No more than you mine.
I don't believe I've impugned any motives to your beliefs.
Nor I you...
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, why did you reject it?
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.
You still didn't address my points. First, you said it can't be shared, and then you implied that Jesus is now God. You only mentioned that Jesus will return the power and authority (God's title?) to the Father at a future time. Which does not address either of the two points I addressed to you.
Your last sentence then is you stating that Jesus is currently a fake God, a God in place of an absent Father, or that there is more than one God in place since only the Father is truly God and never stop being God. So, in order for this to be true, "now", they must both must hold the Title of God at the same time. Which I believe you said is incorrect and an impossibility.
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.
Good, on the Oneness Doctrine. However since you share a little something of your belief here, I must ask, are the Father and the Son Eternal?
Note: Just my curiosity on these last 2 questions.
Also, can they disagree? If not, why not if they are 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.
So, Jesus is God/Now, but the Father is not? (You haven't gotten ridden of my "Yikes" yet!)
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.
So, they do have different hats, in roles/authority, but only switch the Title of "God"?
Meaning you do believe in a "hierarchy" between the Father, Son, Holy Spirit!
Which then has me asking you, why state you left that belief behind you along with the Trinity?
I agree that the doctrine does not see it as just a Title, (see graph), however it is for the reason I've stated a couple of times, which is for the purposes of helping man to understand the relationship of Father, Son, Holy Spirit with each other. They need no such defining between themselves to Know who they are.
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.
Exactly how the Trinity sees it!
If you only see the difference in the roles/authority they have chosen to accept, then we are more alike than not. The more you share the more I can see where you are coming from and gain the ability to compare. Now if you could only see the Title of God, as being a very big hat that allows three beings to exist in it.... lol
(Again, God my apologies! You know my humor gets the best of me.
)
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.
Yes.
And "Yes" the distinction is necessary for us and not for them!
That last part you added is a transitional one by adoption.
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?
Really? The Holy Spirit has a lot of names. It just happens that "Holy Spirit" is the one He most frequently goes by.
Oh, and please don't go there!!!! You said you didn't believe in the "Mother" part, lol, but are now willing to go that route by stating the feminine nature of a word some believe is used for the Holy Spirit in certain instances? Don't forget in other name usages for the Holy Spirit, they are male. Or am I wrong in looking at what you wrote at the end above and where it was going to lead to?
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.
So, you don't believe it is grieving God?
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.
Glad you cleared the Oneness part...earlier. So, the Holy Spirit to you is not separate from the Father or Son but is actually the Father by another name? Aaaah, now I think I see where you are coming from. Interesting...but the one problem I see is Jesus talking about the Holy Spirit being sent to them by the Father. That might be a problem. Still, I'll look further into it to see how it might lineup with other parts of Scripture....if I don't forget that is!
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.
Please explain why it is not possible. Saying that God who consists of three persons is not possible, is to discredit the supremacy of God, that must fit our understanding and why I didn't accept or deny the Doctrine of the Trinity either until "Hierarchy" was brought to my attention.
It is possible, because my God is not confined to being understood fully by the finite mind, but your position is that He can be and that you find comfort in that knowledge and disregard any other that doesn't agree? That the impossibility of something that goes beyond human reason is just too difficult to grasp, and before moving on I must decide upon it?
As a child (3-4 or so) I looked at the night sky from a six-story building (top floor), and in my mind/being I said there is a God! I didn't know anything more than that at that time. I came to know later the verse of Psalm 19:1. That confirmed what I was seeing/feeling/knowing in my child existence. Yet, what does a child know! I tell you this premise will be proved whether you believe it or not, to everyone's satisfaction one day, because we will find ourselves in the presence of God, and if you are so bold, you are welcome to ask them, so which one of you is really God today. Any bets that you won't be asking, because it will no longer matter? lol
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.
Actually, I do not believe they were never Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I used this to try to explain, to you that with God as only a Title which is what you see it as being, that reason required they either existed eternal as such Father/Son/Holy Spirit, which is what I believe, or that some "when" there was only "God", and that God separated into the Father/Son/Holy Spirit as a possibility. Not understanding your theology, I was throwing darts to see if I scored or not. So, eternal separate beings who decided to select the role of God, which they could be as it moved them to do?
Oh, if we are to play parts, you have to be the son, since I'm older than you, and I prefer dad instead of pa, or pappy!
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.
Sure, it is. For me, and maybe not for you, but the Godhead, Father, Son, Holy Spirit is all about a relationship. That it would take eternity, should not surprise you, if you've ever been married that is!
Nick, I am not open to the Trintiy because it is illogical and refuted by Scripture. I used to hold the doctrine and believed there was a hierarchy. The Scriptures have shown me otherwise.
I haven't stated how you came to your belief. As I said, I see a hierarchy, just not a Trinity.
I might be wrong on the first part, since enough people who discuss the Trinity and are against it, use it as a starting point for where Trinitarians come by their belief and why I'm not quoting the rest of your post. The second part you may not have been clear enough to actually say how you don't see how the hierarchy applies to the Trinity and why I added your original mentioning of it. As I've said, if you understand how a hierarchy works, and can apply it to a relationship, you will know how the Trinity is, and how it operates. It still doesn't offer you any greater knowing of Him, but the structure of it allows the finite mind to grasp a bit of what eternity will continue to provide to us as we grow in Him.
It fits better for me in accordance with what I find in Scripture than these beings switching from God, to not God, and then back to God, which is how I interpret what you are saying.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><
P.S. Normally I go over what I'm going to post a couple of times, but I'm a bit tired right now. \o/
