Quote: EezAad: The nature of God is one subject or christian doctrine; the role of Jesus is another.

pensteel:
It would seem that if Jesus is part of the trinity (three gods in one) then discussing the nature of God becomes very important. Not just important but if it doesn't become identical to a discussion of the nature of God it becomes very much entwined with such a discussion.

Quote: EezAad: Jesus as a man is not God, I agree with that and Jesus never told anyone: I am God;

So God and the man Jesus are two different beings? There is human Jesus who is not a god, and then there is the Jesus that is a god? Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it sounds like you are expressing a separationist perspective of Jesus' nature. The separationists were considered heretics because they believed that there was the man Jesus and the god Christ. You are not saying this...correct?

Quote: EezAad: 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.

pensteel:

Isn't this the problem though? If what you are saying is true that NT-scholars believe that God is not understandable and that the trinitarian concept is also incomprehensible; but at the same time to claim the trinitarian concept is to claim to know something about God.

Christians are claiming that God's nature is triune. As a triune being God becomes a compound unity and as human beings living in a physical universe we do understand something about compound unities--all physical objects are compound unities. Whether you look at a human being with its various organs, or a rubber ball and its molecules. The trinitarian claim, seems to me, to make God very understandable and comparable to the physical world. God as understood as a trinity becomes a higher conscious "thing".

I would also wonder if we don't know anything about God's nature. Is God completely beyond our understanding. For example we know that God exists. We know that God is not more than One. We also know that God is uncaused, or that he is independent. We also know that God's existence is necessary. God's existence is necessary in that if He did not exist we could not exist. Saying all of this I merely wished to point out that we do know a few things about God, He is not wholly incomprehensible. Given the things we know about Him I think it is possible to conclude whether God could be or is a triune being. Even if we couldn't know this rationally, we can certainly know it from the Torah.

Quote: EezAad:
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'.

pensteel:

I'll try to answer this question without giving a long-winded explanation. Anything that owes its being to something else whether now or an eternity past is dependent on that which it owes its existence to. Really, eternity and infinity have nothing to do with this question. It's a matter of logic. Even if an object doesn't have a temporal beginning, it does have a beginning as a matter of fact in the object to which it owes its existence. If you are going to say that Jesus has his origin in God, then it doesn't matter if Jesus has existed as long as God has, he still isn't God, because Jesus' existence (like all things) is owed to God.

Let's ask this question: "If Jesus ceased to exist would God?" Of course not, if Jesus has his origin in God, then God could continue to exist without Jesus. Let's ask the question the other way: "If God ceased to exist would Jesus?" Absolutely, Jesus' existence depends on God's existence. Therefore, we can say that God's existence is necessary to Jesus' existence whereas Jesus' existence is not necessary to God's existence.

By nature of God's superior being (as a necessary being) God and Jesus cannot in anyway be imagined to be equal. The only way you could begin to make the argument that Jesus is necessary is by Claiming that Jesus and God are absolutely identical. However, to say this you would be a heretic (Patripassionism) according to the church. This even flies in the face of the Christian scriptures which claim that Jesus is not equal to God, and that he had his origin in God.

Quote: EezAad:

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

pensteel: What part of Jesus didn't have a beginning and is infinite? I still don't get this.


Quote: EezAad:

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.

pensteel:

I don't understand why you claim that God and His word are not separate. In order for the word to go from one place to another place "His word, that came from the bosom of God..." necessitates its being separate from God. If it is separate from God it is not God. Even if the word exists eternally, being eternal does not make something God.

AP