Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, it doesn't.
It might under the standard notions of father and son. In that case, it is true that a son cannot be his own father.
But if you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that one entity can be both father and son. Here, you cannot draw logical conclusions that rely on the former interpretations of father and son, such as ...[text shortened]... and the Son." That claim is false if you accept the Trinity.
You can't have it both ways.
It might under the standard notions of father and son. In that case, it is true that a son cannot be his own father.
Why not? Haven't you read Heinlein's
All You Zombies? 😉
But if you believe in the Trinity, then you believe that one entity can be both father and son. Here, you cannot draw logical conclusions that rely on the former interpretations of father and son, such as "The Son of God's existence requires two entites: the Father and the Son." That claim is false if you accept the Trinity.
I think your main problem is that you insist that terms be used either univocally (i.e. having one meaning alone) or equivocally (i.e. having completely different, unrelated meanings). I think you fail to see that terms can be used
analogically (i.e. with different, but related or similar, meaning). So, for instance, I think you would not see any relation between the use of the word 'father' in the following pair of statements:
"Tom is Jack's father"
and
"The child is father to the man" (1)
Of course, even in common conversation, we understand that the term 'father' can be used in slightly different senses - biological (natural father) vs. legal (as in adoption) for instance.
My point - simply because God as father to Christ is not identical to the situation of human fatherhood does not mean that they are completely unrelated. Nor does it mean that all concepts used in one context are completely inapplicable when applied to the other - like the term 'father' they will be used analogically (2).
In the case of the Trinity, the traditional understanding is that the Father and the Son are separate
persons (i.e. independent minds and wills - although those minds and wills are perfectly aligned) united in one
being. This is, of course, a Mystery - something the human mind cannot fully fathom (3).
Nevertheless, this does not affect the fact that Jesus knew that his audience would interpret "God" to be the OT God; and so did the author of John.
---
(1) From the poem by the same name by Gerald M. Hopkins:
http://www.bartleby.com/122/68.html
(2) Aquinas elaborated quite a bit on the analogical use of terms, particularly those related to goodness, when applied to God. A reasonable overview can be seen at:
http://faculty.ssu.edu/~jdhatley/MedAquinasNotes.htm
Note: I have no clue why the author insists on calling God "G-d".
(3) This reminds me of a recent episode of
All Grown Up (the spin-off of
Rugrats) I saw on Nickelodeon recently. In order to impress a girl at school, Chuck adopts an Eastern European identity - 'Chonzo' - who, naturally, looks and behaves nothing like Chuck.