[Forest Keeper]

But the existence of both the Son and the Spirit (and therefore the Godhead, the Trinity) is eternally caused by the Father who is himself un-caused; hence the monarchy of the Father.

This goes with my recent post to Kolo about the Chrysostom article. MY existence was caused by God, so how can the existence of any of the Trinity said to be caused? To say "caused" means there was a time of non-existence.

[kosta50]

MY existence was caused by God, so how can the existence of any of the Trinity said to be caused? To say "caused" means there was a time of non-existence.

I have already answered that in 5,677, and I do realize that your replies are backlogged. Of course, your post only shows to what level of rationalization Christian apologetics had to go through (and still do) in order to "explain" this conundrum called Christianity.

However, if (as a lawyer) you carefully read what I wrote, you will note that it says the Son and the Spirit are eternally caused by the Father, so your objection—that it means "there was a time of non-existence"—is unsubstantiated.

But this still doesn't explain what makes Son a son, and the Father a father! All this, of course, is part of the Christian riddle which gives it that "mysterious" appeal that requires a language that almost borders on psychotic (i.e. "I am in you and you are in me" type) yet trips all over itself because it is an amalgam of mutually exclusive and incompatible elements (Judaism, Platonism and Zoriastrianism), so much so that everyone has a slightly different take on it.

The fact that the caused and uncaused concepts of divinity (i.e. the "Godhead") appear to be alien to a mainline  Christian only shows the chasm of mutual misunderstanding that exists in Christianity under the guise of commonly used terminology and a superficial unity in "core beliefs" among all Christians. Christianity is as heterodox today as it was 2000 years ago.  If you scratch the surface, you find a bottomless canyon between various communities in terms of what they understand Christian concepts to mean and, ultimately, what they believe in.

MY existence was caused by God, so how can the existence of any of the Trinity said to be caused? To say "caused" means there was a time of non-existence.

I have already answered that in 5,677, and I do realize that your replies are backlogged. Of course, your post only shows to what level of rationalization Christian apologetics had to go through (and still do) in order to "explain" this conundrum called Christianity.

However, if (as a lawyer) you carefully read what I wrote, you will note that it says the Son and the Spirit are eternally caused by the Father, so your objection—that it means "there was a time of non-existence"—is unsubstantiated.

But this still doesn't explain what makes Son a son, and the Father a father! All this, of course, is part of the Christian riddle which gives it that "mysterious" appeal that requires a language that almost borders on psychotic (i.e. "I am in you and you are in me" type) yet trips all over itself because it is an amalgam of mutually exclusive and incompatible elements (Judaism, Platonism and Zoriastrianism), so much so that everyone has a slightly different take on it.

The fact that the caused and uncaused concepts of divinity (i.e. the "Godhead") appear to be alien to a mainline  Christian only shows the chasm of mutual misunderstanding that exists in Christianity under the guise of commonly used terminology and a superficial unity in "core beliefs" among all Christians. Christianity is as heterodox today as it was 2000 years ago.  If you scratch the surface, you find a bottomless canyon between various communities in terms of what they understand Christian concepts to mean and, ultimately, what they believe in.