Evidence for God from Science

This thread:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=90

has brought up an issue that I think needs its own discussion.

The doctrine of The Eternal Sonship of Christ.

I'm going off this definition of the doctrine:

Answer: The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Son ... z2tOk4fEok

It may sound like playing word games, but "before" is intrinsically time-referenced, and time was created by God. Thus, because everything created was made by/through God the Son, the "Word", that Father-Son relationship is eternal.

Byblos was completely correct in the other thread. The issue is the hypostatic union. Oldman seems to confuse the man Jesus with the Second Person of the Trinity. I don't think it is unorthodox to say that the man Jesus came into existence at a certain point in time. The human nature, after all, is not eternal in the Godhead in and of itself (although, to be technical, it is eternal in Him as an idea, which Aquinas distinguishes as eternal ex parte Dei vs. ex parte creaturae). Thus Jesus the man is not eternal in that sense. But this is precisely why the dual nature of Christ is so important. He is one person with two natures. The Second Person of the Trinity is absolutely eternal with the First and absolutely equal in every way with Him being identical to Him in substance. That Second Person, however, became incarnated in time, which is to say, He took on a human nature. He did not replace His divine nature with another. He did not put on a "man suit" that He "drove around" like a machine. He did not comingle His nature with the human nature which would result in a nature that was neither human nor divine. No, the Person became incarnated as a man, and as a man, then by nature and definition He must have taken on a man's nature in addition to His own. In history, we call that Person Jesus Christ.

It is easy, then, to talk about Jesus' origins. It is easy to talk about Him being "from" the Father. What we cannot do is confuse language concerning the human nature's physical and temporal origination--that the human nature had an efficient, formal, material, and final cause--with language about the Eternal Sonship of the Second Person considered in His divine nature. For the Divine nature had no efficient, formal, material, or final cause. It had no physical or temporal origination. The divine of the Second Person is identical to and indistinguishable from the divine nature of the First Person (and the Third, I would add).

So the question of Eternal Sonship takes us back to the Trinity. What oldman is doing, I will charitably say is unbeknownst to him, is denying the Trinity. In asserting that the Son had an origination (based on scriptural language about the man Jesus Christ) He is denying that the Son is identical in substance with the Father (and Spirit). What he is actually saying is that there is a God (we call the Father) and that the Father created the Son in eternity past. At best, then, he is a polytheist. At worst, he is an Arian. The simple, inescapable fact in either case is that Jesus is not God.

At this point, then, one "merely" needs to understand the relations of the Persons of the Trinity to each other! But I don't know we need to go there yet, because frankly I believe that oldman has failed to understand the more fundamental points I made above regarding how we talk about Jesus given His dual natures. He has confused language that only properly applies to the human nature and has incorrectly applied that language to the divine nature as well. In doing so, he is (in practice, if not in theory) denying the dual nature of Christ, since he is talking about both of Christ's natures in the same way, which is tantamount to talking about one, single nature of Christ--a nature that is somehow both God and man and therefore in reality neither.

.

I know I said I was leaving but I must reply to Jac3510

Jac3510 wrote:Byblos was completely correct in the other thread. The issue is the hypostatic union. Oldman seems to confuse the man Jesus with the Second Person of the Trinity. I don't think it is unorthodox to say that the man Jesus came into existence at a certain point in time. The human nature, after all, is not eternal in the Godhead in and of itself (although, to be technical, it is eternal in Him as an idea, which Aquinas distinguishes as eternal ex parte Dei vs. ex parte creaturae). Thus Jesus the man is not eternal in that sense. But this is precisely why the dual nature of Christ is so important. He is one person with two natures. The Second Person of the Trinity is absolutely eternal with the First and absolutely equal in every way with Him being identical to Him in substance. That Second Person, however, became incarnated in time, which is to say, He took on a human nature. He did not replace His divine nature with another. He did not put on a "man suit" that He "drove around" like a machine. He did not comingle His nature with the human nature which would result in a nature that was neither human nor divine. No, the Person became incarnated as a man, and as a man, then by nature and definition He must have taken on a man's nature in addition to His own. In history, we call that Person Jesus Christ.

It is easy, then, to talk about Jesus' origins. It is easy to talk about Him being "from" the Father. What we cannot do is confuse language concerning the human nature's physical and temporal origination--that the human nature had an efficient, formal, material, and final cause--with language about the Eternal Sonship of the Second Person considered in His divine nature. For the Divine nature had no efficient, formal, material, or final cause. It had no physical or temporal origination. The divine of the Second Person is identical to and indistinguishable from the divine nature of the First Person (and the Third, I would add).

So the question of Eternal Sonship takes us back to the Trinity. What oldman is doing, I will charitably say is unbeknownst to him, is denying the Trinity. In asserting that the Son had an origination (based on scriptural language about the man Jesus Christ) He is denying that the Son is identical in substance with the Father (and Spirit). What he is actually saying is that there is a God (we call the Father) and that the Father created the Son in eternity past. At best, then, he is a polytheist. At worst, he is an Arian. The simple, inescapable fact in either case is that Jesus is not God.

At this point, then, one "merely" needs to understand the relations of the Persons of the Trinity to each other! But I don't know we need to go there yet, because frankly I believe that oldman has failed to understand the more fundamental points I made above regarding how we talk about Jesus given His dual natures. He has confused language that only properly applies to the human nature and has incorrectly applied that language to the divine nature as well. In doing so, he is (in practice, if not in theory) denying the dual nature of Christ, since he is talking about both of Christ's natures in the same way, which is tantamount to talking about one, single nature of Christ--a nature that is somehow both God and man and therefore in reality neither.

As far as I see “the dual nature of Christ” that you Jac have picked up on here is largely irrelevant to this discussion and serves only to detract from this question I keep asking.

If the Son did not come from the Father before creation began, why has the first and second person of the Trinity been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?

Can anyone here then who does not believe the Son came from His Father before creation began give a reasonable answer as to why the first and second person of the Trinity have been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?

As much as I keep asking, no good answer comes forward. What good reason then is there not to believe this?..

In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.), “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father, not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind having no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. This new mind became another person like the Father: The Father's Son.) “He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him,” (through the Father and the Son's pure and perfect love for each other they began creating everything whilst showing and giving that love to all who they created.) “without him nothing was made that has been made.” .


Once we start denying the Son came from the Father before creation began then we finish up denying the meaning of the words “Father” and “Son” in the Trinity. That then means we can easily deny the Father and Son relationship that produces the bond of perfect love that only a perfect Father and Son can give to each other. ...and indeed to all who they create.

So let me ask again, If the Son did not come from the Father before creation began, why was the first and second person of the Trinity revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?

...and let me also say again, the highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death. Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.

Through the Father and His Son comes their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure endless love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.

Jesus is God and the Son of the God who is His Father. Two different persons, “Father” and “Son” united as one God through the only proven Spirit of truth, all three are God. This God created all things.

So let me ask yet again, If the Son did not come from the Father before creation began, why has the first and second person of the Trinity been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?


All reasonable answers welcome.

Oldman,

You need to STOP making walls of text gibberish. Its not helping your discussion, and it only exhausts people who are replying to you because they have to scan around your gibberish to find what they disagree with. Its a complete lack of respect to people's valuable time and efforts. You probably think every word you are repeating sounds amazing that you need to repeat 5+ times, but it isn't.

I am going to say it because I know everyone here is thinking it.

KNOCK IT OFF!


Ok, so to directly address your question in regards to the title of "father" and "son".
There are 2 verses and a passage I want to bring to your attention, and I am going to allow you explain your interpretations of them according to you

John 3:16
Please explain what "only begotten Son" is

John 8:58
Please explain "before Abraham was, I am". Go ahead and put "I am" under the microscope.

Let me further elaborate and hit this point home, Oldman. Right now you should be panicking over what you've been claiming since around Christmas here.

Here is where I really begin to hit it home. Read all this.
Isaiah 43:10
Isaiah 42:8 (He does not share His glory with anyone else)
Isaiah 44:24 (Notice "by Myself")
Zechariah 2:6-10 (Who is speaking? Who is going to reside in the midst of the people? Who is sending? Who is being sent?)

This should pretty much pound it home. I hope you got it.

domokunrox wrote:Oldman,

You need to STOP making walls of text gibberish.

domokunrox, by calling this gibberish I cannot see how I can begin to reason with you.

The highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death. Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.

Through the Father and His Son comes their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure endless love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.

oldman wrote:

domokunrox wrote:Oldman,

You need to STOP making walls of text gibberish.

domokunrox, by calling this gibberish I cannot see how I can begin to reason with you.

The highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death. Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.

Through the Father and His Son comes their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure endless love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.

Oldman,

This is the same stuff you keep repeating over and over and over...

I think "mumbo jumbo" is probably a better description than gibberish.

Actually, now that I think about it, mumbo jumbo and gibberish are pretty much the same thing.

In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.),

You may think this explains the meaning of this phrase, but in fact it changes that meaning to something different and opposite of the meaning of the phrase.

“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father, not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind having no conceivable beginning to our finite minds.

Whether you're venturing into modalism or beyond, you're playing word games here. A "facsimile" that "became" is something created, and John 1:3 expressly stated that everything created was created with the involvement of the Word. Try giving up the equivocating word games to squeeze Scripture into "saying" what you want it to and molding what you believe to what Scripture says. Or just drop the pretence that you believe and follow Scripture rather than your own imagination.

Once we start denying the Son came from the Father before creation began then we finish up denying the meaning of the words “Father” and “Son” in the Trinity. That then means we can easily deny the Father and Son relationship that produces the bond of perfect love that only a perfect Father and Son can give to each other. ...and indeed to all who they create.

Not denying, just not anthropomorphizing God's Father-Son relationship.

oldman wrote:.


So let me ask yet again, If the Son did not come from the Father before creation began, why has the first and second person of the Trinity been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?


All reasonable answers welcome.

Still waiting for a reasonable answer.

You're pressing a false choice, oldman. It is sufficient to simply point out that Scripture contradicts your idea that that the Son came into existence rather being truly and fully eternally existant.

PeteSinCA wrote:You're pressing a false choice, oldman. It is sufficient to simply point out that Scripture contradicts your idea that that the Son came into existence rather being truly and fully eternally existant.

What I am pressing is that Jesus is God and the Son of the God who is His Father. Two different persons, “Father” and “Son” united as one God through the only proven Spirit of truth, all three are God. This God created all things.


If the Son did not come from the Father before creation began, why has the first and second person of the Trinity been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?


Still waiting for a reasonable answer.

oldman wrote:

PeteSinCA wrote:You're pressing a false choice, oldman. It is sufficient to simply point out that Scripture contradicts your idea that that the Son came into existence rather being truly and fully eternally existant.

What I am pressing is that Jesus is God and the Son of the God who is His Father. Two different persons, “Father” and “Son” united as one God through the only proven Spirit of truth, all three are God. This God created all things.


If the Son did not come from the Father before creation began, why has the first and second person of the Trinity been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?

Can anyone here then who does not believe the Son came from His Father before creation began give a reasonable answer as to why the first and second person of the Trinity have been revealed to us as “Father” and “Son”?

In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.), “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father, not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind having no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. This new mind became another person like the Father: The Father's Son.) “He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him,” (through the Father and the Son's pure and perfect love for each other they began creating everything whilst showing and giving that love to all who they created.) “without him nothing was made that has been made.” .

Still waiting for a reasonable answer.

Here is your answer...

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

Now back to your statement:

oldman wrote:...In the beginning was the Word” (The Son first existed only in the thoughts of God the Father.), “and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (This Word of the Father became a facsimile of the Father, not a creation as such but another part of the Father, a new free thinking mind having no conceivable beginning to our finite minds. This new mind became another person like the Father: The Father's Son.) “He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through Him,” (through the Father and the Son's pure and perfect love for each other they began creating everything whilst showing and giving that love to all who they created.) “without him nothing was made that has been made.”

So what I am hearing you say is this: God is a single person who is manifested as Father, and the Father as the Son, and the Father as the Holy Spirit? Yes - No...

The Son’s life began in the mind of the Father - Correct? Yes or No...

So are you saying that the Father represents the deity of Jesus? Yes or No...

And the Holy Spirit represents the Father truth and love? Yes or No...

Let me try to understand what you are trying to convey here. Are you asserting that before time there was only Jesus as the Father mode, or was there just the Father?

Are you stating that the Son was only in the Father’s mind and as such is the Father - a divine thought?

Are you stating that the Holy Spirit is the Father's divine nature and thought that holds his mind together in unity, and, Therefore the Father, is also but one of three modes that come from His same mind?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
So what I am hearing you say is this: God is a single person who is manifested as Father, and the Father as the Son, and the Father as the Holy Spirit? Yes - No...

The Son’s life began in the mind of the Father - Correct? Yes or No...

So are you saying that the Father represents the deity of Jesus? Yes or No...

And the Holy Spirit represents the Father truth and love? Yes or No...

Let me try to understand what you are trying to convey here. Are you asserting that before time there was only Jesus as the Father mode, or was there just the Father?

Are you stating that the Son was only in the Father’s mind and as such is the Father - a divine thought?

Are you stating that the Holy Spirit is the Father's divine nature and thought that holds his mind together in unity, and, Therefore the Father, is also but one of three modes that come from His same mind?
-
-
-

I have told you what I see, I cannot make it any clearer to you for the simple reason you cannot acknowledge this...

“The highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death. Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.

Through the Father and His Son comes their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure eternal love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.”


...can you?

oldman wrote:


I have told you what see, I cannot make it any clearer to you for the simple reason you cannot acknowledge this...

“The highest form of love is never self-centered but is a love that gives and sacrifices for the sake of others and remains faithful to love unto death. Only this love can be trusted to speak the truth, for only this love will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. Such is the essence and character of the Holy Spirit, revealed to us in full through the finished work of the Father's Son.

Through the Father and His Son comes their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other all that they are and all that they care to create. This Spirit of free and pure eternal love naturally embraces all knowledge and wisdom and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. This Spirit, this God, will live and rule only in those of us who will value Him above all others.”


...can you?

We're going to go ahead and make this easier for you, Oldman. You've learned absolutely nothing from when you were banned.

Let me go ahead and make this clear. You are a wolf in sheep's clothing. Plain and simple. Nobody else has picked up on this, but only an antichrist would make the statement you bolded. You keep saying over and over this gibberish claiming that its impossible for ANYONE to have a discussion with you until they somehow looked at your gibberish and say "Oh, yes! You describe truth and love perfectly. There is no way you can possibly be wrong or flat out lying to us". It really is quite a childish tactic. You might as well post of picture of a kid with his fingers in his ears going "lalalala, can't hear you". I have quite frankly had enough of it. There are atheist and agnostics on this board who post better then you. Goodbye, Oldman. You won't be here much longer.

We've tested this spirit enough, Mods. There is no truth in his words, and he will not come to the table and reason. He has made it clear since his first post here.

oldman from your response this is what I am hearing, please answer for clarity...

So what I am hearing you say is this: God is a single person who is manifested as Father, and the Father as the Son, and the Father as the Holy Spirit? Yes - No...

The Son’s life began in the mind of the Father - Correct? Yes or No...

So are you saying that the Father represents the deity of Jesus? Yes or No...

And the Holy Spirit represents the Father truth and love? Yes or No...

Let me try to understand what you are trying to convey here. Are you asserting that before time there was only Jesus as the Father mode, or was there just the Father?

Are you stating that the Son was only in the Father’s mind and as such is the Father - a divine thought?

Are you stating that the Holy Spirit is the Father's divine nature and thought that holds his mind together in unity, and, Therefore the Father, is also but one of three modes that come from His same mind?

Please answer these to clarify what you mean...
-
-
-