Quote:
pensteel:
God being beyond our comprehension actually does tell us something very important. If there is something that we can comprehend (by comprehend I mean that we can understand what it is for it to be) then that understandable thing is not God. Therefore, Jesus (being a man) is not God.


The nature of God is one subject or christian doctrine; the role of Jesus is another. Jesus as a man is not God, I agree with that and Jesus never told anyone: I am God; but Christians say (this seems very difficult to get through) Jesus is the union of God and man, without confusion (in short). Any NT-scholar (believing or not) can tell you that.
God is not understandable, so is the Trinitarian concept of the nature of God: also incomprehendable. Christians far from claim to understand the nature of God to the full.

Quote:
pensteel:
Light that produces light is still light, however, the second light has a source for its being--the first light. Anything that relies on something else for its being is dependent on the source of its being, but the thing which is the source of another's being is not dependent on that which it produces. Therefore, the second light is dependent upon the first light. Jesus (if he is the light) is dependent but not equal to that from which he has his source of being. God, however, is independent, He is dependent on nothing and no one. Therefore, because God is independent but Jesus is dependent it is clear that Jesus is not God, for a thing cannot possess both independent and dependent being. A thing either owes its being to nothing or something. A being which owes its existence to something cannot be God as God's existence is dependent on nothing and no one.


What is 'dependency' and 'having an origin' within the realm of infinity or eternity? That is the point: within our created space-time zone anything that is dependent or having an origin, cannot be God. But outside our created space-time zone this reasoning does not hold. Even if the Word has an origin this does not mean He is created, because His origin is within eternity and does not have a beginning in time: in that case He could not be God. So, the Word does have an origin (in God), but the Word does not have a beginning (in time); therefore He can be defined, according to the doctrine, 'God of God'.

Quote:
pensteel:
If infinity generates infinity where would the new infinity exist at? Also, how do you add onto infinity or take away from it? Anything with limitation in any way is finite. Since Jesus has a beginning, Jesus is finite.


Jesus as a man has a beginning and is finite, true. (see above)

Quote:
pensteel:
Even if you say that the "word" was born before all times...this does not remove it as a created and limited thing. It's source of being is still God and not itself. Therefore it is dependent on God. Because it is dependent on another for its being it cannot be identified as God, fore God's being is dependent on nothing and no one. I'm confused about your point concerning the word being divine as angels are divine--so what? No one would argue (I would think) that angels are infinite or are equal in any way to God. Even if God's "word" always was, this does not make it God. God's "word" is generated from God and therefore dependent on God.


The Word is not to be seen as a seperate being. God is the Only Being. His Word, that came from the bosom of God, 'spoken' by God, was with God, and is God from eternity.

Quote:
Chaim
And what's simple fact is that neither Josephus or Tacitus mention that Jews ever once believed that 1 = 3 or any other Trinitarian nonsense. As you'd see in this thread, both historians attest to Jewish uniform belief that God is one, period.


The difficult point here is: nobody argues that God is One.

Quote:
Chaim
Your biblical interpretations are proven false according to what all Jews believed in Jesus' day about God's unity. Unless you're of the opinion that God revealed Himself differently when Jesus came, and therefore expected Jews to follow a god their fathers never knew.


God did not reveal Himself differently, but more fully, though not to the full. The trinity cannot be derived from the Tanach alone, that can be said; here comes in the belief in the Messiah, and on this issue there lies the major difference (with doctrinal consequences like the one we are discussing now).

Not accepting Jesus'messiahship and His teachings must lead to the rejection of:
-the doctrine of the eternal Word of God, who was with God and who was at the bosom of God and who was God.
-the doctrine of the eternal Spirit, who is Lord and gives life: one with the Father and the Word.
-and so the trinitarian concept of the nature of God.

These doctrines imv are inherent to the revelation/coming of the NT-Messiah. I don't believe in a religious-political Jewish Messiah that will bring peace and happiness on this earth: such a man inevitably must lead to the next human disastrous experiment of (political) messianism, as there have been so many in the history.

Aad