True Go(o)d of True Go(o)d, Light of Light, One In Being...

[headheart]

I think there are a few issues running around, here, that need clarification:

1) You're dealing in English terms, which do not always align well with Greek terms.
2) You're trying to grasp at Latin meanings, which, likewise, do not always align well with Greek terms. This was one of the major issues between the Eastern and Western Churches. The translations between Greek (East) and Latin (West) didn't always catch the nuiances.
3) You're not addressing the underlying texts and arguments that support the creeds.


From a historical perspective:

1) There is one God of one ousia or substance.
2) There are three hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, and have always existed.
3) The persons are:
--- The Father, unbegotten
--- The Son, begotten, who proceeds from the Father
--- The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and maybe the Son (Depending on whether you're Eastern or Western.)

Now, I understand your frustration with not being able to equate any particular term with 'begotten', since it clearly does not mean "created" or "made". The Son, like the Father and the HS, has always existed. The term isn't one of reproduction or existence, but of relationship, Son to Father. We see repeatedly that the Son only does the will of the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son. That is their relationship, and that relationship is described so we may glimpse at it like the relationship between a Father and His firstborn Son.

And this extends in many ways to the Son's taking on a human nature and becoming the Messiah. Christ is described as the "firstborn from the dead." He is the first to be resurrected into glory, after which we will follow.

So, rather than jumping back into the Arian heresy, we are better off understanding the creeds as they exist, and accepting them.

Michael

Thank you Michael.

Sincerely,
HH

[robertb]

Death without life is sterility: life without death is cancerous overgrowth.

Nice.

You should sig that.

[headheart]

This thread is destined for the Psychiatric Ward. Watch it go.

[robertb]

This thread is destined for the Psychiatric Ward. Watch it go.

So are you working on that contradiction?

Mercy<------------------------------------------------------->Justice

[UrbanMonk]

I think there are a few issues running around, here, that need clarification:

1) You're dealing in English terms, which do not always align well with Greek terms.
2) You're trying to grasp at Latin meanings, which, likewise, do not always align well with Greek terms. This was one of the major issues between the Eastern and Western Churches. The translations between Greek (East) and Latin (West) didn't always catch the nuiances.
3) You're not addressing the underlying texts and arguments that support the creeds.

Indeed. Thanks for your response.

From a historical perspective:

1) There is one God of one ousia or substance.
2) There are three hypostases or persons who are co-eternal, and have always existed.
3) The persons are:
--- The Father, unbegotten
--- The Son, begotten, who proceeds from the Father
--- The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and maybe the Son (Depending on whether you're Eastern or Western.)

Ok. Where, in any creed, is "one God" limited to the number of three? It must be a creed, because it is not clear from the bible.

Now, I understand your frustration with not being able to equate any particular term with 'begotten', since it clearly does not mean "created" or "made".

I'm willing to set aside the term created in order to continue with this thesis.

The Son, like the Father and the HS, has always existed.

My thesis is that the reproductive process of Go(o)d has always existed as well. And if three can be "one", then most certainly an infinitude can also be "one".

The term isn't one of reproduction or existence, but of relationship, Son to Father.

You mean like Cause and Effect?

We see repeatedly that the Son only does the will of the Father, and the Father glorifies the Son.

Where do we repeatedly see that? Has any man seen Go(o)d? And lived? So, if you are referencing Jesus, i would remind us that we are asked to compare spiritual things with spiritual things...not compare spiritual with material.

What if the Will of Go(o)d is to keep reproducing forever...without end. If that's the way Go(o)d is, can it really be said that Go(o)d is changing? No, i don't think so. It would only amount to a change if Go(o)d stopped reproducing.

That is their relationship, and that relationship is described so we may glimpse at it like the relationship between a Father and His firstborn Son.

Again, we must compare spiritual to spiritual as best we can. We can use the material world for parables, so long as we understand they are parables.

So when we say, "That is their relationship", and point to actions...it may not apply, if Go(o)d is a Being that does not act.

And this extends in many ways to the Son's taking on a human nature and becoming the Messiah.

So now we are getting toward the question, Why make man? This is completely overlooked. Perhaps we should ask, Why make man... before we make up stories about a Messiah and/or a Savior. Perhaps we need to be saved...from man!

Christ is described as the "firstborn from the dead."

Perhaps man is something that is...dead!

He is the first to be resurrected into glory, after which we will follow.

Perhaps we will all return to where we came from? To our former glory?

So, rather than jumping back into the Arian heresy, we are better off understanding the creeds as they exist, and accepting them.

I'm not that familiar with the Arian question. Are you sure you are comparing apples to apples here? From what i think i know about the Arian question, what i am proposing is not the same thing.

Michael

Thanks Michael

[UrbanMonk]

Everything that is, was or will be. Everything that science considers "alive," "unliving," or what-have-you.

What is "everything" to your way of thinking? What does science consider to be "alive"? "Unliving"?

Actually, love does both.

Both what? Love does make barriers and also doesn't make barriers? Love allows, and also does not allow? Which is it?

[UrbanMonk]

Yes. Birth is the transition from that context to this one. Death is the transition back to the remote context. Being alive in the universe means being subject to eventual death. Death without life is sterility: life without death is cancerous overgrowth.

Like i was saying, we worship change...even if it means death...over and over again. I'm saying that Go(o)d is Life without opposite...nor a seeming imaginary opposite. So if there is an opposite, it must be a fantasy (imagination). If Life is the truth, then death must be some kind of magic...a way to make the impossible seem possible, true, and real.

So, by "an expression of inequality", i mean that which expresses anything unequal to Life without death. Technically, in order to uphold a savage fantasy, you've got to make Go(o)d out to be some kind of "cancerous overgrowth". In other words, we must work to redefine Go(o)d in order to participate in what we value instead of Go(o)d.

Anyway, i appreciate the theological challenge but must take a break. It's better i ponder these issues before the next session. It appears at this point that Go(o)d has been defined differently, depending on who is the thinker. Go(o)d is no longer that which births an equal who births and equal...all of whom are perfect, enjoying what is *good*...truly good. It appears there is a misunderstanding about what is good, let alone what is Go(o)d.

Cheers!

[headheart]

So are you working on that contradiction?

Mercy<------------------------------------------------------->Justice

Nope. Solved. (accent Peter Sellers)

Peace,
HH

[robertb]

Nope. Solved. (accent Peter Sellers)

Peace,
HH

As a contradictory dogmatic belief, it sure has...

However, back in the real world, I await your argument.

[themuzicman]

Ok. Where, in any creed, is "one God" limited to the number of three? It must be a creed, because it is not clear from the bible.

Not immediately clear, no. However, the bible is clear about the distinction between God and creation, and only three are included in the category of God: Father, Son, HS.

I'm willing to set aside the term created in order to continue with this thesis.

Excellent.

My thesis is that the reproductive process of Go(o)d has always existed as well. And if three can be "one", then most certainly an infinitude can also be "one".

First, there is no sense in which God is reproductive. It is simply not Scriptural. The only event of reproduction that God is involved in is the incarnation, and that wasn't the creation of a new being, but the beginning of the human nature which God the Son took to Himself, and that is unique in history.

Second, because there are no eligible candidates beyond the three, it would be impossible to go from "I can concieve of the possibility to that" to "this exists."

You mean like Cause and Effect?

No. I mean like the a son's obedience to the Father's will.

Where do we repeatedly see that? Has any man seen Go(o)d? And lived? So, if you are referencing Jesus, i would remind us that we are asked to compare spiritual things with spiritual things...not compare spiritual with material.

Moses saw God and lived. Same with Isaiah and Paul.

However, I was referring to the relationship of the Father to the Son.

Luke 22:41-43 John 5:43 Matthew 26:39 etc

What if the Will of Go(o)d is to keep reproducing forever...without end. If that's the way Go(o)d is, can it really be said that Go(o)d is changing? No, i don't think so. It would only amount to a change if Go(o)d stopped reproducing.

Assumes this is what happens.. Of course, there is no Scriptural basis for this claim. God does not reproduce as you claim He does.

Again, we must compare spiritual to spiritual as best we can. We can use the material world for parables, so long as we understand they are parables.

So when we say, "That is their relationship", and point to actions...it may not apply, if Go(o)d is a Being that does not act.

If God creates, then God acts. Clearly God the Son in Christ acted. I think you're creationg an invalid distinction between God and creation.

So now we are getting toward the question, Why make man? This is completely overlooked. Perhaps we should ask, Why make man before we make up stories about a Messiah and/or a Savior. Perhaps we need to be saved...from man!

What we need to be saved from is clear, and it is ourselves, our sins. Genesis is clear as to the cause of our condemnation: disobeying God. Part of the message of Scripture is that disobedience to God is bad and will result in wrath. You cannot read the bible and not get that much.

As for why God made man, we aren't directly told, so we shoudl be careful in making assumtions.

Perhaps man is something that is...dead!

Perhaps we will all return to where we came from? To our former glory?

We are creatures of earth, not heaven. We are creation, not the creator.

I'm not that familiar with the Arian question. Are you sure you are comparing apples to apples here? From what i think i know about the Arian question, what i am proposing is not the same thing.

The Arian question revolves around whether Jesus is God. There are a number of variants, but the questions ultimately remain the same.

Michael

[technomage]

What is "everything" to your way of thinking? What does science consider to be "alive"? "Unliving"?

UM, I don't have the energy right now to get into a discussion of ontology. I'm sorry, I'm not being difficult--there are other things going on in my life right now, and I'm pretty darn exhausted.

Love does make barriers and also doesn't make barriers? Love allows, and also does not allow?

All of the above.

Love is not simple: it is complex. Yes, sometimes love makes barriers, sometimes it breaks barriers, sometimes it leaves barriers in place. Sometimes love makes sacrifices, sometimes love simply accepts what is offered, but there are even times that love makes demands. We cannot make simplistic, broad-brush comments about love without missing much of the complexity.

[headheart]

As a contradictory dogmatic belief, it sure has...

Attachment 78610

"At you service"

However, back in the real world, I await your argument.

As long as you keep hiding behind urbanmonk, and others, arguments with you are pointless.

Another time Joker,
HH

[robertb]

Attachment 78610

"At you service"



As long as you keep hiding behind urbanmonk, and others, arguments with you are pointless.

Another time Joker,
HH

Project much?

[headheart]

robertb,

I am still waiting for YOUR reply

Sincerely,
HH

[robertb]

robertb,

I am still waiting for YOUR reply

Sincerely,
HH

I already replied to it...