Hello and welcome to TheologyWeb – theology debate with a serious dose of fun! It has been our goal to create one of the best and most innovative discussion sites on the Net. Please visit our forums where we debate and discuss everything from religion, politics, lifestyle, pop culture, to who is the coolest member of the moderating team. Register now and join in the fun, its free, easy, and makes Dee Dee Warren happy.
*This site is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox with a minimum display resolution of 1024x768.
What's there to explain? The Son submits his will to the Father. By autonomy, I do not mean they don't have their own will, but that neither person lives apart from the other.
Does your “neither person lives apart from the other” a result of Jesus exercising His own free will to stay with the Father? Could Jesus pack it in and exist on His own somewhere else without the Father with His “nature” intact? I realize Jesus loves His Father and never would decided to leave however, once the Father gives life is that life then forever dependent on the Father for life and is dependent on their proximity to the Father?
How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?
Quite simple. We say that there was something that really happened, but the Son never ceased to exist nor did he cease so submit his will to the Father.
I really don't see the objection here....
I am not trying to be objectionable here, it just seems with Jesus statement that the Father was autonomous and if the Father was autonomous then Jesus certainly was.
Does your “neither person lives apart from the other” a result of Jesus exercising His own free will to stay with the Father? Could Jesus pack it in and exist on His own somewhere else without the Father with His “nature” intact? I realize Jesus loves His Father and never would decided to leave however, once the Father gives life is that life then forever dependent on the Father for life and is dependent on their proximity to the Father?
I am not trying to be objectionable here, it just seems with Jesus statement that the Father was autonomous and if the Father was autonomous then Jesus certainly was.
Does your “neither person lives apart from the other” a result of Jesus exercising His own free will to stay with the Father? Could Jesus pack it in and exist on His own somewhere else without the Father with His “nature” intact? I realize Jesus loves His Father and never would decided to leave however, once the Father gives life is that life then forever dependent on the Father for life and is dependent on their proximity to the Father?
I don’t believe John 6:57 is a reference to proximity.
I believe Jesus is talking about being obedient in John 6:57. He was obedient to the will of the Father and returned to Him. If we are obedient we follow Jesus back to the Father. If we are not, we are cast out with the goats.
I am not trying to be objectionable here, it just seems with Jesus statement that the Father was autonomous and if the Father was autonomous then Jesus certainly was.
How?
Is it possible for the Father to forsake the Son without autonomy? Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between the Father and the Son in order for the Father to forsake the Son?
No. That would mean they're all-thinking beings in that they think all truths at all times.
No. I don't think experience is necessary for knowing the propositional truth of all things, only what it is like to experience it. We've never been crucified, but no one looks at what Jesus did and thinks "I wonder if that was painful...."
I would say the Son is the only one who knows the experience of being crucified as the Father did not suffer on the cross and that would be the Son only in his humanity. The Spirit knows being proceeded from the Father and the Son and the Father knows the experience of begetting the Son.
So, you maintain that the Trinity knows all things propositionally, but not experientially? Such as experienceing birth, mortality, sin, and death?
I don’t believe John 6:57 is a reference to proximity.
I believe Jesus is talking about being obedient in John 6:57. He was obedient to the will of the Father and returned to Him. If we are obedient we follow Jesus back to the Father. If we are not, we are cast out with the goats.
Who said anything about proximity? I see it as a statement that Jesus exists because the Father does. If there was no Father, there would be no Son.
The second part is Mormon doctrine which is for another thread.
Is it possible for the Father to forsake the Son without autonomy? Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between the Father and the Son in order for the Father to forsake the Son?
What I would say happened is that the Son in his humanity had all the sins of the world cast on him at the time which meant God allowed him to be taken by death. The Son in his deity never ceased to exist and the fellowship of the Trinity I have no reason to believe was ever separated.
Jesus is fully God in his nature. God is a being without shape and form in his nature in that he is not physical. The body of Jesus is not God. It will never be God. However, the person of Jesus, who is not his body, is fully God by nature.
What do you mean by that? I accept the fact that Jesus “fully” acts the way His Father would act in all situations. It is not in the Son of God’s nature to act otherwise.
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus’ nature more than the way he acts? In Trinitarian thought is His “fully God in his nature” His actual spirit? Or do you mean Jesus thinks and acts like His Father and does the things His Father would do if He were there because of His godly nature developed while with God in Heaven.
Jesus says His Father taught Him and He does what He has seen the Father do; is that the reason you say Jesus is fully God in His nature because He acts and responds the way God His Father would if He were there?
If the Trinitarian thought God is invisible without shape and form what is Jesus watching Him do. Would not God have to have shape and form in order to “do” and be “seeth” (seen)!
The Father must be autonomous from His Son in order to show Him “grater works” and teach Him.
How could Jesus learn from His Father while in Heaven prior to coming to earth as He stated if they weren’t both visible and autonomous?
There is the spirit of Jesus which was/is autonomous, which was resurrected and united with His body which is autonomous yet you say they are not autonomous?
God is a being without shape and form in his nature in that he is not physical.
That statement makes no sense. A being by nature has shape and form. A being is physical. I could compare your definition of God to a thought but not to a being. A thought is without form or shape and is not physical so your Trinitarian thought God is more like a thought than a being which is not harmonious with Jesus’ teachings.
If Jesus body is full of God’s “nature” then couldn’t you say God’s “nature” is within Jesus and inasmuch as Jesus has a body with shape and form God’s “nature” has the shape and form of Jesus resurrected body?
The body of Jesus is not God. It will never be God. However, the person of Jesus, who is not his body, is fully God by nature.
Jesus will never again be separated from His body therefore Jesus’ fully God by nature” will forever be within His body and have shape and form. Will there ever be a time when the “nature of God” will not be in Jesus’ body? If not, then one could say God’s “nature” has the shape and form of Jesus and is in Jesus’ body of flesh and bone now for all eternity?
How can God be within Jesus’ resurrected body and yet be without shape and form?
How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for Jesus’ Father and God to be greater than Him if they are not autonomous?
How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?
Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between Jesus and His God in order for His God to forsake Him on the cross?! Is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to forsake His Son on the cross without them being independent of one another?
What do you mean by that? I accept the fact that Jesus “fully” acts the way His Father would act in all situations. It is not in the Son of God’s nature to act otherwise.
Keep in mind I don't want this to be a debate thread. Just a question thread. It's not to disprove the Trinity but understand it, even if you don't agree with it.
I mean fully God in that he possesses fully all the attributes of deity.
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus’ nature more than the way he acts? In Trinitarian thought is His “fully God in his nature” His actual spirit? Or do you mean Jesus thinks and acts like His Father and does the things His Father would do if He were there because of His godly nature developed while with God in Heaven.
Jesus's actions flow out of his nature. He does all he does because of who he is.
Jesus says His Father taught Him and He does what He has seen the Father do; is that the reason you say Jesus is fully God in His nature because He acts and responds the way God His Father would if He were there?
No. I say it because that is who he is. If you want to see what he is speaking of in John 5 look at the context. He is speaking of judging and giving life.
If the Trinitarian thought God is invisible without shape and form what is Jesus watching Him do. Would not God have to have shape and form in order to “do” and be “seeth” (seen)!
No. Note that John 1:18 says no one has ever seen God. To see however in John often does not refer to physical sight but rather to understanding with the mind.
The Father must be autonomous from His Son in order to show Him “grater works” and teach Him.
Because?....
How could Jesus learn from His Father while in Heaven prior to coming to earth as He stated if they weren’t both visible and autonomous?
Why would that be a requirement?
There is the spirit of Jesus which was/is autonomous, which was resurrected and united with His body which is autonomous yet you say they are not autonomous?
It seems you are asserting autonomy, but I do not see it. Note when I say autonomy, I do not mean he does not have his own will. I mean Jesus did not go around saying "I do not do what the Father tells me. I speak what I want to."
That statement makes no sense. A being by nature has shape and form. A being is physical. I could compare your definition of God to a thought but not to a being. A thought is without form or shape and is not physical so your Trinitarian thought God is more like a thought than a being which is not harmonious with Jesus’ teachings.
But this is your assertion. I do not assume that a being must have shape and form. Quite the opposite. I find it philosophically rational that true being has no shape or form.
If Jesus body is full of God’s “nature” then couldn’t you say God’s “nature” is within Jesus and inasmuch as Jesus has a body with shape and form God’s “nature” has the shape and form of Jesus resurrected body?
Within does not mean it is contained in the molecules in a literal sense. I have no problem saying the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. However, it does not follow that either are physical for how could the body of the Father be in the Son and vice-versa? This seems to be about if God is physical more than anything else so I advise you to start a thread on that.
Jesus will never again be separated from His body therefore Jesus’ fully God by nature” will forever be within His body and have shape and form. Will there ever be a time when the “nature of God” will not be in Jesus’ body? If not, then one could say God’s “nature” has the shape and form of Jesus and is in Jesus’ body of flesh and bone now for all eternity?
God's nature does not have a shape and form even though a person with the nature of God is dwelling in a body of shape and form. The body is not the nature.
How can God be within Jesus’ resurrected body and yet be without shape and form?
The same way I can be in a body without shape or form. I believe I am a soul. My body is not me.
How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for Jesus’ Father and God to be greater than Him if they are not autonomous?
Greater in what way?
How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?
Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between Jesus and His God in order for His God to forsake Him on the cross?! Is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to forsake His Son on the cross without them being independent of one another?
I've already answered. You haven't shown why mine is false.
What do you mean by that? I accept the fact that Jesus “fully” acts the way His Father would act in all situations. It is not in the Son of God’s nature to act otherwise.
Keep in mind I don't want this to be a debate thread. Just a question thread. It's not to disprove the Trinity but understand it, even if you don't agree with it.
I mean fully God in that he possesses fully all the attributes of deity.
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus the one and only deity? Or, is there one deity being that shares its deity nature with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus’ nature more than the way he acts? In Trinitarian thought is His “fully God in his nature” His actual spirit? Or do you mean Jesus thinks and acts like His Father and does the things His Father would do if He were there because of His godly nature developed while with God in Heaven.
Jesus's actions flow out of his nature. He does all he does because of who he is.
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus the source of His nature? If not, who or what is the source of His nature? Is His nature a result of His spirit? Is His spirit and nature exchangeable terms in Trinitarian thought?
Jesus says His Father taught Him and He does what He has seen the Father do; is that the reason you say Jesus is fully God in His nature because He acts and responds the way God His Father would if He were there?
No. I say it because that is who he is. If you want to see what he is speaking of in John 5 look at the context. He is speaking of judging and giving life.
Isn’t Part of John 5 Jesus stating and confirming to those present that He is the Son of God as He proclaimed. Isn’t it Jesus providing good reason for them to believe that He really is the Son of God?
How does Trinitarian thought rationalize “the Father… so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself?” It appears the Son did not have life in himself until the Father gave it to him. Is that not additional proof that there is autonomy between the Father and the Son? Now that Jesus has life in himself doesn’t that prove that He is a separate and distinct individual being independent of the Father for life.
Does not the fact that Jesus did not have authority to execute judgment before the Father gave it to Him prove that the Son is independent of the Father?
If the Trinitarian thought God is invisible without shape and form what is Jesus watching Him do. Would not God have to have shape and form in order to “do” and be “seeth” (seen)!
No. Note that John 1:18 says no one has ever seen God. To see however in John often does not refer to physical sight but rather to understanding with the mind.
You have provided the necessity for a small correction; John 1:18 states
and does not support your contention that “no one has ever seen God” as you stated.”
Am I correct in assuming that, according to your interpretation, not even the Son of God, Jesus, has seen His God and Father while together with him in Heaven?
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus a man prior to the Father sending Him to be our Savior and Redeemer? In Trinitarian thought, are Angels and Spirits considered “man?” If not, would you say it was possible for Angels and Spirits to have seen God because John 1:18 does not exclude Angels and Spirits and only seems to exclude "man!".
The Father must be autonomous from His Son in order to show Him “grater works” and teach Him.
Because?....
You have failed to explain anything. Isn’t it obvious? Your “Because?....” isn’t much of an answer.
Please explain Trinitarian thought of how it is possible for the Father to show His Son “greater works” if they are not independent of one another. Otherwise wouldn’t God be teaching Himself? How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to teach His Son and show His Son “greater works” and the Father and the Son not be separate and distinct individuals independent of one another?
How could Jesus learn from His Father while in Heaven prior to coming to earth as He stated if they weren’t both visible and autonomous?
Why would that be a requirement?
Again, you have failed to explain anything. According to you, we ask the questions and you answer them.
Why wouldn’t that be a requirement in Trinitarian thought? Is there another way for a teacher to teach his student? Doesn’t the scriptural teacher student scenario require the teacher to be an independent thinker of the student?
There is the spirit of Jesus which was/is autonomous, which was resurrected and united with His body which is autonomous yet you say they are not autonomous?
It seems you are asserting autonomy, but I do not see it. Note when I say autonomy, I do not mean he does not have his own will. I mean Jesus did not go around saying "I do not do what the Father tells me. I speak what I want to."
In Trinitarian thought, didn’t Jesus speak what He wanted to because He agreed with the Father of His own free will and not because He was a type of Charlie McCarthy and God His Father a type of Edgar Bergren.
That statement makes no sense. A being by nature has shape and form. A being is physical. I could compare your definition of God to a thought but not to a being. A thought is without form or shape and is not physical so your Trinitarian thought God is more like a thought than a being which is not harmonious with Jesus’ teachings.
But this is your assertion. I do not assume that a being must have shape and form. Quite the opposite. I find it philosophically rational that true being has no shape or form.
I am not talking about being, I am talking about a being. In Trinitarian thought, what makes up a “being?” How is it possible for a "being" to be without shape and form. A being is not a cloud or smoke or mist is it?
If Jesus body is full of God’s “nature” then couldn’t you say God’s “nature” is within Jesus and inasmuch as Jesus has a body with shape and form God’s “nature” has the shape and form of Jesus resurrected body?
Within does not mean it is contained in the molecules in a literal sense. I have no problem saying the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. However, it does not follow that either are physical for how could the body of the Father be in the Son and vice-versa? This seems to be about if God is physical more than anything else so I advise you to start a thread on that.
Where does it say in scripture that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father and is intended to be taken literally?
Jesus will never again be separated from His body therefore Jesus’ fully God by nature” will forever be within His body and have shape and form. Will there ever be a time when the “nature of God” will not be in Jesus’ body? If not, then one could say God’s “nature” has the shape and form of Jesus and is in Jesus’ body of flesh and bone now for all eternity?
God's nature does not have a shape and form even though a person with the nature of God is dwelling in a body of shape and form. The body is not the nature.
So then, in Trinitarian thought, “the nature” is the way Jesus acts or responds? Jesus claims He learned His responses from His Father, is that what you are talking about when you use the term “nature?”
How can God be within Jesus’ resurrected body and yet be without shape and form?
The same way I can be in a body without shape or form. I believe I am a soul. My body is not me.
I realize upon our death our spirits will leave our bodies just as Jesus’ spirit left His body. However, after the resurrection, in Trinitarian thought, will there ever come a time when your spirit is not in your body therefore you will be your body as you will not exist without your body?
How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for Jesus’ Father and God to be greater than Him if they are not autonomous?
Greater in what way?
Once again a question instead of an answer.
We all know and recognize how great Jesus is and He is the one that said “for my Father is greater than I” so we’ll just have to take His word for it unless Trinitarian thought has an answer to “Greater in what way?”
If Jesus and His Father are not separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another, how is it possible in Trinitarian thought for the Father to be "greater" than Him?
How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?
Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between Jesus and His God in order for His God to forsake Him on the cross?! Is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to forsake His Son on the cross without them being independent of one another? [/quote][/quote]
I've already answered. You haven't shown why mine is false.
You’re correct, I have yet to attempt to show why yours is false. I am trying to understand how the Father can forsake the Son and them not be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another according to Trinitarian thought.
This was your answer:
“What I would say happened is that the Son in his humanity had all the sins of the world cast on him”
In Trinitarian thought, what do you mean by "the Son in his humanity?”
In Trinitarian thought, was it not the Father the one who cast “all the sins of the world on him?” Does not the fact that the Father cast all the sins of the world on His Son demonstrate the fact that they are two separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another? If not, wouldn’t God be casting the sins of the world on himself?
at the time which meant God allowed him to be taken by death.
I thought Jesus gave up the ghost, He was not "taken by death."
Considering the scriptures above why would Trinitarian thought say “God allowed him to be taken by death?”
The Son in his deity never ceased to exist and the fellowship of the Trinity I have no reason to believe was ever separated.
In Trinitarian thought, does not there have to be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another for there to be "fellowship?"
What do you mean by “no reason to believe was ever separated?” Not separated in the goals for mankind or not separated as in one being verses three beings? Not separated in the effort for the salvation of mankind or not separate as in the hand from the arm?
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus the one and only deity? Or, is there one deity being that shares its deity nature with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
You are assuming either unipersonalism or a polytheism. There is not one God who shares its nature with the Father, Son, and Spirit.. The Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God. Jesus is not the Trinity. There is only one God and Jesus fully possesses his nature, but the one God is not limited to Jesus.
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus the source of His nature? If not, who or what is the source of His nature? Is His nature a result of His spirit? Is His spirit and nature exchangeable terms in Trinitarian thought?
Jesus is continuously begotten by the Father. The Father is seen as the fount of deity. Jesus is eternally also being eternally begotten from the Father.
Isn’t Part of John 5 Jesus stating and confirming to those present that He is the Son of God as He proclaimed. Isn’t it Jesus providing good reason for them to believe that He really is the Son of God?
Yes.
How does Trinitarian thought rationalize “the Father… so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself?” It appears the Son did not have life in himself until the Father gave it to him. Is that not additional proof that there is autonomy between the Father and the Son? Now that Jesus has life in himself doesn’t that prove that He is a separate and distinct individual being independent of the Father for life.
No. It is granted from the Father that the Son has that. We are contingent in that we depend on others to bring us into being. The Son did not come into being.
Does not the fact that Jesus did not have authority to execute judgment before the Father gave it to Him prove that the Son is independent of the Father?
No. It in fact would show the opposite. It would show how strong the bond between them is.
You have provided the necessity for a small correction; John 1:18 states
and does not support your contention that “no one has ever seen God” as you stated.”
Am I correct in assuming that, according to your interpretation, not even the Son of God, Jesus, has seen His God and Father while together with him in Heaven?
No. The verse makes the exception for Jesus in that he is the only one who truly knows the Father. See Matthew 11:27 for an example. The only one who can fully understand the Father is one who is fully God as well, the Son.
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus a man prior to the Father sending Him to be our Savior and Redeemer? In Trinitarian thought, are Angels and Spirits considered “man?”
No.
If not, would you say it was possible for Angels and Spirits to have seen God because John 1:18 does not exclude Angels and Spirits and only seems to exclude "man!".
No it doesn't. A look at the Greek text actually does not include the word "man." It simply says "No one." Now John could be implying just man as it could be the angels have seen God in some sense. To see with full comprehension however would be only what the Son and Spirit do.
You have failed to explain anything. Isn’t it obvious? Your “Because?....” isn’t much of an answer.
It wasn't an answer. It was a question. You made an assertion and I do not see the basis for it so I asked you to explain why your conclusion follows from your premise.
Please explain Trinitarian thought of how it is possible for the Father to show His Son “greater works” if they are not independent of one another. Otherwise wouldn’t God be teaching Himself? How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to teach His Son and show His Son “greater works” and the Father and the Son not be separate and distinct individuals independent of one another?
By having them be distinct persons. Also, there is nothing here about showing the Son greater works.
Again, you have failed to explain anything. According to you, we ask the questions and you answer them.
Yes, and it is fair for me to seek clarification. You raised an issue. I don't see how it follows.
Why wouldn’t that be a requirement in Trinitarian thought? Is there another way for a teacher to teach his student? Doesn’t the scriptural teacher student scenario require the teacher to be an independent thinker of the student?
No. It requires that the student be a distinct person.
In Trinitarian thought, didn’t Jesus speak what He wanted to because He agreed with the Father of His own free will and not because He was a type of Charlie McCarthy and God His Father a type of Edgar Bergren.
This gets into a debate on impeccability that has been going on for some time. It would be my contention that the Son could not have disobeyed the Father, but that would also get me into long views of time and eternity.
I am not talking about being, I am talking about a being. In Trinitarian thought, what makes up a “being?” How is it possible for a "being" to be without shape and form. A being is not a cloud or smoke or mist is it?
No, because a clould or smoke or mist still has composition. God does not. He has no parts. He is pure actuality. he is not dependent on anything physical for his existence and is not physical in his nature in any way.
Where does it say in scripture that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father and is intended to be taken literally?
It is not to be taken literally as if both were physical beings. John 14:10 is the answer to where it is stated however.
So then, in Trinitarian thought, “the nature” is the way Jesus acts or responds? Jesus claims He learned His responses from His Father, is that what you are talking about when you use the term “nature?”
No. I am not talking about what he does but rather who he is irregardless of what he does. He is deity regardless of what he does. If the Trinity had never created, they would still be the Trinity and still each person would fully bear the nature of God.
I realize upon our death our spirits will leave our bodies just as Jesus’ spirit left His body. However, after the resurrection, in Trinitarian thought, will there ever come a time when your spirit is not in your body therefore you will be your body as you will not exist without your body?
No. I will exist in glory as a body-soul unity.
Once again a question instead of an answer.
We all know and recognize how great Jesus is and He is the one that said “for my Father is greater than I” so we’ll just have to take His word for it unless Trinitarian thought has an answer to “Greater in what way?”
It does. I wanted to see if you did. You make a question. I ask for clarification.
If Jesus and His Father are not separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another, how is it possible in Trinitarian thought for the Father to be "greater" than Him?
Same question applies. Greater in what way?
How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy?
Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between Jesus and His God in order for His God to forsake Him on the cross?! Is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to forsake His Son on the cross without them being independent of one another?
[/quote]
You’re correct, I have yet to attempt to show why yours is false. I am trying to understand how the Father can forsake the Son and them not be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another according to Trinitarian thought. [/quote]
Which I've answered. Let's look at that.
This was your answer:
In Trinitarian thought, what do you mean by "the Son in his humanity?”
I mean what I said. The Son in his humanity. Not in his deity.
In Trinitarian thought, was it not the Father the one who cast “all the sins of the world on him?” Does not the fact that the Father cast all the sins of the world on His Son demonstrate the fact that they are two separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another? If not, wouldn’t God be casting the sins of the world on himself?
No. It shows that they are distinct persons.
I thought Jesus gave up the ghost, He was not "taken by death."
Considering the scriptures above why would Trinitarian thought say “God allowed him to be taken by death?”
I would have no problem with what you said.
In Trinitarian thought, does not there have to be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another for there to be "fellowship?"
What do you mean by “no reason to believe was ever separated?” Not separated in the goals for mankind or not separated as in one being verses three beings? Not separated in the effort for the salvation of mankind or not separate as in the hand from the arm?
Not separated in the fellowship of the Trinity. The Father and Son never ceased to have their love for one another. And no, they only have to be distinct persons.
Am I allowed to suggest an answer to the question Greater in what way?
In Genesis 41:40, after setting Joseph over all the land of Egypt, Pharaoh said to him, "... only in the throne shall I be greater than thou."
Greater - not better. And the reason for it is the authority of the throne.
The same distinction is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. At the end, God will have put all things under the feet of His Son. But after all things have been subdued to him, then the Son shall deliver up the kingdom to God (the one who sits upon the throne in Rev. 4 and 5), and the Son himself will be subject to the one who put all things under him.
God is greater (but not better) than his Son. A son is not inferior to his father, and Colossians 2:9 makes it clear that this Son is no exception. The Son is everything that his Father is.
Forgive me if I am out of place here, but this is something I have studied at length, and this distrinction was a great help to me.
"Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother -- existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith.
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully."
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus the one and only deity? Or, is there one deity being that shares its deity nature with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
You are assuming either unipersonalism or a polytheism. There is not one God who shares its nature with the Father, Son, and Spirit.. The Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God. Jesus is not the Trinity. There is only one God and Jesus fully possesses his nature, but the one God is not limited to Jesus.
You say “The Father, Son, and Spirit are the one God” in the face of Jesus telling you His Father is His God. In Trinitarian thought, how is it possible for Jesus to have a God and yet be God without there being two Gods? In Trinitarian thought, is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost each a third of your Trititarian thought “One God”?
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus the source of His nature? If not, who or what is the source of His nature? Is His nature a result of His spirit? Is His spirit and nature exchangeable terms in Trinitarian thought?
Jesus is continuously begotten by the Father. The Father is seen as the fount of deity. Jesus is eternally also being eternally begotten from the Father.
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus still considered “eternally begotten from the Father” while His Father forsook Him on the cross? In Trinitarian thought, is it possible to be “eternally begotten” and yet forsaken? In Trinitarian thought, does “eternally begotten” mean once He is begotten He lives for eternity independent of the one who begot him or is one "eternally begotten" eternally dependent?
Isn’t Part of John 5 Jesus stating and confirming to those present that He is the Son of God as He proclaimed. Isn’t it Jesus providing good reason for them to believe that He really is the Son of God?
Yes.
If I have interpreted your “yes” correctly, then according to Trinitarian thought Jesus is not God but the Son of God… right?
How does Trinitarian thought rationalize “the Father… so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself?” It appears the Son did not have life in himself until the Father gave it to him. Is that not additional proof that there is autonomy between the Father and the Son? Now that Jesus has life in himself doesn’t that prove that He is a separate and distinct individual being independent of the Father for life.
No. It is granted from the Father that the Son has that.
Then obviously making the Father greater than the Son in Trinitarian thought… right?!
In Trinitarian thought, why is it necessary for Jesus to be eternally begotten of the Father when scripture states the Father has given to the Son to have life in himself?
In Trinitarian thought, is that another reason the Father is greater than the Son inasmuch as the Father gave the Son “to have life in himself?” That must be an undeniable example of the Father being greater than the Son… right? In Trinitarian thought, the Father must be greater than the Holy Ghost as well as there is no mention of the Son receiving life or knowledge from the Holy Ghost… right?
We are contingent in that we depend on others to bring us into being. The Son did not come into being.
In Trinitarian thought, why then is Jesus called the Son of God? Scripture states the Father sent His son so apparently, according to scripture; Jesus was the Son of God in Heaven prior to coming to earth.
In Trinitarian thought, when and how did Jesus become the Son of God noting He was the Son of the Father in Heaven? In Trinitarian thought, were there two Gods in Heaven and a judgment made to determine which one would be the Son? Jesus has declared that the Father is God and in Trinitarian thought we have Jesus is God so in Trinitarian thought, how was it determined which distinct person God would be the Son?
Does not the fact that Jesus did not have authority to execute judgment before the Father gave it to Him prove that the Son is independent of the Father?
No. It in fact would show the opposite. It would show how strong the bond between them is.
In Trinitarian thought, is the strong bond between Jesus and God His Father …love? If the strong bond is not love, then what?
You have provided the necessity for a small correction; John 1:18 states
and does not support your contention that “no one has ever seen God” as you stated.”
Am I correct in assuming that, according to your interpretation, not even the Son of God, Jesus, has seen His God and Father while together with him in Heaven?
No. The verse makes the exception for Jesus in that he is the only one who truly knows the Father.
In Trinitarian thought, if one “truly knows the Father” then can one see Him?
Matthew 11:27 says Jesus can reveal the Father to those He chooses to; “and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” Why in Trinitarian thought, wouldn’t that mean the Father is visible and able to be revealed with the caveat of “whomsoever the Son will reveal him?”
The only one who can fully understand the Father is one who is fully God as well, the Son.
In Matthew 11:27, Jesus seems to think that once we get to know him we will know the Father due to how close He resembles the Father in all ways. The Apostles spent 3 years with Jesus under all circumstances and Jesus expected them to know the Father as a result of their knowledge of Him.
Jesus states if you have seen Him you have seen the Father and I’m sure Jesus didn’t expect them to infer by His statement that Jesus was in fact the Father and when they were looking at Him they were actually looking at His God and Father.
You say “a cloud or smoke or mist still has composition”. God does not. He has no parts. He is pure actuality” and yet Jesus has composition and parts and will have for all eternity. In Trinitarian thought, how do you deny Jesus’ God and Father has “composition” and “parts” when Jesus is telling His Apostles that His Father has “composition” and “parts just like Him?”
How does Trinitarian thought interpret “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him?” If you get to Heaven and God is something without composition and parts then Jesus lied to His Apostles and subsequently to the rest of the world!
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus a man prior to the Father sending Him to be our Savior and Redeemer? In Trinitarian thought, are Angels and Spirits considered “man?”
No.
In Trinitarian thought, why does Jesus call Himself “the Son of man?”
If not, would you say it was possible for Angels and Spirits to have seen God because John 1:18 does not exclude Angels and Spirits and only seems to exclude "man!".
No it doesn't. A look at the Greek text actually does not include the word "man." It simply says "No one." Now John could be implying just man as it could be the angels have seen God in some sense. To see with full comprehension however would be only what the Son and Spirit do
In Trinitarian thought, how does one see a God without composition, without parts, who is “pure actuality” with full comprehension?
You have failed to explain anything. Isn’t it obvious? Your “Because?....” isn’t much of an answer.
It wasn't an answer. It was a question. You made an assertion and I do not see the basis for it so I asked you to explain why your conclusion follows from your premise.
I said: The Father must be autonomous from His Son in order to show Him “grater works” and teach Him.
Then you responded with: Because?....
When I used the term autonomous I meant they were independent beings of one another. In Trinitarian thought can the Father show Jesus greater works and teach Him without them being independent beings and if so, how, seeing as the Father is in Heaven and the Son is on the earth? In Trinitarian thought, did the Son receive revelations from God His Father and that is how Jesus was shown the “greater works” His Father wanted Him to do?
Please explain Trinitarian thought of how it is possible for the Father to show His Son “greater works” if they are not independent of one another. Otherwise wouldn’t God be teaching Himself? How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to teach His Son and show His Son “greater works” and the Father and the Son not be separate and distinct individuals independent of one another?
By having them be distinct persons. Also, there is nothing here about showing the Son greater works.
Yes there is:
The scripture in John 5:20 clearly states “and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel” which is definitely something here about showing the Son greater works that Trinitarian thought must agree with…right!
I’ll ask again; How is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to teach His Son and show His Son “greater works” and the Father and the Son not be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another?The Son did not know how to do the “greater works” until His God and Father showed Him.
Also, in Trinitarian thought, is it possible for one distinct person to literally be the God and Father of another distinct person? I ask because in Trinitarian thought, you continue to change individual being which is apparently unacceptable into a distinct person which obviously in Trinitarian thought does not mean the same. Why?
Why wouldn’t that be a requirement in Trinitarian thought? Is there another way for a teacher to teach his student? Doesn’t the scriptural teacher student scenario require the teacher to be an independent thinker of the student?
No. It requires that the student be a distinct person.
In Trinitarian thought, is not a distinct person an independent distinct thinker? If the teacher and student are not independent and distinct thinkers, is not the teacher teaching himself?
In Trinitarian thought, didn’t Jesus speak what He wanted to because He agreed with the Father of His own free will and not because He was a type of Charlie McCarthy and God His Father a type of Edgar Bergren.
This gets into a debate on impeccability that has been going on for some time. It would be my contention that the Son could not have disobeyed the Father, but that would also get me into long views of time and eternity.
You agreed that Jesus had free will! If the Son could not have disobeyed the Father according to Trinitarian thought then how is it that the Son glorifies the Father?
In Trinitarian thought, is Jesus some type of pre-programmed robot? If the Son “could not have disobeyed the Father” then isn’t the Father glorifying Himself and just using Jesus in the effort? Lucifer, son of the morning, who had spent perhaps eons with Jesus and His Father before being cast out with a third of the host of heaven to earth certainly thought Jesus could disobey His God and Father with all his tempting. After all, Lucifer, son of the morning, did!
I am not talking about being, I am talking about a being. In Trinitarian thought, what makes up a “being?” How is it possible for a "being" to be without shape and form. A being is not a cloud or smoke or mist is it?
No, because a cloud or smoke or mist still has composition. God does not. He has no parts. He is pure actuality. he is not dependent on anything physical for his existence and is not physical in his nature in any way.
In Trinitarian thought, who or what is physical in their nature if not God? In Trinitarian thought, how is it that “pure actuality” without “composition”is teaching and showing His Son greater works?
Where does it say in scripture that the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father and is intended to be taken literally?
It is not to be taken literally as if both were physical beings. John 14:10 is the answer to where it is stated however.
In Trinitarian thought, now that Jesus has been resurrected, is Jesus a visual physical being for the rest of eternity?
So then, in Trinitarian thought, “the nature” is the way Jesus acts or responds? Jesus claims He learned His responses from His Father, is that what you are talking about when you use the term “nature?”
No. I am not talking about what he does but rather who he is irregardless of what he does. He is deity regardless of what he does. If the Trinity had never created, they would still be the Trinity and still each person would fully bear the nature of God.
In Trinitarian thought, when you say “each person would fully bear the nature of God,” are there three independent natures being born or one? Wasn’t Jesus nature being developed by God His Father while Jesus was in Heaven learning from God His Father?
I realize upon our death our spirits will leave our bodies just as Jesus’ spirit left His body. However, after the resurrection, in Trinitarian thought, will there ever come a time when your spirit is not in your body therefore you will be your body as you will not exist without your body?
No. I will exist in glory as a body-soul unity.
Just as Jesus is now with His God and Father… right?
We all know and recognize how great Jesus is and He is the one that said “for my Father is greater than I” so we’ll just have to take His word for it unless Trinitarian thought has an answer to “Greater in what way?”
It does. I wanted to see if you did. You make a question. I ask for clarification.
In Trinitarian thought, in what way is Jesus’ Father greater than Him? You say Jesus is “eternally begotten” from the Father so the Father must be greater than Jesus because the Father is the one doing the eternally begetting and Jesus is on the receiving end of being “eternally begotten”…right?
Trinitarian thought must teach that without the Father eternally begetting Jesus, Jesus would not exist without being eternally begotten of the Father… right? Is that the way the Father is greater than Jesus in Trinitarian thought? If not, then how?
If Jesus and His Father are not separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another, how is it possible in Trinitarian thought for the Father to be "greater" than Him?
Same question applies. Greater in what way?
Inasmuch as scripture states Jesus’ Father taught Him, His Father must have been greater in knowledge and intelligence. Especially when you take into consideration that in Trinitarian thought Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father and not vice-versa.
Jesus freely admits His Father taught and showed Him things before His God and Father sent Him to earth to be our Savior and Redeemer and His Father showed Him greater things He was to perform while on earth so God His Father must be greater in intelligence.
How does Trinitarian thought interpret "why hast thou forsaken me" with regard to autonomy? Wouldn’t autonomy have to exist between Jesus and His God in order for His God to forsake Him on the cross?! Is it possible in Trinitarian thought for God to forsake His Son on the cross without them being independent of one another?
This was your answer:
What I would say happened is that the Son in his humanity had all the sins of the world cast on him”
If in Trinitarian thought all the sins of the world were cast on Him by God His Father, does not your statement alone prove they are completely separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another for that event to transpire.
In Trinitarian thought, what do you mean by "the Son in his humanity?”
I mean what I said. The Son in his humanity. Not in his deity.
In Trinitarian thought, was Jesus without His deity while on earth in His humanity?
In Trinitarian thought, is it possible to separate Jesus in His humanity from His deity seeing how Jesus is not His body in Trinitarian thought? If so, how is His humanity separated Him from His deity?
Now that Jesus’ spirit is forever encased within His body due to His resurrection, is not His humanity and deity now combined for the rest of eternity? In Trinitarian thought, does resurrection mean the uniting to the body the spirit which gave life to the body for the rest of eternity?
In Trinitarian thought, was it not the Father the one who cast “all the sins of the world on him?” Does not the fact that the Father cast all the sins of the world on His Son demonstrate the fact that they are two separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another? If not, wouldn’t God be casting the sins of the world on himself?
No. It shows that they are distinct persons.
In Trinitarian thought, what is the difference between distinct persons and individual distinct beings and why is it important that you make that distinction? When God cast all the sins of the world onto His Son wasn’t His son on the cross an individual separate and distinct being?
In Trinitarian thought, how is it possible for the Son to suffer for the sins of the world and not be a separate and distinct individual being? Wasn’t Jesus the only one who suffered for the sins of the world or in Trinitarian thought did the Father and the Holy Ghost take part in the suffering as well as according to Trinitarian thought they are one?
According to John 10:17 Jesus was not eternally begotten of the Father. According to Trinitarian thought, how is it possible for Jesus to be eternally begotten of the Father and yet lay down His life and take again? Would not the act of Jesus laying down His life and taking it again interrupt the Trinitarian thought of Jesus being eternally begotten of the Father? If not, why not?
I thought Jesus gave up the ghost, He was not "taken by death."
Considering the scriptures above in Mark and John, why would Trinitarian thought say “God allowed him to be taken by death?”
I would have no problem with what you said.
What I said was; your interpretation was wrong when you used the term “taken by death” when in fact scripture stated Jesus “gave up the ghost”…right?
Jesus voluntarily giving up the ghost gives clear indication that He was in charge of His spirit and life and death instead of your interpretation of Him being a victim of death as if death had some control over him. Do you still have no problem with what I just said?
In Trinitarian thought, does not there have to be separate and distinct individual beings independent of one another for there to be "fellowship?"
What do you mean by “no reason to believe was ever separated?” Not separated in the goals for mankind or not separated as in one being verses three beings? Not separated in the effort for the salvation of mankind or not separate as in the hand from the arm?
Not separated in the fellowship of the Trinity. The Father and Son never ceased to have their love for one another. And no, they only have to be distinct persons.
In Trinitarian thought, what is the difference between a distinct person and a distinct being? Why make the distinction when synonyms for person are being, self, individual, one, someone, and personality? In Trinitarian thought are not grown son’s separate and distinct individual beings independent of their fathers? I know mine is!
Thank you for quoting the Athanasian Creed. I wanted to mention it - and here it is, quoted in full.
There is a thread called "Why I hate dogmatic young-earthism." I would like to add:
2) Why I hate dogmatic evolutionism.
3) Why I hate dogmatic trinitarianism.
Dogmatism leads, sooner or later, to intimidation of some kind. So -
1. Dogmatic young-earthism says, "If you don't believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old, you are rejecting the Bible."
2. Dogmatic evolutionism says, "If you don't believe evolution can explain all the complexity of life on earth, you are rejecting science."
3. Dogmatic trinitarianism says, "If you don't believe the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, you will perish eternally."
I for one, believe that the Bible contains all the theology I need, and most of what has been added to it (like the Athanasian Creed) does not measure up to what the Bible actually says.
Thank you for quoting the Athanasian Creed. I wanted to mention it - and here it is, quoted in full.
There is a thread called "Why I hate dogmatic young-earthism." I would like to add:
2) Why I hate dogmatic evolutionism.
3) Why I hate dogmatic trinitarianism.
Dogmatism leads, sooner or later, to intimidation of some kind. So -
1. Dogmatic young-earthism says, "If you don't believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old, you are rejecting the Bible."
2. Dogmatic evolutionism says, "If you don't believe evolution can explain all the complexity of life on earth, you are rejecting science."
3. Dogmatic trinitarianism says, "If you don't believe the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, you will perish eternally."
I for one, believe that the Bible contains all the theology I need, and most of what has been added to it (like the Athanasian Creed) does not measure up to what the Bible actually says.
To "deny" a doctrine implies dogmatism. But I can tell you what I cannot find in the Bible.
1. I cannot find a single verse in which the word "God" refers to more than one person.
2. I cannot find the title "God the Son".
3. I cannot find the title "God the Spirit".
I have found the titles "God the Father," "the Son of God," and "the Spirit of God" a total of a hundred times or more; but “God the Son” and “God the Spirit” are not there. That makes me believe that the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided using those titles, and I will avoid them too.
Jesus is the Son of God. Like any true son, he is the image of his Father. In him dwells all the fullness of deity (Col. 2:9). He shares with God Almighty that eternity of being which is an attribute of deity (compare Rev. 21:6, 22:13).
He also shares with God Almighty the worship of every creature (Rev. 5:13). In fact, it is God’s intention that ALL shall honor the Son, just as they honor the Father (John 5:23). At the name of Jesus, every knee is going to bow (Philippians 2:10).
But he is also the obedient Son, who said what his Father commanded him to say (John 12:49), and did what his Father gave him to do (John 17:4). His desire was to do, not his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him (John 5:30).
This perfect Son, who perfectly revealed God, also perfectly obeyed God. That fills me with longing. I want to be like him.
All that being said, I have the word of Paul (1 Co. 8:9) and of Jesus himself (John 17:3) that the one God, the only true God, is the Father.
SO FAR, I have not found anything in the Bible that contradicts what they said.
