The Trinity

[JLB]

However, I’ve also come to believe that many tend to see a demon behind every bush, attributing everything to spiritual warfare without discernment.

When you begin to work with people one on one help them get free you will understand what I mean.

I salute you for your outreach work though. Many won’t help people like that.

 

[JLB]

A general observation I've made since I was quite young is that Charismatics and Pentecostals can be particularly intense--if you disagree with them on certain points, you're often labeled a heretic, and if you don't speak in tongues, they may question whether you're even truly born again.
Then there's also the matter of "open confessions," which at times can blur the line between genuine testimony and emotional exhibition.

J.

Yes sir there is much flakyness in some of those movements.

 

[JLB]

and if you don't speak in tongues, they may question whether you're even truly born again.

Have you been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

 

[RandyK]

I understand that more than you can imagine.

That’s why I pray for the Spirit of understanding to be imparted when I speak, counsel, or post on these Forums.

The Spirit of understanding, which is the Spirit of grace, the Spirit of truth as well as the Spirit of wisdom will be imparted when we share the scriptures He is leading us to share.

Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. Ephesians 4:29

Words of the traditions of men and men’s commentary have no spiritual value, no anointing that imparts grace (the ability to do what we hear), to give the hearer the ability to understand and do what the truth is saying.


Like plowing a field and cultivating it over and over, preparing for the seed are those who understand; those who will reproduce the Seed.


But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” Matthew 13:23

There's a fine line here between your insistence on using the Scripture only and bibliolatry. Keep in mind that the authors of the NT did not just quote the OT Bible when writing their epistles. Keep in mind that the beginning Church did not even have a NT Bible yet!

We don't have to go around quoting the Scriptures to everybody we meet in order to "stay spiritual." We should have confidence that with Christ in our heart, and a mind renewed by the Spirit, that we can speak on our own initiative without having to quote somebody?

When I say the Scriptures have to be understood I'm referring to the need we have to understand the basics of our Christian education. We don't have to understand, as you seem to suggest, that we can only understand things by quoting Scriptures.

The Scriptures help, but it is the Holy Spirit in our lives and the word of God in our conscience that teaches us understanding about how we are to live day to day. We need both Scriptural understanding and experience in our walk in the Spirit and in obedience to God's living word in our hearts.

Furthermore, we are exhorted to learn from our elders before us, and from those particularly gifted by God to transmit messages faithfully from the Lord, whether by teaching, prophecy, or preaching.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann, Free and RandyK,

Where you are going wrong is in denying the clear Scriptural evidence of the incarnation of Christ Jesus. You are not willing to reason from the Scriptures, and if you get this foundational truth wrong, it affects your entire understanding of who Jesus truly is.

Yes, I agree that it affects our understanding of who Jesus truly is and I will continue to affirm what I have already stated.

The claim that "before Abraham was, I am he," is, again, having Jesus speak nonsense

Jesus' statement makes perfect sense to me. The Pharisees were not interested in what Jesus was actually saying in all of John 8, while Jesus was trying to awaken faith..

Monogenes is never used to refer to conception in the NT, but there are other words that do.

How do you understand the word "conceived" in the following?
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Gr. begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
The word "conceived" Gr. begotten is the same word translated "begat" on numerous occasions in Matthew 1. Do you have any trouble understanding the meaning of "Abraham begat Isaac, ..."

How is conception and Incarnation different?

Conception speaks of the concept that Jesus' life started in the events recorded in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where the conception or begettal occurred when God the Father became the father of the babe in the womb and Mary was his mother. Incarnation is the concept that somehow God the Son was contracted into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Johann!@#]

Have you been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Spirit baptism is consistently presented in the New Testament as a Christ-mediated, once-for-all work that places the believer into union with Christ and His body (1 Corinthians 12:13), often associated with new birth, empowerment, and sealing (John 3:5–6, Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1:13). While tongues occurred in certain narrative contexts (Acts 2, 10, 19), they are never presented as the universal or necessary evidence of the Spirit’s baptism.

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

Conception speaks of the concept that Jesus' life started in the events recorded in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where the conception or begettal occurred when God the Father became the father of the babe in the womb and Mary was his mother. Incarnation is the concept that somehow God the Son was contracted into the womb of Mary.

TrevorL

Your statement that Jesus’ life began at conception misrepresents both the plain testimony of Scripture and the consistent belief of the early Church. Scripture is clear that the Son existed before the creation of the world and did not begin to exist in Mary’s womb.

John 1:1–3 declares, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The Word (Logos) is described as existing in the beginning — not beginning at the incarnation.

John 1:14 continues, “And the Word became flesh,” not “was created” or “began to exist” in the flesh. The Greek verb ἐγένετο denotes a transition of mode, not a beginning of existence.

Similarly, Philippians 2:6–7 states that Christ, “existing in the form of God,” took upon Himself the form of a servant — the participle ὑπάρχων (existing) refers to a continuous state predating the incarnation.

This confirms that the Son existed in divine form prior to assuming humanity.

Luke 1:35 does not support your claim that Jesus' life began at conception. The angel’s words, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you... therefore the child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God,” emphasize the miraculous mode of conception, not the ontological origin of the Son.

The phrase διό (therefore) does not imply that the Son became the Son at that point — it explains why the child would be recognized as holy and divine in His human nature. As F.F. Bruce affirms in his commentary on the New Testament development of Christology, “The virginal conception did not bring the Son into being; rather, the Son of God, existing from all eternity, entered into human life.”

Your notion that incarnation means the divine was “contracted” into the womb misrepresents the doctrine.

John 1:14 uses ἐσκήνωσεν (“tabernacled”) to describe how the Word dwelt among us — not as a diminished being but as the fullness of God in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). Hebrews 2:14 states that Christ “partook” of flesh and blood — not that He became less divine or altered His nature.

The incarnational act is an addition of humanity, not a subtraction of deity.

Galatians 4:4 states, “God sent forth His Son, born of a woman” — the verb ἐξαπέστειλεν (sent forth) presumes preexistence.

He was not created in the womb but sent into the world, having already existed as the Son. This is confirmed by John 3:17, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world...” — the Son is sent, not manufactured or begotten in time.

The early Church Fathers upheld this doctrine with remarkable consistency. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the early 2nd century, speaks of “one physician, both fleshly and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God in man” (Eph. 7:2).

Justin Martyr affirms Christ’s preexistence as the Logos who became man by the Virgin (1 Apology 46). Irenaeus wrote, “The Word Himself... was made flesh and dwelt among us” (Adv. Haer. III.19.3), emphasizing the continuity of the divine Logos.

Tertullian states, “He was both God and man... God before all worlds, man in the end of the world” (Against Praxeas 27), denying any temporal origin of the Son.

Therefore, to assert that Jesus’ life began at conception is to deny His eternal preexistence, the sending of the Son, and the fullness of incarnation.

Scripture teaches the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (John 1:18), not made, and that He entered the world by taking on flesh (Hebrews 10:5; John 1:14; Galatians 4:4).

The incarnation is not the beginning of Christ’s existence - it is the beginning of His human manifestation.

Do you believe Christ Jesus is a created being?

J.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann,

Your statement that Jesus’ life began at conception misrepresents both the plain testimony of Scripture and the consistent belief of the early Church.

Have you ever considered some of the Ebionites who believed in the virgin birth? They lived before the early "Church fathers". In an earlier post you mentioned two early manuscripts. What manuscript did the Ebionites possess?

Scripture teaches the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (John 1:18)

What does that REALLY mean? The terms are contradictory, and this is invented to reject the clear testimony of the expression "the only begotten of the Father" Who was responsible for altering the original rendition of John 1:18?

Similarly, Philippians 2:6–7 states that Christ, “existing in the form of God,” took upon Himself the form of a servant — the participle ὑπάρχων (existing) refers to a continuous state predating the incarnation.
This confirms that the Son existed in divine form prior to assuming humanity.

I have considered Philippians 2 in my response to you in the following Post:

T

Post in thread 'The Trinity'

Thursday at 2:44 AM

Greetings again Johann,

I made a mistake in my previous Post. I used the word dispensation when I should have said disposition. I will repeat the relevant portion for clarity.

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men."

The same word "form" in "form of God" is also used for "form of servant". Paul is speaking of his disposition of mind, not the incarnation. Jesus was born the greatest prince ever born, but he did not use this status, but...

• TrevorL

Do you believe Christ Jesus is a created being?

Yes. He is the firstborn of the new creation Psalm 8.
Psalm 8:3–6 (KJV): 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Johann!@#]

Yes. He is the firstborn of the new creation Psalm 8.

TrevorL

It seems that by pointing to Scripture affirming that the Logos was not a created being, I may have touched on something you’re not inclined to reconsider--would it be fair to say you're not open to correction on this point?

J.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann,

It seems that by pointing to Scripture affirming that the Logos was not a created being, I may have touched on something you’re not inclined to reconsider--would it be fair to say you're not open to correction on this point?

Perhaps you do not appreciate that I believe that The Logos of John 1:1 is a personification, similar to the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8, who was with God in the creation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Johann!@#]

Perhaps you do not appreciate that I believe that The Logos of John 1:1 is a personification, similar to the Wise Woman WISDOM of Proverbs 8, who was with God in the creation.

TrevorL

There are some serious errors in what you’ve presented, and I value doctrine as it is written --not the version you're attempting to impose.

You seem to equate the Logos of John 1:1 with the personified Wisdom figure in Proverbs 8, suggesting that John merely employs metaphorical language rather than affirming the pre-existent divine personhood of Christ. However, this conflation fails on grammatical, contextual, and theological grounds:

1. The Logos is not merely personification - the grammar makes this impossible.

In John 1:1–3, the Logos is explicitly said to be both with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) and was God (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) - a construction that denotes both distinction and unity.

John does not use abstract or feminine poetic imagery like the Hebrew ḥokmâ (wisdom), but a masculine noun in Greek, ὁ Λόγος, governed by verbs and participles reserved for personal agency (ἐγένετο, ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, etc.).

2. John 1:14 demolishes the personification-only view.

“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο...).

Personifications do not become incarnate. No Jewish reader of the time would have understood this as metaphor. This clause uses ἐγένετο, indicating real transformation and historical incarnation. Wisdom in Proverbs never “became flesh.”

3. John roots his Logos theology in Genesis, not Proverbs.

John 1:1–3 intentionally mirrors Genesis 1:1–3 (“In the beginning…God said…”). The Logos is not merely an attribute, but the active agent of creation (πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο).

The use of δι’ αὐτοῦ (“through him”) signals personal agency (cf. Colossians 1:16–17), not conceptual presence. This is never said of Wisdom in the same way.



5. The Johannine context does not allow for metaphor-only readings.

Verse 10 says, “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him.”

The masculine pronoun αὐτός in Greek confirms the Logos is treated not as an idea but as a personal subject, distinct from mere literary metaphor.

Moreover, John the Baptist bears witness not to an abstract quality, but to a divine person (John 1:15, 1:29–34).

6. The early Church unanimously rejected the 'personification only' view.
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.) writes, “There is one God, who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word…” (To the Magnesians, 8). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all interpret the Logos in John 1 as pre-existent and personal - not a poetic abstraction.

7. Proverbs 8 is poetry; John 1 is historical theology.
Proverbs 8 describes Wisdom in metaphorical terms suitable for wisdom literature, but John opens his Gospel with doctrinal affirmation.

The Logos is not “like” Wisdom - He is the one “who was in the beginning with God” and “became flesh.”

So respectfully, the Logos of John 1 is not a poetic or symbolic figure, nor an impersonal abstraction. The language, theology, and context all demand that we understand the Logos as a real, divine person - the pre-existent Christ -who was with God, was God, and became incarnate for our salvation.


HEBREW AND GREEK BACKGROUND OF LOGOS (John 1:1)

Background concept of the term "word" or "spoken word"

Hebrew background (BDB 180, KB 210 II)
the power of the spoken word (Isa. 55:11; Ps. 33:6,9; 107:20; 147:15,18), as in Creation (Gen. 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24, 26,29) and the Patriarchal blessing (Gen. 27:1ff; 49:1)
Proverbs 8:12-23 personifies "Wisdom" as God's first creation and agent of all creation (cf. Ps. 33:6 and the non-canonical Wisdom of Solomon, 9:9)
God's control of nature (cf. Ps. 147:12-20; 148:8) and angels (cf. Ps. 103:19-20)
the Targums (Aramaic translations and commentaries) substitute the phrase "Word of God" for logos because of their discomfort with anthropomorphic terms
Greek background (logos; see exegetical notes online at John 1:1-5)
Heracleitus ‒ the world was in flux; the impersonal divine and unchanging logos (i.e. law) held it together and guided the changing process
Plato ‒ the impersonal and unchanging logos kept the planets on course and determined the seasons
Stoics ‒ the logos was the "world reason" or manager, but was semi-personal (possibly from Anaxagoras)
Philo ‒ he personified the concept of logos as "High Priest that set the soul of man before God," or "the bridge between man and God," or "the tiller by which the Pilot of the universe steers all things" (kosmocrater). He called the Logos, God's "first-born son" and God's "Ambassador" or God's "Advocate." He emphasized God's transcendence and the Logos was the link to the physical realm.
For a good brief discussion, see ABD, Vol. 4, pp. 348-362.

SPECIAL TOPIC: LOGOS

Logos -- Special Topic by Dr. Bob Utley, professor of hermeneutics (retired).

www.freebiblecommentary.org

Correct?

J.

 

[JLB]

There's a fine line here between your insistence on using the Scripture only and bibliolatry.

I have learned over the years that building a solid foundation of understanding from the scriptures is the best way to renew the mind as well not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

Once you establish yourself in a habit on leaning on His understanding and developing ears to hear, by waiting on the Lord in His Presence and allowing Him to open your mind to the truth, you will not want it any other way.

 

[RandyK]

Conception speaks of the concept that Jesus' life started in the events recorded in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where the conception or begettal occurred when God the Father became the father of the babe in the womb and Mary was his mother. Incarnation is the concept that somehow God the Son was contracted into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

Thanks Trevor, but I just don't understand the statement that God the Son "was contracted" into the womb of Mary. What does it mean to be "contracted into?" The word seems to have been used by you to replace the more natural "conception."

"Contractions" occur when the child is about to be ejected from the Mother's body. The child is "conceived" when it comes into existence in the Mother's womb.

This is why I couldn't understand how you meant to distinguish "conception" and "Incarnation." The Incarnation was a very specific kind of conception, and you seem to have replaced Incarnation with "conception."

Why are you defining "conception" as something that can only be described as the "Incarnation?" A woman can "conceive" a child without that child being "born of God."

But when the "conception" occurs as a result of a Divine miracle, ie when God "conceives" His Son in Mary's womb, then it is a very unique kind of "conception"--it is the Incarnation.

 

[donadams]

Greetings again Johann, Free and RandyK,

Yes, I agree that it affects our understanding of who Jesus truly is and I will continue to affirm what I have already stated.

Jesus' statement makes perfect sense to me. The Pharisees were not interested in what Jesus was actually saying in all of John 8, while Jesus was trying to awaken faith..

How do you understand the word "conceived" in the following?
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Gr. begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
The word "conceived" Gr. begotten is the same word translated "begat" on numerous occasions in Matthew 1. Do you have any trouble understanding the meaning of "Abraham begat Isaac, ..."

Conception speaks of the concept that Jesus' life started in the events recorded in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 where the conception or begettal occurred when God the Father became the father of the babe in the womb and Mary was his mother. Incarnation is the concept that somehow God the Son was contracted into the womb of Mary.

Kind regards
Trevor

what do you mean Jesus's life started?

Christ is eternal!

Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

thks

 

[donadams]

(with authority from Christ to bind the faith of all Christians. Matt 16:19 & 18:18) in union with Christ (matt 28:20 Jn 15:5)

Apostolic Council Of Ephesus – 431 A.D.

If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh) let him be anathema.

Theotokos: God bearer!

 

[RandyK]

I have learned over the years that building a solid foundation of understanding from the scriptures is the best way to renew the mind as well not to grieve the Holy Spirit.

Once you establish yourself in a habit on leaning on His understanding and developing ears to hear, by waiting on the Lord in His Presence and allowing Him to open your mind to the truth, you will not want it any other way.

That does not address the point. Bibliolatry is the attempt to speak Scripture-only, as I've experienced it. Some want to discard all aids to understand Scripture and just go with Scripture.

I was in a cult like that for a short while. We "pray read" Scripture, and were told to not be concerned so much with trying to understand it. Just "read it," they said. And it was read in small portions, like "GOD is light," then "God IS light," and finally, "God is LIGHT."

This is how we read Scripture after Scripture, as if just reading it in portions with different emphases would somehow cause the spirit in the words to be transferred into the reader so as to not be concerned with the mind and understanding. It was like "eating a meal" rather than understanding with the mind. Theology was, in a sense, an "addition" replete with "evil," and a more simple approach could avoid that, and go directly to "spiritual understanding."

The hypocrisy was that along with this "pray reading" of the Bible we had stacks of books written by the apostle of the movement. He became, in a sense, the "Commentary" and the "Bible aid" to bring people to a unique sectarian understanding, as if the people were being "dumbed down" and "broken" to accept the apostle's word without qestion.

It is dangerous to take the subjective spiritual experience of Christianity and separate it from objective questioning and study. This may be an attempt by the Evil One to remove all of your protections against heretical incursions into your mind and thinking. Why not use the Bible to do this, because it's the easiest way to get into your mind and remove your shield?

 

[JLB]

Spirit baptism is consistently presented in the New Testament as a Christ-mediated, once-for-all work that places the believer into union with Christ and His body (1 Corinthians 12:13), often associated with new birth, empowerment, and sealing (John 3:5–6, Romans 8:9, Ephesians 1:13). While tongues occurred in certain narrative contexts (Acts 2, 10, 19), they are never presented as the universal or necessary evidence of the Spirit’s baptism.

J.

Thanks for sharing what you believe.

Scriptures lay out for us the baptisms God intended for us to have, through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Especially the Promise of the Father.

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:4-5

• John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit

I was asking if you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

 

[JLB]

Bibliolatry is the attempt to speak Scripture-only, as I've experienced it. Some want to discard all aids to understand Scripture and just go with Scripture.

So you feel that labeling my desire to have a common understanding from scripture as “Bibliolatry”? An unscriptural man made term.

Why.

I believe we can use a Strongs to better understand the original language but not to change the meaning of the passage through Lexicon gymnastics.


Using the actual scripture itself to ask questions from the scripture and teach using the words and phrases of the scripture will keep us grounded in the truth.

From there we can build upon that foundation with common understanding.

 

[Johann!@#]

Thanks for sharing what you believe.

Scriptures lay out for us the baptisms God intended for us to have, through the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Especially the Promise of the Father.

And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:4-5

• John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit

I was asking if you have been baptized with the Holy Spirit?

Are you seriously questioning my salvation.

If so, what "sparked" this?

J.

 

[JLB]

Are you seriously questioning my salvation.

If so, what "sparked" this?

J.

I asked if you had been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

That of course comes after a person has been born again.

Obviously you are a man of God, and have been born again.