Again, the way you understand the obedience of Christ to God the Father is the issue here, not the mere statement Christ was obedient to God the Father. The humanity of Christ was subject to obedience to God, not His divinity. He cannot disobey God because He is God, God cannot disobey Himself. And none of your quotes address the divinity of Christ as being subject to God the Father.
I already said I meant to say Jesus is not the father. That was my mistake.
We don’t disagree that Jesus was obedient to the Father, but perhaps you could answer some questions:Fauken:
I agree with Thomas Aquinas and Athansanius that they are all co eternal and co equal and co divine. If you could point me to where they say prohibit saying Jesus was obedient to his Heavenly Father I would appreciate that as I could not find that
Sure!
Now what do you think beget means?
See, that’s not quite it.
God the Father did not bring about God the Son. God the Son was begotten His divinity from Himself: God. He who, as stated in the Nicene Creed, was “born with the Father before all ages.” There was no action that caused the Son to exist. As it is the nature of God to exist, so too is it the Son’s nature to exist. God is: so too is the Son.
I understand your argument. By saying that Jesus is begotten from the Father, we are saying that Jesus is fully God and not a creation of God (Arianism), nor is the Son of God simply a mode or action of God (Sabellianism). I guess my question is How can Jesus be his own son?
It is through the Son in the Trinity that God assumed a human nature in the person of Jesus Christ, uniting the Divinity to a human body and soul.
Do you understand and respect my arguments? I respect yours and will think more about it but for now I cannot accept the fact that their is no subordination in respect to obedience within the trinity
I also think we need to distinguish carefully between ontological subordination (which is heresy), and relational or functional subordination.
I respect that your beliefs are in earnest. I think you have misunderstandings about the Godhead, though. There really can’t be subordination in the way people typically mean the word, though. It leads to a misconception of the Trinity as having multiple wills such that one could subordinate to another. Christ submits in his humanity, and is inferior insofar as humanity is inferior to divinity, but equal in his divinity. Note the distinction there, we can only speak about inferiority in respect to his humanity, but by virtue of his divinity he is, considered as a whole person, equal with the Father and Hily Spirit.Wesrock:
Do you understand and respect my arguments? I respect yours and will think more about it but for now I cannot accept the fact that their is no subordination in respect to obedience within the trinity
Your profile says “Catholic”. Your username says you’re a Trinitarian. This comment says you’re more Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon than either of those.
“through Him [the Son] all things are made” - Nicene Creed
You’re stepping dangerously close to the heresy of subordinationism there.
How’s the weather up there on your high horse?
“non confirmed” for what reason and in what way?
If you profess to be Catholic, we’ll hold you to Catholic standards, which isn’t based on number of Scripture citations but on submission to the Church.
I made similar arguments a few years ago on this very forum. I found myself corrected and wrong. The most we can say is that the Father generates the Son, the Son is generated by the Father, the Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is spirated by the Father and Son.Wesrock:
I also think we need to distinguish carefully between ontological subordination (which is heresy), and relational or functional subordination.
respectfully wesrock This is your opinion, There is nothing in the CCC that prohibits relational subordination and there are great saints on both sides of the argument.