No more than you mine.
I don't believe I've impugned any motives to your beliefs.
You have surprised me! You had not mentioned "hierarchy" until now. Most Trinitarians do not even discuss or acknowledge "hierarchy" when speaking of the Trinity. Therefore, I am interested in understanding how you initially encountered this knowledge or association between the Trinity & Hierarchy before deciding to reject it.
Two reasons. The first is the order they are listed. The second is that a father is always above his son in rank.
So, how then can Jesus have the authority given to Him, if as you say it can't be shared, unless He too is God?
I see a problem in this thought, because the Father would no longer be God when the authority was given to Jesus since you say it can't be shared. So, Jesus is now God, but the Father is not, because it has not been given back to Him by Jesus. We're just talking "Title" of course, because the essence is the same between them, and so they remain Divine, while currently only Jesus is God. (Yikes!)
We have to look at the Scriptures and context. Jesus said all power had been given to Him. That would indicate that there is none more powerful than Him. However, the apostle Paul gives us some additional information.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet.
But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. King James Version, 1 Co 15:23–28.
Here Paul is telling us that when God put all things under Christ, God Himself was exempted from those all things. So, Jesus was given all power, however, that did not include power over God. What we can gather from this is that Jesus has power over everything except God. So, in the truest sense of the word Jesus would not be almighty, The Father would be. It's not any different than when Jesus said that the Father is the only true God. There are several in Scripture who are called god. Even Jesus is called God. However, in the truest sense of the word, only the Father is truly God.
Is it possible that you transitioned from disbelief in the Trinity Doctrine to acceptance of the Oneness Doctrine? I would be quite surprised if that were the case.
No. I don't hold to Oneness. I see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings.
To use your "President" analogy, it would be like Trump was President, then Biden became President, and now Trump is back to being President.?
Is that your reasoning then about God, understanding that we're viewing this as a Title?
That being said, my point above remains. Jesus is now God, and the Father is not! (My Yikes remains too)
That would be the case with the United States. However, as I pointed out above, the Father is never subject to anyone so it wouldn't be a back and forth. The Father is the ultimate God. He gave all power to the Son to rule in His kingdom. This ruling gives the Son the title of God. However, when He turns the kingdom over to the Father the Son is no longer a ruler and as such is not call God.
It makes perfect sense in light of God being a Title, unless you have them switching hats all the time. That has less logic tied to it, when knowing they are in perfect harmony, it would not be an impediment to being God at the same time. Which of course would not be the same for any human, because look at us here now! lol However, for the Divine that is not created by man and is eternal, it would not be a problem!
If we're talking strictly about a title I agree. However, the doctrine as it's codified is not talking about a title. It's claiming that one being consists of three persons.
On the not having a graph, I wonder why not. You say it would not be necessary, but I say it surely is needed! Because the process would then be seen on how God/prior to Fatherhood, existed (One/Not Father or Son), and then when He split His essence with the Son (Two/Now Father & Son), are not the same but different though they are of the same essence and no difference between them, except....in the hierarchal sense which you have discarded a belief in. So, graph very much needed to reflect your belief!!!
When I say they are of the same essence I simply mean they are made of the same stuff for lack of a better description. It's not that they are blob of stuff for lack of a better description, and both consist as this one essence. What I am saying is that there are two different beings, just like you and I are two different beings. We are both human. So, whatever the God stuff is there are two of them. One of them is the Father and the other is the Son.
Except for the Title and as I said before for our sake and not their own!!!
While "hierarchy" explains roles/authority, that they have no need to define to each other because they are always in agreement in all that they do!
Now read what you wrote above again with what I said about how they became separate, and I tell you how/why the Holy Spirit is included. He is the way it happened (same essence), role/authority different, and how the knowing/agreement of each other eternally can be and is.
Except what I believe was that one time on the Cross when the Father turned from the Son, when He took sin upon Himself for us. This I believe is where the Humanity of Jesus comes into play. ;(
I have a suspicion that you are using the word essence differently than I am, please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that you see this essence called God and it consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is that correct?
I say the distinction is necessary because we are told to pray to the Father, not the Son. The Son is heir of all things, not the Father. There are many distinctions between the two that differentiate them. One is said to be our Brother the other our Father.
With a hierarchy, there is no problem, because roles/authority can be defined and are scriptural. Read again what I wrote in my last comment above this one, and you see what I mean about the role/authority of the Holy Spirit being needed and Divine.
If there is a third person, how can it be that He doesn't know the Father and the Son? Also, Why wouldn't it have a name? The Father is Yahweh, the Son is Jesus. Why doesn't the Spirit have a name. The Father is masculine, the Son is masculine. Why is the Spirit neuter. God is a He, Jesus is a He, and the Spirit is an it. Why isn't the Spirit also a He?
Side note: This is why the Grieving of the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. You are grieving the Divine/Godhead!
I disagree that that is the unpardonable sin. If one grieves the Holy Spirit they are grieving the Father.
Looking at your last comment, makes me think that you do believe in Oneness Doctrine.
Not at all. As I said, I see the Father and the Son as two completely separate beings. I see two, not three.
How can I address this issue when even the graph I provided does not aid your understanding, and you do not acknowledge the existence of a hierarchy in the Godhead? My previous reply, which I have included below, also appears to be incomprehensible to you. This seems to be because you do not consider the hierarchy as I mentioned or if you did it's not relevant to you.
It has nothing to do with understanding. I understand what the graph is portraying, and I understand the argument. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense. The graph is simply illogical. What it claims to portray is simply not possible. It's impossible.
What I often find when I debate this topic is that those who argue in favor of the Trinity argue as if their claim is possible. To have one being called God who consists of three persons is not possible. That is the claim of the Trinity doctrine. Those who argue in favor of the doctrine accept this premise. If one could prove this premise, then there would be something to base the doctrine on. But this premise cannot be proved.
We're going in a circle on this. I'll try this again. Prior to the Son, was the Father a Father? No. Yet His essence is as it has always been.
Now the Father begot (came from) the Son whose essence is the same as the Father and the Father's essence has also not changed for there is nothing else in existence from which He could come from. They are (and you're going to love this) One and the same in 2 persons. The Holy Spirit is the way this happened, making the 3rd person. The only way to tell the difference would be with a hierarchy that each accepts in role/authority and so the agreement. (Forgive me God for even attempting to explain who You are).
I thought that's how you were understanding essence in my question above. I disagree with this. In the beginning there was an eternal being. He begot a Son. That eternal being is now called Father. They are not one and the same in two persons. They are two completely separate beings or persons. Whatever God consists of there are two them that are completely separate. It's just like you and I. We both consist of human "stuff" but we are two completely separate beings. Just like a human father and son. They both consist of flesh, their essence, yet they are two completely separate beings.
You really can't try to find an analogy though many try, that speaks of this in human terms, because that is the only way you think it needs to be explained in order for one to believe it and to be fully understood. To fully understand God we need Eternity. Still, we catch/given glimpses of understanding that has us longing for more. The problem is that many say that even then they won't believe in it if they can't understand it fully. I laugh, because in their own lives which is simple in comparison, they believe in so many things, that they can't explain fully, and it's not a problem to them!
But this isn't trying to fully understand God. Because this concept is not in His word. What this is is trying to understand what is written in Scripture.
There is nothing in Scripture that states that there is one God in three persons. So, that means that we are not even trying to understand Scripture. What we find is that we are trying to understand and explain a doctrine that was formulated in the minds of men.
You like others here, state that this is how I came to my belief. It was not.
Again, a hierarchy does not conflict with the above which many just do not see.
Does Obedience mean you're less than the one you are being obedient to?
Was Jesus less for washing the feet of the Disciples?
Can one quantify "Love"?
Since the fall, humanity has wanted to put God in a box, to become god themselves, to make gods, say there is no God, etc. Don't you know the closer you get to knowing Him, the further away you realize you are from knowing Him in the fullest?
With the Love of Christ Jesus Dear Brother.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
I haven't stated how you came to your belief. As I said, I see a hierarchy, just not a Trinity. One has to wonder how the doctrine of God's Son has evolved. The Nicene Creed was the first creed that dealt with the relation of the Father and the Son. It's vastly different than the Trinity doctrine.
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
They believed in one God, the Father. They didn't believe in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believed that Jesus was begotten of the Father. The Greek text literally reads, begotten out of the Father. God out of God. He was begotten from the substance of the Father. We went from this in 325 AD to the idea of three coequal, coeternal persons who are all one God, by about 450 AD. The two creeds, the Nicene 325 and the Athanasian around 450, are so vastly different that it's almost impossible to reconcile them. Surely the Holy Spirit isn't teaching a bunch of contradictory and chaotic teachings all over the place. One thing to keep in mind is that by 450 AD "the Church" was the Roman Catholic Church. So, this doctrine is actually a Catholic doctrine. That in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything, however, one cannot overlook how drastically the two creeds diverge.
