How can the Father being the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit be reconciled with the aseity of the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The 27 books were chosen because they conformed with the Creed, not the other way around. So no. The Son doesn't proceed from the father, they are coeternal.
>>18107951>The Son doesn't proceed from the FatherYeah that's heresy anon.
>>18107960He doesn't. Begotten not made anon. Coeternal.
>>18108028Begotten doesn't sound like it's consistent with him being coeternal
Since trinitarians seem to like the word "consubstantial" so much (although to me it's weird to think of God as having a substance)... is there a heresy where the Holy Spirit *is* the substance of God? Because if God has a substance, then it seem like that would be one way to make sense of the idea that the early Christians were more binitarian than trinitarian.
>>18108028
>>18108043Begotten not made. Look at John 1:1 for coeternal and John 1:14 for begotten. He existed prior to bring conceived.
>>18108124John 1:1 says "in the beginning" or "in the origin" which sounds like a point in time rather than a point outside of time. John 1:14 does refer to Jesus becoming flesh, but I don't see how identifying that as the only/primary time he was a conceived fits with him being called the firstborn of all creation like in >>18108100
>>18108028False. The Son's origin is from the Father and this is what the Creed says:>born of the Father before all ages.God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,All the historic theologians like Augustine and Aquinas affirm that the Son (as well as the Holy Spirit) have the Father as their principle. The Father is the principle of the Trinity, he is its origin. The Son and the Holy Spirit are coeternal with the Father though. The Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father being their origin doesn't undermine their aseity because in their essence they, along with the Father, are Ipsum esse subsistens.
>>18107951>[John 5:19] Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.>[John 5:30-32] I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.>[John 5:36] But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.>[John 6:38] For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.>[John 7:16-18] Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.>[John 8:28-29] Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.>[John 8:54-55] Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
>>18107951>[John 12:44-50] Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.>[John 14:28] Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.>[John 17:1-5] These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.>[John 17:21-23] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
>>18107951>>18108491>>18108496God has no equal.>[Isaiah 46:5] To whom will you liken Me or count Me equal? To whom will you compare Me, that we should be alike?>[Isaiah 44:6] Thus says the LORD, the King and Redeemer of Israel, the LORD of Hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God but Me.>[Isaiah 45:5-6] I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God but Me. I will equip you for battle, though you have not known Me, so that all may know, from where the sun rises to where it sets, that there is none but Me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.>[Deuteronomy 32:39] See now that I am He; there is no God besides Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal, and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.>[Deuteronomy 4:35] You were shown these things so that you would know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides Him.
Is there a christian book going through scripture and exploring the nature of Jesus based on scripture?
>>18108504Any protestant book on Christology.
>>18108496>for my Father is greater than Ihow can there even be trinitarians with that in the bible?
>>18108650Schrodinger's Christ. According to the Athanasian Creed he's both God and Man but also just Man depending on the verse you're reading.>For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ;So when he says "my Father is greater than I" he's speaking as someone who's only human, even if that doesn't make any sense. God is, by definition, greater than Man, the only reason the creed has this unnecessary statement about him being "inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood" is because they knew John 14:28 contradicted Trinitarianism.
>>18108793How do you even square this circle? No wonder the proto-orthodox/Nicaean orthodoxy went insane in the 2nd-8th centuries trying to enforce this shit. Should’ve just listened to Marcion and jettisoned the Old Testament.
>>18107944>the aseity of the Son and the Holy SpiritThey don't have it in the first place.>>18108028No it's made
>>18107944Arius was right
>>18108650Is the Father Greater than a Human Nature?Jesus also says that He (the Son) and the Father are One.Jesus has both a Human and Divine Nature in hypostatic union, one subordinate to the Father and another coequal to the Father and the Holy Spirit.btw every time the Septuagint names "the Angel of the Lord" — mal'akh Elohim — who :>Carries the name of the Lord;>Claims He is the God of Beth'El, AKA God;>Can forgive sin;>Has been given authority over the promises made to the Hebrewsthat's God the Son, AKA Jesus before He incarnated, and He was present in Genesis 2.
If only the phrase "God the Son" were written in the Bible somewhere...
>>18109949>Carries the name of the LordBut that's precisely why he's not God, he merely bears the Divine Name. Indeed, all authority was *bestowed* upon him, including the power to forgive sins. Why would God need to give himself authority? Jesus and the Angel, whether or not you interpret them as the same being, are still subordinate to God, therefore they can't be God himself.>>18110054Also this.
>>18110120Ok, let's try another angleCan someone who is not God bear God's name? Or in other words, can someone who is not God be equal to God?
>>18110142>Can someone who is not God bear God's name?They can only *bear* God's name if they're *not* God. God bearing his own name is redundant.>Or in other words, can someone who is not God be equal to God?No.
>>18107944Why did rabbi yeshua like to take in the hairy ass from teenage boys? Was rabbi yeshua a homosexual transvestite?
>>18110167>They can only *bear* God's name if they're *not* God.That's retarded. Does God not bear His Own Name?
>>18110264>Does God not bear His Own Name?He would, had it been given to him by someone else.
>>18110301That's not what "to bear" means. It holds no a priori meaning of "holding or supporting something given to you". It simply means "holding or supporting something". A rock bears a ridge. In that sentence, what in the world indicates that the ridge was given unto to the rock, or any causal relation at all beyond the bearing of the ridge? Again, does God not bear His Own Name?
>>18107944By realizing its all made up.
>>18110358But I'm not talking about any a priori meaning, you're the one telling me God bears himself, gives authority to himself, and is one with himself.
>>18110358Philippians 2:9 says Jesus was given "the name that is above every name" which kind of sounds like it should be God's name that he was given.>Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,Philippians 2:6 is typically translated something like "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" which would seem to say Jesus was God to begin with, but if you trust David Bentley Hart, the Greek could also be translated as "who,subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a goda thing to be grasped," which is pretty different.
>>18110396Yes, and I tell you so with the very same scripture shown in image in this post : >>18110167>"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.">God is the Only Living God>The Living God bears a name (Exodus 3:14)>Therefore only God can bear the name of God, as the Only Living GodNow, yet again, despite me citing direct appeal to my case, can God not bear His Own Name?
>>18110420>The Living God bears a name (Exodus 3:14)Why all the mental gymnastics? That's not even what Exodus 3:14 says. Does the Rock bear itself?
>>18110409>who, subsisting in a god’s form, did not deem existing in the manner of a goda thing to be grasped"Subsisting" is an awful translation, since hyparchon — hupo archomai — it's mostly used in Matthew and Luke to denote "possessions", and in this case, "Who possessed [instrumentality "of"] the [Nature "Form"] [of] God"As for the latter part, harpagmon is negative connotation for taking, like "plundering" or "seizing". So they nost accurate rough translation would be :"Who, possessed of the Nature of God, did not consider equality with God to be something to be seized [negative connotation]"And why wouldn't He want to seize equality with God, since it is, for Him, innate?
>>18110432YOU are engaging in a fallacy. I say, "A Rock bears a Ridge", and you answer "Does the Rock bear itself?", thinking it is clever; but indeed, by definition, the Rock bears itself, bears also the descriptive of itself, otherwise it would not be the Rock. So yet again, I ask you : can God not bear His Own Name?
>>18110453>bears also the descriptive of itselfIs that what the word actually means or is it some a priori meaning? God does not "bear" the descriptive of himself, his name is his own nature, that's why I asked you if the Rock bears itself.Also, are you French? You seem to have trouble understanding English. Just saying because I noticed the spacing before colons, which I've only ever seen in French.
>>18110441Usually people don't seize things they already own... And interpreting a word whose primary meaning seems to be "form/shape," μορφή, as "nature" instead seems doubtful to me although I don't know enough ancient Greek to really argue one way or the other.
>>18110486 (cont.)Since Jesus is many times called the perfect image of God or something similar in Paul's letters, I wonder if "having the form of God" is just another way of saying that again.
John 17:11 also seems to say that Jesus was given his Father's name.>And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.
>>18110559Reading John 17 should turn any Trinitarian into a Unitarian but they stop reading at John 1:1
>>18109912He really was.
>>18110564true
>>18110564>trinitarians They can read but refuse to accept what the text says.
>>18110499I think so too.
