• For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

If Jesus is God,why doesn't he have aseity?

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
Aseity is a fundamental quality of any divine being.but the trinitarians claim Jesus is eternally begotten by the father.anything that is begotten has its cause in something else and is thus created and cannot be a unconditioned reality or fully and truly God.

His aseity also Is a consequence of his absolute perfection.

You cannot be eternally begotten anyway.

If the son and holy spirit proceed from the father then they are not ase and thus are not coequal with the father.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,884
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
If the Father is eternal, how could the Son not be eternally begotten? It is a state of being, not an explanation on origin. My child was begotten and brought into existence because I exist within time myself. If I existed outside of time, then my child's "begotteness" would also be outside of time. Otherwise, you fall into Arianism.
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
7,337
Reaction score
734
Points
113
Age
38
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
Aseity is a fundamental quality of any divine being.
Wow, says who? 🧐 Substitute anything for "aseity"; my question remains the same.

What is aseity?
Aseity ... is the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself. The word is often used to refer to the Christian belief that God contains within himself the cause of himself, is the first cause, or rather is simply uncaused, though many Jewish and Muslim theologians have also believed God to be independent in this way. Notions of aseity as the highest principle go back at least to Plato and have been in wide circulation since Augustine, though the use of the word 'aseity' began only in the Middle Ages.
**Footnotes removed because they annoy me. 😁
 

Samn!

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
276
Points
83
Jurisdiction
Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Aseity is a fundamental quality of any divine being.but the trinitarians claim Jesus is eternally begotten by the father.anything that is begotten has its cause in something else and is thus created and cannot be a unconditioned reality or fully and truly God.

His aseity also Is a consequence of his absolute perfection.

You cannot be eternally begotten anyway.

If the son and holy spirit proceed from the father then they are not ase and thus are not coequal with the father.
Every statement here is a more or less arbitrary assertion with no necessary logical underpinning. I get that Dutch Catholicism is a spiritual and intellectual wasteland, but man...
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
If the Father is eternal, how could the Son not be eternally begotten? It is a state of being, not an explanation on origin. My child was begotten and brought into existence because I exist within time myself. If I existed outside of time, then my child's "begotteness" would also be outside of time. Otherwise, you fall into Arianism.
because to have your origin in something and to be begotten at all cannot be timeless.to say you are begotten but not created is a logical contradiction.same for proceeding from the Father.
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
Wow, says who? 🧐 Substitute anything for "aseity"; my question remains the same.



**Footnotes removed because they annoy me. 😁
because to be God,is to be absolutely perfect and unconditioned.if you are dependant on something else,you are not self sufficient or allpowerful .nor perfect.you are a creation,as to be timelessly dependant on or proceeding from something else is impossible.and Jesus and the spirit cannot be co-equal with the father.
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
7,337
Reaction score
734
Points
113
Age
38
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
because to be God,is to be absolutely perfect and unconditioned.if you are dependant on something else,you are not self sufficient or allpowerful .nor perfect.you are a creation,as to be timelessly dependant on or proceeding from something else is impossible.and Jesus and the spirit cannot be co-equal with the father.
I didn't see a "who" in that response.
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
I didn't see a "who" in that response.
me.how can Jesus and the spirit be co-equal with the father if they are caused by him'timelessly'?such a thing isn't even possible.they are not self-sufficient.they cannot be a unconditioned reality.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,884
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
because to have your origin in something and to be begotten at all cannot be timeless.to say you are begotten but not created is a logical contradiction.same for proceeding from the Father.
Again, the usage of the word is intended to be relational, not an explanation of origin. It is describing the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is not saying that the Son was created by the Father.

We as humans think about things in terms of their origin. If a person says: "My dad loves me", you think "dad is the man who ejaculated into the speaker's mother and then the speaker was created and grew. This man exhibits an emotional affection for the speaker because of his role in creating the speaker". In most cases, that is true. If, however, the person is referencing a stepfather, a godfather, or another male figure that they identify as father, the speaker did not originate from that father. The term is used in a purely relational manner without the intent of demonstrating creation. This is obviously an imperfect analogy because people still have origins and the Father is not Christ's stepdad, but it is valid from the perspective that such an individual can be considered relationally begotten without being physically begotten.

I would also note that we are using English words to try to explain language and idioms that were written in first century Greek that were referencing terms written in ancient Hebrew. "Only begotten" is how Isaac is described relationally to Abraham. From a literal perspective this makes no sense. Abraham also begot Esau. Isaac wasn't even his first born child. If Scripture is attempting to speak of begotteness as a matter of origin, then Isaac couldn't be called "only begotten".
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
Again, the usage of the word is intended to be relational, not an explanation of origin. It is describing the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is not saying that the Son was created by the Father.

We as humans think about things in terms of their origin. If a person says: "My dad loves me", you think "dad is the man who ejaculated into the speaker's mother and then the speaker was created and grew. This man exhibits an emotional affection for the speaker because of his role in creating the speaker". In most cases, that is true. If, however, the person is referencing a stepfather, a godfather, or another male figure that they identify as father, the speaker did not originate from that father. The term is used in a purely relational manner without the intent of demonstrating creation. This is obviously an imperfect analogy because people still have origins and the Father is not Christ's stepdad, but it is valid from the perspective that such an individual can be considered relationally begotten without being physically begotten.

I would also note that we are using English words to try to explain language and idioms that were written in first century Greek that were referencing terms written in ancient Hebrew. Only begotten is how Isaac is described relationally to Abraham. From a literal perspective this makes no sense. Abraham also begot Esau. Isaac wasn't even his first born child. If Scripture is attempting to speak of begotteness as a matter of origin, then Isaac couldn't be called "only begotten". Instead, it is a relational term.
So then why even confuse people like this?and divine absolute uniqueness can be proven logically anyway.there cannot be three gods like trinitarians actually believe.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,884
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
So then why even confuse people like this?and divine absolute uniqueness can be proven logically anyway.there cannot be three gods like trinitarians actually believe.
Confusion usually results from lack of education. If you are educated in it, you aren't confused. Much of Islamic teaching confuses me because I haven't studied it. That doesn't mean that it is trying to confuse me. Literally no trinitarian believes there are three gods. That is a belief that non-trinitarians foist on trinitarians because they don't understand what we do believe. If I said that Muslims believe that Muhammad is Allah, you would correct me and tell me that my understanding is wrong. That would be fair since Muslims don't actually believe that. It is just as unfair of you to claim that we worship three gods as it is for me to claim that you worship Muhammad as God.
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
Confusion usually results from lack of education. If you are educated in it, you aren't confused. Much of Islamic teaching confuses me because I haven't studied it. That doesn't mean that it is trying to confuse me. Literally no trinitarian believes there are three gods. That is a belief that non-trinitarians foist on trinitarians because they don't understand what we do believe. If I said that Muslims believe that Muhammad is Allah, you would correct me and tell me that my understanding is wrong. That would be fair since Muslims don't actually believe that. It is just as unfair of you to claim that we worship three gods as it is for me to claim that you worship Muhammad as God.
if all three are 'fully'and truly God,then there are three Gods.if its only God when in unison you are a partialist,wich is another heresy.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,884
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
There is one God manifested in three persons that act in perfect unity. I can't really give a good analogy because of its absolute uniqueness, but I suppose the closest I could get would be if I said there is one family and your counter argument would be that there can't be one family because there is a father, mother, and child thereby making it 3 families. Again, a pretty poor analogy, but if we are to look at the Christian conception of God vs the polytheist's version of gods, they are vastly different. The polytheist sees gods as competing, vying for power, struggling against one another. There is no concept of that within Christianity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operate in perfect unison at all times. If each Person of the Trinity had its own goals, stated aims, or specific limitations, that would be three separate gods. Christians do not believe that though. It isn't intuitive to us because we are accustomed to a being having one person. There are no living entities on earth that have more than one person associated with their being. Thus, it makes it rather difficult for us to understand how such a thing can be, but just because it is difficult to understand, doesn't mean it is wrong. It does explain, however, why the Orthodox prefer to define things by the negation of representations rather than the assertion of representations. By stripping away what is false, it is easier to understand what is true.
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
There is one God manifested in three persons that act in perfect unity. I can't really give a good analogy because of its absolute uniqueness, but I suppose the closest I could get would be if I said there is one family and your counter argument would be that there can't be one family because there is a father, mother, and child thereby making it 3 families. Again, a pretty poor analogy, but if we are to look at the Christian conception of God vs the polytheist's version of gods, they are vastly different. The polytheist sees gods as competing, vying for power, struggling against one another. There is no concept of that within Christianity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operate in perfect unison at all times. If each Person of the Trinity had its own goals, stated aims, or specific limitations, that would be three separate gods. Christians do not believe that though. It isn't intuitive to us because we are accustomed to a being having one person. There are no living entities on earth that have more than one person associated with their being. Thus, it makes it rather difficult for us to understand how such a thing can be, but just because it is difficult to understand, doesn't mean it is wrong. It does explain, however, why the Orthodox prefer to define things by the negation of representations rather than the assertion of representations. By stripping away what is false, it is easier to understand what is true.
God in the old testament says there is none other than him,none besides him etc God means to be a person or atleast a divine intellect.the trinity in unison is a composition of three alleged divine intellects.so to call the unity of this alone as God,is not only partialism but makes no sense of the word and meaning of a God.and there cannot be more than one unconditioned Reality as this shows.

Trinity had its own goals, stated aims, or specific limitations, that would be three separate gods
Jesus didn't want to die,and he alone incarnated allegedly.The tanakh says that the heavens and earth cannot contain God let alone a temple.what of a human body?
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,884
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
God in the old testament says there is none other than him,none besides him etc God means to be a person or atleast a divine intellect.the trinity in unison is a composition of three alleged divine intellects.so to call the unity of this alone as God,is not only partialism but makes no sense of the word and meaning of a God.and there cannot be more than one unconditioned Reality as this shows.
Nothing I said invalidates anything you wrote here. The fact that you are unable to make sense of the word is unfortunately a problem that I am unable to remedy. God is the unconditioned reality, but just because He is the unconditioned reality doesn't mean that you can necessarily infer certain attributes about Him. His Triune nature is completely separate from Him as an unconditioned reality just as His love, his essence, his energies are all things that we cannot glean from the fact of his unconditioned reality.

Jesus didn't want to die,and he alone incarnated allegedly.The tanakh says that the heavens and earth cannot contain God let alone a temple.what of a human body?
Jesus expressed a human desire to avoid death, but subordinated it to divine will. It was an expression of His being fully human and fully God. What the tanakh says is true, the heavens, earth and human body cannot contain God, but that doesn't mean that God is incapable of containing Himself within His creation. There is a big difference between creation containing God which implies exerting a force on God greater than God's, and God exerting a force on Himself as a demonstration of love.
 

muskogee22

Member
BANNED
Joined
Jun 18, 2017
Messages
96
Reaction score
7
Points
8
Location
Amsterdam
Faith
Sunni Muslim
Jurisdiction
strict Hanafi
Nothing I said invalidates anything you wrote here. The fact that you are unable to make sense of the word is unfortunately a problem that I am unable to remedy. God is the unconditioned reality, but just because He is the unconditioned reality doesn't mean that you can necessarily infer certain attributes about Him. His Triune nature is completely separate from Him as an unconditioned reality just as His love, his essence, his energies are all things that we cannot glean from the fact of his unconditioned reality.


Jesus expressed a human desire to avoid death, but subordinated it to divine will. It was an expression of His being fully human and fully God. What the tanakh says is true, the heavens, earth and human body cannot contain God, but that doesn't mean that God is incapable of containing Himself within His creation. There is a big difference between creation containing God which implies exerting a force on God greater than God's, and God exerting a force on Himself as a demonstration of love.
there is one alleged divine subject,to say he had two opposing wills is to make jesus two persons .and jesus alone incarnated according to christian theology,so he has his own actions,will and desires.

the context of that verse is that the temple cannot contain God,where god would come down in the form of the shekhinah.this is no different then God being contained in a human body.if God cannot come down as a shekhinah then he cannot come down as a human with a contradictorary nature to his divine nature.
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,884
Reaction score
78
Points
48
Age
41
Location
PA, USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antiochian
The context, assuming we are referring to I Kings 8:27, is that Solomon is saying a prayer of dedication of the temple which he built. It is a prayer of humility, stating that the temple that he built cannot contain God, but he asks that God will listen to his prayers anyways. He isn't stating that God is incapable of coming to earth.
 
Top