Good ol' Joe; got his teaching in really well this time.
The concept of the Holy Trinity has been a controversy since it was codified in Nicea in 325AD. The major arguments were that Nicea said that Christ was God and that God was God, that Christ was not made but begotten of God The Father, that since Christ came from the Father He was also God. Then Nicea went further to explain that God and Christ are of one body or of the same substance, and further to say that God The Father and Christ the son were both eternal.
I personally find these statements illogical. I don't see how Christ could be begotten AND be eternal, I believe the terms eternal and begotten are mutually exclusive. If a King has a son, his first son, he becomes king. He isn't born a king although he is born to become a king. He has the substance of being a king when he is born because he is begotten by a king.
Christ and God The Father are not the same being. Christ prayed to His Father in the garden and asked that the bitter cup be removed but then decided to do His Fathers will. While Christ did the bidding of His Father and sacrificed Himself for us His Father also sacrificed His Son.
All the above is not to say that I believe that Christ The Son of The Father was first begotten when He was born of Mary, I believe that He was with The Father from before time. What does before time mean? Good question but I believe it was at least before the creation of the earth. I also believe that all people were with God The Father before the creation of earth.
I believe, again, doctrine according to Joe, that Christ when He was born of Mary received a physical body and was no longer a spirit. After His death on the cross He apeared to many several times going back and forth between Heaven and earth, and even stated that He was not a spirit, He ate and drank with the Apostles to prove He had a body. When He left the earth to ascend to Heaven for the last time recorded in the Holy Bible He was seen by about 500 people and the two angels explained to those who saw Him ascend that He would come back in the same way. To me that means He has a body like mine only perfected to be incorruptible as Paul explained.
So who then is The Holy Ghost? Again the doctrine of Joe says that He is a personage of spirit, just like Christ was before being born of Mary. There is a difference though, Christ was the First Born of The Father while The Holy Ghost does the will of The Father and of The Son and testifies of Them both.
The doctrine of Joe says that God The Father and God, Christ The son are not of the same substance in that they do not share the same “body” if you will but are of the same substance like my father and I are of the same substance. When I look in the mirror now in my old age I see my father looking back from the mirror at me. I look like him because I am of the same substance, not his substance but they are the same.
How important is this argument? I don't think it very important. I think what is important is to realize that Jesus Christ willingly did the Will of His Father and came to earth, was perfect and therefore did not deserve to die or be punished for sin. I do not believe it was any easier for Him to be perfect than for me but He was AND He agreed to be punished in my place for my sins if I but acknowledge Him and try to follow Him. I am trying.
Because Christ was perfect and deserves no punishment He can stand before The Father and offer Himself to take the punishment of my sin for me. He does not have to do this. He will not do this for everybody, not everybody will ask Him too, not everybody will try to follow Him.
Christ says He will inherit EVERYTHING His Father Has. He also says that if we will follow Him, at least really try to follow Him that we will be joint heirs with Him AND be like Him. You can't inherit something you already have. At some point anyway Christ did not have all that The Father has but would inherit it, that alone tells me that Christ and God The Father are two individuals and that Christ anyway has progressed from one condition to another.
“Christ and God The Father are not the same being.”
Plus, Satan would have never tempted God, knowing that tempting God is not possible.
This is a hint from the Word but spiritual things do not lend themselves to carnal schematics.
John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.[
The Word, or Son, is eternally begotten. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
You are not entitled to believe that the terms "eternal" and "begotten" are mutually exclusive, because you are not the arbiter of what the words mean.
My two cents on your post:
>>>” I believe the terms eternal and begotten are mutually exclusive. “
Eternal in this theological sense means outside time, time does not apply. So neither does ‘before’ or ‘after’ .
>>>”I personally find these statements illogical.”
Transcendent God means God transcends physical senses and reason/logic. There is a difference between transcending logic and contradicting logic. If we take ‘eternal’ as defined above, then logic is not violated - even if we cannot use logic to fully comprehend it.
God must transcend logic or else (He) is not God; we would have a philosophy not a religion.
The Most Holy Trinity is eternal; however, God chose to become incarnate, in time. These are not mutually exclusive. Nor or they illogical. As a weak analogy of outside time and incarnate: the laws of physics exist without any matter to ‘incarnate’ in; when matter exists, the laws ‘incarnate’ in them.
Thanks for your post.
Good ol' Joe; got his teaching in really well this time.
“Christ and God The Father are not the same being.”
“I and my Father are one.” - Jesus Christ (John 10:30)