Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

Authority structures can be mutually agreed upon by equals or commanded by a higher authority. But there is no ESSENTIAL hierarchy among equals. (Matt)

This is true, and I would say it agrees with my reference to the husband and wife. The family structure does not take away from the equality they actually share. Husband and wife, structure yes: yet equal and one.

Darin, do you believe we can eventually come to a conclusion on the nature of Jesus? The Unitarians seem to not have a consensus on who or what Jesus is. And in fact it seems to be a tenet of the system that they can search but never find out who Jesus was. Unitarians conclude Jesus is not God, yet at the same time who or what Jesus’ nature is should be concluded as ‘unknown’. Is this your philosophy?

[jriccitelli]

To help clarify who and why Jesus is known as The (Only begotten) Son in Trinitarian thinking:
‘The’ (Only) Son of God means He was God, but not ‘all and everything that God is’
The term Father can mean: ‘all that God is and everything that God is’
Yet Jesus and the OT make references to conversation and a relationship ‘within’ the One God.

As a Trinitarian I believe the term Father can refer to ‘all that is God’ as when God speaks as One in the OT. It is a term that described God as the father of Israel, and it also a new term in the way Jesus uses the term, because previously we did not know that the Father had a Son (an only begotten Son).

Note that God had concealed Himself in the Theophanies. God had concealed the identity of the coming Messiah. Jesus was obviously concealing his origin, he was telling others to be quiet, and not using the power he had available, so we have to take all this into consideration when we hear the Gospels because this is the context of scripture.

From the beginning, the Jews worshipped and knew One God. And they knew that the One God had visited them, occasionally, although covered in some form or another. They also knew God as their Father (not a common term but one term of many), so just as it would seem odd (and illogical) for a Theophany to refer to Himself as ‘everything that God is and everyone of His attributes in their fullest’ during the Theophanies, so it makes sense that any Theophany/Christophany does not contain ‘everything’ or ‘every dimension and every point of Gods reach and realm’. As a Trinitarian, I do not assume that ‘everything that Gods being is’ was in ‘the form’ that walked with Adam in the garden. It is the same with all the Theophanies, I do not assume that whom David said: “But who is able to build a house for Him, for the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain Him?” would be able to manifest Himself to us without a Theophany. God must reduce his ‘form’ to something that we can relate to, commune with, and not die in the presence of. Communion with all of what God really is, would, I imagine, be like trying to have a conversation with the Sun, or a star (and not just a star but one of the really big ones). So besides the incarnation of God and the humbling of Himself, this is another way we can understand why Jesus is saying the Father is greater.

That said, it makes sense and it fits that Christ did not say He was ‘everything that God is’, yet Trinitarians can say that like the Theophanies a part of God is still God. So I understand that when Christ said He was the Son of God, He was saying He was God, but by saying so it was clear he did not want to imply that His incarnation was ‘all and everything that God is’.

Jesus did not claim he was all that God above was, because it could not logically be true, and it was not true. He wasn’t even 'all’ that He was before the incarnation, and not ‘all’ that he would be after his death and resurrection. He came as a child, a carpenter and a servant, and yet the whole time he was Lord, Savior, and King of heaven.

Jesus said everything He could to claim equality with God, except to say I am the Father. Because Jesus is not the Father, they are God. I believe Christ: knew ‘who he was’, expected us to know him, recognize him, and wants us to know even more about Him. Christ is not of an unknown origin and unknown nature. It is well stated that the incarnation was a mystery but ‘during’ His incarnation ‘who He is’ was gradually being revealed.
It wasn’t clear to Mary: (insert verse)
It wasn’t clear to the disciples: (insert verses)
But it developed as Jesus began to explain Himself: (insert verses)
At His resurrection, more is revealed: (insert verses)
And at his ascension, more is revealed: (insert verses)
And upon the receiving of the Holy Spirit, more is revealed: (insert verses)
Resulting in a full knowledge of who Jesus is: (insert verses)
I believe we cannot call Him Lord if He is not God. There is no option as there are not two Lords or two Gods: (insert verses)

[darinhouston]

Darin, do you believe we can eventually come to a conclusion on the nature of Jesus? The Unitarians seem to not have a consensus on who or what Jesus is. And in fact it seems to be a tenet of the system that they can search but never find out who Jesus was. Unitarians conclude Jesus is not God, yet at the same time who or what Jesus’ nature is should be concluded as ‘unknown’. Is this your philosophy?

Since I don't see Scripture as particularly explicit on the matter, it's doubtful we can come to a shared conclusion on it. As with Trinitarians, yes Unitarians do seem to have widely varying views on the subject. However, most would hold that His nature is that of man (and not unknown) and so I'd disagree with your premise. I also don't think it's fair to say they have as a "tenet" that you cannot find out "who Jesus was". I suspect that most Unitarians actually think it's clear that He's not God, not that it can't be known (you don't have to be a Unitarian to be a non-Trinitarian). But, "who he was" is also very different than "whether or how he's God." They might deny that (I would not deny it). But, the question of "who he is" in other respects is very clear from Scripture and seems to be much more important than the precise metaphysical nature of his divine relationship with the Father. So, no -- I'd have to say you have not stated my philosophy. I've also never aligned myself with Unitarians, though some of those who might refer to themselves as "biblical unitarians" or "oneness" have some pretty good arguments against (or at least legitimate criticisms of) Trinitarianism.

It strikes me that most Trinitarians are quick to defer to mystery as to how their concepts can be true. The difference with me is that I don't have a problem moving that mystery further back to where I think it's suggested by the Scriptural record -- that is, the divine nature of Jesus. That's a clear mystery -- we simply don't have much to go on. We've created models to try and harmonize things, but when you harmonize TO a mystery, it seems to me to have been a wasted effort. If you can't get to a clear and understandable harmonization, it doesn's seem worthwhile and it would suggest to me that you'd be better off remaining in mystery from the outset (perhaps along with some loosely held conjecture, but not dogma). [I guess it's fair to say that this last statement would be my philosophy.]

[jriccitelli]

I believe you made my case on the inconclusive part, especially the continuing mystery part.

However, most would hold that His nature is that of man (and not unknown) and so I'd disagree with your premise.

I never said they didn’t believe he was a man, but they also attribute to Jesus attributes of Deity and things unknown to man. And I would think this point; calling God his Father would be intolerable to Judaism, and it should be, unless Jesus truly is God. Unitarians also believe Jesus was perfectly good, yet Jesus himself said there is none good but God:
All Unitarians believe that Jesus was one with God, -- in a spiritual sense; the sense in which he prayed (John xvii. 21-23) that all who shall be brought to believe on him might become one with him and the Father. We believe he was wholly devoted to God, was led always by his Holy Spirit, and had no desire but to do his will. We all believe that Jesus was not a self-existent, but a created being, dependent upon and accountable to the one Supreme, whom he often addressed as his Father and his God. Many Unitarians are Arians, that is, they believe that Jesus pre-existed; that he was an archangel, next in dignity to the Most High; that he appeared upon earth in the person of the son of Mary, and led the life and died the death that is narrated in the New Testament. Other Unitarians, probably the larger part of them, believe that he was a man supernaturally born of his mother only, in accordance with the accounts given by Matthew and Luke. But there are many of our denomination who believe, as I do, that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary; that the accounts prefixed to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, inconsistent with each other, are not genuine, but were taken from the thousand marvelous stories which were invented in the second and third centuries of the Christian era to magnify, in the eyes of the ignorant and credulous, the founder of the new religion, and do away the reproach of his crucifixion. What do Unitarians believe? By Rev. Samuel J. May, http://www-distance.syr.edu/sammaybelieve.html

Rather inconclusive, if not all inclusive ‘except’ for Jesus being Deity.

That's a clear mystery -- we simply don't have much to go on.

We have had God describe himself to us since Genesis 1:1, when God, or was it Jesus, Created the heavens and the Earth. And then we have every book of the bible describing who? "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me’ I am amazed, or disappointed, don't you see or recognize who it is speaking through the Word, because He is the Word of God? Has not the mystery been revealed to us and our children forever? The mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints… which is Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col.1:26-27)

[Paidion]

...but I think by nixing that problem he creates too many others (how could God, logically, just exist to start time?). I find it more likely that there is another way of understanding time that eliminates the 'infinite regression' problem.

how could God, logically, just exist to start time?

I suggest he "just existed" to bring about that first act of begetting the Son, and time began as a consequent of that act. Though it doesn't seem sensible to our minds, because all other acts of which we are aware had to be brought about by an agent who existed prior to the act. But God's begetting of the Son was a unique act. There was never another like it.
You seem to agree that an infinite regression of time into the past is illogical. The only other option I have ever encountered is that "God exists outside of time" in a state called "eternity". This makes no sense to me however. What does it MEAN to exist outside of time/ Also you still have the same or similar problem as the infinite-regression problem. How did God break into time?

I don't think the Father can make the action of beget'ing the Son without some quantity of time passing by (as you say, if it was an actual event, causation requires some notion of time). Therefore, I stand by my argument that paidion is, semantically, trying to eat his cake and have it too.

You don't think He can, and I think He did. Where can we go from here?

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

Jr, I'm sorry but I really don't know how to respond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Time is a creation.

How do you know?

In the beginning, God created time. (Genesis 1:1 Revised?)

Time is not a subtance to be created. Time is a measurement of the temporal "distance" between two events. No events implies no time. Time came into existence with the first two events. It didn't have to be created; it is the consequence of the first two events.

All equilateral triangles are equiängular. When I draw an equilateral triangle, there is no need for me to make it equiängular. That happens as a consequence of drawing an equilateral triangle. Similarly, after God performed the first two events, He didn't have to create time. That happened as a consequence of bringing to pass the first two events.

[mattrose]

Where can we go from here?

Probably no further But I enjoyed the conversation. I'm sure the issues will come up again. Perhaps by then I'll have some different thoughts to add to the mix

[Homer]

Paidion'

You wrote:

All equilateral triangles are equiängular. When I draw an equilateral triangle, there is no need for me to make it equiängular. That happens as a consequence of drawing an equilateral triangle. Similarly, after God performed the first two events, He didn't have to create time. That happened as a consequence of bringing to pass the first two events.

If the begetting of the Son (as you have it) was the event that started the "clock" so to speak, what about God's thought "I will beget a Son"? Did God not have a thought prior to begetting the Son? And wouldn't that be a prior event? Or was there no God before?

Your system makes no more sense logically than the Trinitarian.