the Greek system, it seems the gods are created in the image of men. Ravi Zacharias has said it wasn’t that the Greek gods abandoned the Greeks because the Greeks were depraved. Quite the reverse. They abandoned the gods because the gods were depraved. The tales of the gods of Olympus could make a modern day soap opera pale in comparison.

Percy Jackson lives with his Mom and a step-father figure who he can’t stand. He also has his best friend Grover. One day however, he is at a Greek museum and has a teacher take him to a room alone only to have her ask “Where’s the bolt?” and she turns into a fury and attacks him. In comes another teacher in a wheelchair, Mr. Brunner, who tells the fury to let him go or he’ll tear her to shreds, along with Grover, who happens to be on crutches.

Mr. Brunner tells Grover to get Percy’s mother and get them on the run. When they’re all together and on the run, they get attacked by a minotaur. Percy’s Mom is in the minotaur’s hand and vanishes. Percy manages to defeat the minotaur however before entering camp half blood where children of demigods go. He learns that Grover, is actually a satyr who has been assigned to be his protector, and that Mr. Brunner is actually the centaur Chiron. While there, he also forms a relationship with the daughter of Athena named Annabeth and a son of Hermes named Luke.

The camp gets visited by Hades demanding to see Percy Jackson. Hades says he has Percy’s mother and wants the lightning bolt. Percy decides then he’s going to go to the underworld, find his mother and explain the situation to Hades, and then take his mother back. Annabeth and Grover join him and Luke gives them some equipment to help.

Before doing that, they have to get three pearls so each of them can escape the underworld. The journey involves them encountering figures from Greek mythology to fight like the medusa and the hydra. Very interesting is how the entrance to the underworld is located in Hollywood, which I found quite appropriate. When we finally see Olympus, the gods squabble just like everyone else. Hardly the idea of deity.

However, for action and adventure, this is a great film and if you’re  a fan of Greek mythology, you’ll love it. Christians can use this to see how different theistic concepts work and explain the problems of a polytheistic concept. For instance, how could Zeus be omnipotent if he does not have all power over what goes on in the world? Can you have all power and at the same time not be sovereign? (For Calvinists and Arminians, again, work out the details of what that means on your own.) Also, what does it mean for creatures to shift forms. Can a man really be part horse? What does that say about the nature of both?

My final conclusion is I don’t agree with the worldview, but this movie did have action and adventure that kept me hooked the whole time. It is one I definitely plan to get when it comes out on DVD.

The Third Way

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. This is where we dive into the ocean of truth.

I apologize for last night. I was out later than I thought I would be on some apologetics business and by the time I got home, there was no time to do a blog. Also, there won’t be another blog after tonight until Monday night. I am going to be out of town all this weekend. I do invite you to go through past blogs however and enjoy those.

I ask for your prayers of course. First off, in my growing Christlikeness as I see more deficiencies that I want to work on and definitely have those listed as a priority. Second, I ask for prayers in my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers in a third related area of my life.

We’ve been going through the doctrine of God and using the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas as our guide. Right now, we are on the existence of God and the ways that Thomas Aquinas is using philosophy to demonstrate the existence of God. All who want to read the Summa can do so at newadvent.org.

For this, we will need to define two terms. Something is contingent basically if it could have been otherwise. I am sitting as I do this blog. That is contingent. I could have been standing or I could have been lying on a bed using a laptop. However, that I would be I is a necessary truth based on the Law of Identity. Necessary things are things that could not be otherwise than they are.

Aquinas states that there are things in the universe that are contingent, that is, they could have been otherwise. One could deny this by saying that the universe is a brute fact, but then that would mean that all things in the universe bear the relation they do so beautifully to all other things by brute fact. It is a brute fact that all protons just happen to have something in common. I find this takes much blind faith.

The other way is to argue from the universe itself being necessary, but that would mean that everything in it would be as well. It could not be otherwise than it is, which would also mean that your believing what you believe could not have been other than it is right now. It was a necessary truth that you’d be nodding your head in agreement to what I say or it was a necessary truth you’d be screaming at your computer that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

The other option then is that everything in the universe is contingent. That is, it was possible for everything in the universe to not be. If that is the case, then it was possible for there to be nothing. Aquinas has already said we must avoid the problem of an infinite regress and it comes back again at this point. If something is contingent, it begins to exist because of something outside of itself. If it is necessary, then it either has it received from another or from its own nature. After all, Aquinas had no problem with an eternal universe.

To avoid an infinite regress then, Aquinas says that there must be a being whose existence has the reason lying within itself. The universe, though possibly eternal, does not have the reason for its existence in itself but would rather have it in God. Aquinas then concludes that the ground for existence in this case is once again, the being everyone knows as God.

Monday, we shall see the fourth way.

The Second Way

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we’re diving into the Ocean of Truth. We’re going through the doctrine of God right now and discussing the Second Way of Thomas Aquinas in showing the existence of God. Those wanting to read the relevant portions of the Summa are invited to go to NewAdvent.org. Before that however, I wish to give prayer requests. The first is for my continued Christlikeness as I grow to be the man I need to be. The second is for my finances. The third is in a final related area of my life to both of these. For now, let’s look at the Second Way.

To begin with, we need to define some terms. Aristotle had spoken of four kinds of causes for something.

The first kind is the material cause. That is the matter that something is made of, such as a chair that is made of wood.

The second is the formal cause which is the form something possesses, to which a desk possesses the form of a desk.

The third is the efficient cause. That is the cause that makes the thing the thing that it is. A sculptor makes the block of stone into a statue.

The fourth is a final cause. That is why the thing is the way it is. My TV is made to broadcast visual images to me.

In the medieval period, two more causes were added.

The instrumental cause is the how a thing comes to be. This blog comes to be in part because of my typing.

The exemplar cause is that after which something comes to be. A building is based on the blueprints the architect lays out.

Aquinas’s second argument is about efficient causes and gets into what is the existence/essence distinction. What is the cause of things coming to be? This will be extremely important when we get to the doctrine of God’s simplicity.

For Aquinas, all composed things have a cause of their being. Now when we hear of composed, we can think of something like say, the DNA molecule, and think “Why yes. I can see why something like DNA would need to have a cause.” While Aquinas would not dispute that, it is also not entirely what he means. We can too often read back into the medievals modern concepts, which we will see often takes place when we get to the fifth way of Aquinas.

For each thing that we see, it has a nature, such as the nature of a desk, but it also has existence. Think in your mind of an idea of something you see around you. Now look at the object that you see as it is. What differentiates the two? It’s quite simple. The object in your mind exists only in your mind. The object in the real world exists in actuality. It possesses extramental being.

Thus, you have in your mind the form of whatever it is. However, the object in the real world possesses the form as well as possessing the being that goes along with that object. This can happen to the simplest particle. It possesses the matter that makes it what it is and it possesses its essence.

How about other beings that aren’t material? By this, we mean angels of course. Angels do possess a nature and we can later talk about that nature, but for now, we’ll assume just a basic angelic nature. What do they possess in addition to that nature? Being.

God is the only one that’s different. He has the basis for his being in himself. He is not for Aquinas being plus a nature. His being is his nature. God does not receive being from anything external to him nor is he being plus something for that would make him composed in some way and he’d need a composer.

This is also why an eternal universe was not a problem for Aquinas. He could have the universe going on for all eternity and still have God as the ground for the existence of the universe. The universe’s eternal existence would not be an aspect of its nature internal to itself but rather something it received from God.

In other words, without God, there is no basis for existence.

Now some of you might be wondering how that concept of God is defended. If you are, put it on hold. Aquinas will answer it later.

Tomorrow, we shall look at the third way.

The First Way

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. I’d like to thank first off Joel for his appreciation of last night’s post. That doesn’t happen often, but sometimes someone does raise a profound point that I want addressed. I hope it was to your satisfaction. I’d also like to thank Paul who left a comment and seemed to certainly be satisfied by it. I do recall when I first began doing apologetics that I thought people would convert in droves once they saw the evidence.

That delusion doesn’t last long.

We’re talking about the doctrine of God and tonight, we’re going to start looking at God’s existence based on the Summa Theologica of Aquinas which can be read at newadvent.org. We’re going to begin going through his five ways. However, I ask for your prayers before we go on. First, I ask that you pray for me in my Christlikeness. Bluntly, I have a problem with perfectionism and I seek to get past it. Second, for my financial situation. Third, I ask for prayers for a third related area in my life. Let’s get to the argument now.

Let’s define some terms first off. To begin with is actuality which simple means that which is. It is referring to a capacity already realized. Next is potential, which is the ability to change. There is passive potential which is based on receiving change from another and active potential which is about an agent performing an action that does not necessarily affect that thing’s essential nature.

As for motion in this argument, we could be tempted to think of motion in purely material terms. We might think of Newton’s laws of motion for instance. That is not what Aquinas has in mind, although it doesn’t rule out such motion. It would be included. Aquinas has in mind simply change of any sort.

Now Aquinas has stated that something cannot be in potential and be actual at the same time in the same sense. It can be actually one thing and potentially another but it can’t be actually one thing and potentially the same thing. Something that is actually hot cannot be potentially hot. It can have the potential to be hotter, but that is a difference of degree and not of kind.

However, the moving from potentiality to actuality always comes from something else in some way. It is the fire that makes the stick hot. The stick does not make itself to be hot. This is because once again it cannot be actual and potential in the same sense at the same time.

Aquinas says that this cannot go on indefinitely as there cannot be an infinite regress of movers. Actuality has to come from somewhere. Thus, Aquinas says that at the end, there is an unmoved mover who is responsible for the existence of change yet he himself is unchanged (A point he will expound on later) and this everyone knows to be God.

When we get to the immutability of God we will expound this more, but the problem of change was a great problem from the ancient to the medieval period and Aquinas’s answer here is addressing that. How do you explain the existence of change and continuity? We’ll get some background on that when we get to immutability.

For now, this is Aquinas’s first demonstration to show the existence of the unmoved mover who is pure actuality.

Tomorrow, we shall look at the second way.

Why Theistic Proofs?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. We are diving into the ocean of truth and now, it’s the doctrine of God. Well you can’t go deeper than that can you? Charles Spurgeon once said the Godhead is the highest thought we can ponder. It’s a shame we don’t spend enough time doing that. Before we get to tonight’s blog, I’d like to present my prayer requests. First off, I ask for prayers for my developing Christlikeness. I am seeing much I need to work on still. Second, I ask for prayers for my finances. Finally, I ask for prayers in a third related area of my life.

I had intended to start going through the five ways of Aquinas today, but I did get a comment that I believe needed to be addressed before going to the theistic proofs, as I do believe that it was one that raised up a point of discussion that should be kept in mind.

I thank Joel for pointing out what was said that proofs for God’s existence does not matter much when the heart and mind are not in alignment. Now I hadn’t heard that quote, but it’s also a belief that I’m not only familiar with, but in fact agree.

What is the purpose of theistic proofs? Are we wasting our time when we do Christian apologetics? There are a number of skeptics who ask to have God’s existence demonstrated. Well why are they still out there if people think God’s existence can be proven?

I’m thinking ironically now of Richard Dawkins who is just astounded that some people don’t believe in evolution. Why? Because I do believe this goes both ways. There are reasons people don’t believe a number of different matters of fact. In the case of Dawkins and evolution for instance, I don’t believe because I don’t find his arguments convincing.

However, we all know other reasons why someone might not believe something. A husband might see evidence his wife is having an affair, but doesn’t want to believe it because he doesn’t want to face that awful truth. I have friends who smoke and I would say on some level don’t really believe it’s so harmful for them so they can keep doing it.

A large reason however lies in the area of emotions and I believe this is where atheism largely comes in. Most appropriate to demonstrate this is the problem of evil can be a convincing argument for several when it comes through emotional appeal. Consider some of the statements you can hear from Christopher Hitchens for instance arguing about tragedies and other such events and why would a good God allow them to happen?

I can understand why someone would find that convincing, but it is an emotional argument. One doesn’t often step back to ask “What is this good that we speak of? What is this evil? Is there any meaning behind anything?Where did I get this idea of deserving? Where did I get the idea the universe ought to be a certain way? Are there any other reasons to believe in God apart from this?” While the problem seems to have one facet at times, being that we don’t like something, it is actually multi-faceted.

Thus, when presenting theistic proofs, I don’t want Christians going out there thinking they have silver bullets where as soon as they present these to an atheist, the atheist will be heading for the nearest church to accept Christ as savior. The Bible also tells us that man is fallen and has great capacities for self-deception. The chief thing that keeps us from God, Christian and non-Christian, is sin.

There is also another benefit. You as a Christian yourself can have greater confidence in your faith. I’d like you to picture walking down a dark alley at night and you have no weapon on you. You have no idea who’s out there? Is it scary? Yep.

Now another scenario. You’re walking down there and you have a weapon such as a .357 magnum and not only that, you’re a sharpshooter who’s quick on the draw. It’s scary still maybe, but it’s not as scary because you can handle what comes your way.

Apologetics does that for us. It gives us confidence and can open our minds to new ways of thinking, especially about God. Even if you don’t agree with the proofs that can be given, and there are arguments for God’s existence I don’t agree with, if they start you thinking, then that is a benefit in itself.

Thus, with that caveat in mind, may we tomorrow begin looking at the five ways.

Can God’s Existence Be Demonstrated?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters. We are currently studying the doctrine of God and using the Summa Theologica as our basis, which can be read for free at newadvent.org. Tonight we’re going to discuss if the existence of God can be demonstrated. Before that, I do offer my prayer requests. First, I ask that you pray for my Christlikeness. A conversation with a friend tonight helped me bring out a lot of reasons I struggle in my life and I know now more of where I need to work. The second is for my financial situation. Some tough times are coming. Finally, I ask for prayer for a third situation in my life.

Can God’s existence be demonstrated? A number of times, atheists will ask me to demonstrate God’s existence. Well there are a number of ways this can’t be done. It can’t be done by saying “And now God will appear right before your eyes!”

It also can’t be done scientifically. Now I believe science can help us get data that can draw inferences, such as the design argument or the anthropic principle. However, the inferences we draw from those facts are those that lead us into philosophy instead.

Aquinas will say that things can be demonstrated in two ways. The first is through the cause, which is what he calls the route of propter quid. However, the problem he sees with this is that we do not know the cause when we begin our investigation. It is because of this that Aquinas will reject the Anselmian ontological argument. Contrary to what Dawkins says in “The God Delusion,” arguments for God’s existence were taken seriously in the medieval period and they were critiqued by other medieval theologians. Even if they all agreed on the conclusion, they did not think all ways of getting there were valid.

The other way is to argue from the effects to the cause. This is what is done in a number of arguments.

The universe has design.

Things that are designed have a designer.

The universe has a designer.

Or

Objective moral laws exist.

Objective moral laws need an objective moral law giver.

Therefore, an objective moral law giver exists.

This is what all of these arguments do. We look at the effects and we reason to the cause based on the arguments. When we begin the five ways, we’ll find that Aquinas does this. His favorite one is in fact the existence/essence distinction.

Note at this point we’re not even saying that God exists. Of course, Aquinas believes he does, but we are rather saying that his existence can be demonstrated and that demonstration comes about through the way of philosophical proofs.

Also, the role of faith is that one trusts the validity of the arguments. Aquinas believes that God’s existence can be proven, but it is up to the questioner to believe on the proofs that have been given. Because one presents the argument, it does not require the world fall down and repent immediately.

Tomorrow, we begin the five ways.

Is God’s Existence Self-Evident

Hello and welcome back to Deeper Waters. I said that I was going to have us look at the doctrine of God and our guide as we go through that will be the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. In looking at the doctrine of God, the first question he asks is if God’s existence is self-evident (Yes. These questions were being asked before the Enlightenment). Before we get to that however, I wish to present my prayer requests. First off, I do ask that you pray for my Christlikeness. Second, I ask for your prayers for my financial situation. Finally, I ask for your prayers in a third related area in my life.

Now as we go through this, if anyone wants to follow along, newadvent.org has the Summa Theologica in a format anyone can access for free. Simply go to the upper right and click Summa. (And no, I am not Catholic.)

Thomas Aquinas answers “Yes and no.” Mainly he answers no as that if something is self-evident, it cannot be denied, but the Bible does say that the fool says in his heart, that there is no God. Since it can be denied, then he says it is not self-evident.

But he also said it is self-evident didn’t he?

Consider this sentence.

Bachelors are unmarried males.

This is self-evident because if you understand the terms, you know that it’s true. You don’t need an argument for it. In fact, if you told me you weren’t convinced and needed an argument, I don’t know what I could tell you to convince you.

These are called first principles. A classic example is the Law of Non-contradiction. In order to deny this law, you have to affirm it. It is in essence an undeniable law. If this is not true, then there is no basis for saying that anything is. Any attempts to eliminate it actually end up having the person saw off the branch of the tree he’s sitting on.

So what does this have to do with it? Aquinas argues that when a person comes to understand what is meant by the concept of God, then they will understand that the idea of existing is included within God and they will realize that it is self-evident that God exists.

Of course, there is an element of the fall in here as well. Though not mentioned by Aquinas specifically, the sinfulness of man was always on his mind. One reason for much denial today is that we are sinful. It is not that God is hiding. It is that he is not being sought. The idea of the hiddenness of God would not make sense to Aquinas.

Of course, since Aquinas has said that he does not believe the existence of God is self-evident due to our lack of understanding with God, he does not wish to leave us in that position. He wants to make sure we get to the God who is there and he will do that through philosophical argumentation. Can such be done?

Well we’ll find out tomorrow.

The Trinity and the Father

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the Ocean of Truth. We’ve gone through the Bible and seen the doctrine of the Trinity. Now we’re seeing the outworking. I’m thinking tomorrow unless things change I could begin going through the doctrine of God and as my guide, be using the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas so be prepared to dive even deeper. First, I give my prayer requests for you. I ask for prayers for my Christlikeness. I’m noticing how many problems in my life are actually self-fulfilling prophecies. Well it’s all part of God shaping me to be the man that I need to be. I also ask for prayers concerning my financial situation. Finally, I ask for prayers in a third related area of my life. For now, let’s study the Trinity and the Father.

Most of us can see how we need to understand the doctrine of the Son and the doctrine of the Spirit in relation to the Trinity. After all, that’s where our disagreement is with the heretics. Everyone agrees when they approach the Scripture that the Father is God. What can we learn however about the Father by studying the doctrine of the Trinity?

For one thing, we learn that the Father has always been the Father by studying the doctrine of the Trinity. It was not essential to the nature of the Father that he create. Being creator is not a necessary attribute of God, although we could say having the power to create would be a necessary attribute. Because God has an ability it does not mean that he has to act on that ability for it to be there.

Being a creator is an attribute that is describing how God relates to the creation and not how he is in himself. It is not essential to the existence of the Father that he be the creator of the Deeper Waters blogger. Since, however, I exist, he does have some relation to me and one such relation is that of the Deeper Waters blogger.

What about being Father? Is that essential to God? If we have just the Father, then it is not. Now we could say the Son is created, but it is at that point that either God becomes relational or else God was relational and he had a lack within himself that needed to be filled and if he had a lack, I see no reason why we should think of him as God.

Without that love going on, God would have many attributes, but he could not be seen as a loving Father. It is because there has always been a Son that the Father has always been the Father. If we do not have an eternal Son, then we do not have an eternal Father. To deny the Son is in essence then, as John says, to deny the Father.

If we change our doctrine of the Son, it follows that our doctrine of the Father will change. Naturally, if we have a good doctrine of the Father, we will have a good doctrine of the Son. You either accept the Trinity then or you reject God as he is entirely. Your choice.

The Trinity and the Holy Spirit

Hello everyone and welcome back once again to Deeper Waters where we continue to dive into the ocean of truth. We’ve finished up our Trinitarian Commentary so now we’re just looking at some ramifications of the doctrine of the blessed Trinity. First, my prayer requests. I ask for your continued prayers as I continue along on Christlikeness. Things seem to be going better today, but I am becoming also more aware of how fall short I am falling and need to change. Second, I ask for prayers for my financial situation as I believe I came across an extra hurdle today. Finally, I ask for prayers in a third related area in my life. God knows. Let’s talk about the Holy Spirit now.

I am not a Pentecostal, but it has been said that one thing we can learn from the Pentecostal movement is “don’t forget the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit has often been called the silent person in the Trinity. The Father we all know about all throughout the Old Testament. The Son is there, but he makes a major appearance in a unique way in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is all throughout, but not in the most prominent way.

We have times where the Spirit is present such as the Spirit filling the leaders of Israel so they can prophecy. Also, we have the Spirit coming and filling the temple so that the priests cannot enter and do their work. This is referred to as the Shekinah glory. The Spirit’s first mention however comes as early as Genesis 1:2 as an active participant in the creation.

In the New Testament, we have the Spirit being treated as God in that Ananias and Sapphira are guilty of lying to the Spirit which is equated with lying to God. We also have him sending out Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13. Jesus warned the Pharisees about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and Paul told the Jews in Acts 28 that they were resistant to the Holy Spirit. Stephen said the same in Acts 7.

The Holy Spirit then was an understood aspect in Judaism to some extent. This does not mean that they had a full-blown doctrine of the Holy Spirit, but they did understand the concept of such a person as the Holy Spirit even if he didn’t have ontological equality with God. However, it could be easy to say that the Holy Spirit is in a way the manifest presence of God somewhere, though still a person in his own right of course.

Maybe you’re like me and you’re not Pentecostal. That’s okay. You need to learn a lesson from our Pentecostal brothers and sisters as do I. We need a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t mean that you have to start talking about baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues, though you should have some stance on that. Before you talk about what the Spirit does however, you need to know who he is and for that, you need the doctrine of the Trinity. Let us not neglect a primary issue, who the Holy Spirit is, over a secondary issue, what he does in the lives of believers in relation to spiritual gifts.

The Trinity and Jesus

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of Truth. We’ve just completed a Trinitarian Commentary and are briefly looking at some ramifications of the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. Before we get to that, I’d like to mention my prayer requests. First, I ask for your prayers for my Christlikeness. Today and yesterday have been kind of rough for me on my progress, yet I believe I am still maintaining an inner attitude that is keeping me going stronger than I would be before. Two step forward. One step back. The second area I ask for prayer in is my finances. Finally, I ask for prayer in a third related area of my life. For now, let’s get to our topic.

One question that every worldview has to deal with now is what to do with Jesus. Muslims make him the greatest prophet before Muhammad. They affirm that he was sinless, born of a virgin, and the Messiah of Israel, but they deny that he was the Son of God and to say he is fully God as we have been is to commit the sin of shirk.

Jews can have mixed attitudes. Some do see him as a good teacher. Others see him as a great blasphemer. (I would actually consider the latter to be more consistent if one denies the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.)

Hindus can claim him as a great avatar. In Buddhism, he can be a Bodhissatva. In Mormonism, he is the spirit-brother of Lucifer. In Watchtower doctrine, he is the son of God, but he is not God himself and is not the second person of the Trinity. For an atheist, he can be a really great teacher, but in no way deity.

What to do with this figure? It seems every religion now needs to say something about him. Christians have given their answer for centuries. He has full ontological equality with God. He is the second person of the Trinity. He is the Lord and Savior of the world. He is the messiah. We do not deny he was a great teacher and pinnacle of morality, but we see him as so much more. If he was simply a great teacher and a pinnacle of morality, we would honor him of course, but not worship him.

The Trinity gives us our answer. Is Jesus fully God? Well, the texts of Scripture teach us that he is. Yet at the same time, we also know that he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. To add to the mystery, we know that there is one God. There are three persons who can be called God then and there is one God.

The Trinity is the answer. I am a thinker who does try to examine every idea and the more I examine this, every time I come back to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is something I have to agree that the church got right. I stand by the church fathers in this regard and the creeds. I, as a Protestant, unite with my RCC and EO brothers and sisters. We worship one God in Trinity.