Johann!@#
Member
- Sep 10, 2023
- 709
- 203
I’ve looked into the Christadelphian teachings, and honestly, their theology seems completely incoherent.
J.
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
The Trinity
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
J.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,427
- 6,457
As I have stated more than once, what Jesus says in John 8:58 need not be dependent on Ex. 3:14, although that is likely what Jesus was alluding to. Jesus says "I am," which is in the present tense, indicating timeless existence, which he clearly contrasts with Abraham's past, temporary existence.
Except that in neither verse is that the idea in view. Both times, they are claims to literal existence. You cannot go and spiritualize a text or change the meaning of a word or text into a figure of speech just because the plain meaning doesn't fit your theology. That is to read what you want into the text. The text must always speak for itself. The meaning of a text is that which is most clear and straightforward. Where a verse is obscure, clear texts are used to interpret it.
What you're doing is ignoring the plain meaning of verses and making clear verses say obscure things. That is most often going to lead to incorrect interpretation.
Except that John has already told us that the Word is God in nature (1:1-3), that the Word is the pre-incarnate Son (1:10), and that the "Word became flesh" (1:14). So, the most likely reading of John 1:18 is:
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)
Regardless, as I have already stated, whether we read "only begotten Son" or "the only [begotten] God," it doesn't matter; the meaning of the text isn't changed.
Those are not mutually exclusive and is simply begging the question. You're starting with the assumption that the Son did not pre-exist and then using those passages to conclude that the Son did not pre-exist. The total biblical evidence is that the Son most certainly did pre-exist and has existed for as long as the Father has existed.
But, this highlights the main problem: you have left unaddressed all the biblical passages and arguments based on those passages that are difficult or impossible for your position to take into account. This is a consistent tactic of anti-Trinitarians.
Free--- well now I am really confused. See his post above. He says he did not say that the WORD is a "personification". He then quotes John 1:14 to show it was a REAL incarnation. So I'm not sure what he really said at all I guess.
Oh wait a second. I see now. He is saying he said "Woman Wisdom" not "Wise Woman". So he's basically playing games by not admitting that he DID say the WORD was a PERSONIFICATION not a person. I get it now.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,427
- 6,457
He did admit that he believes the Word is a personification: "I consider The Word in John 1:1 is a personification similar to the Wise Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8." The key is "similar to."
So, he's saying that both the Word and the "Wise Woman Wisdom" in Prov. 8 are personifications, but that the Word is not the "Wise Woman Wisdom." The Word is only a person in the sense that "it" became incarnate in Jesus.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,427
- 6,457
This is not a rational nor biblically based argument.
Either he is God or he is not. It is logically impossible to be both; those are mutually exclusive options. Either he is all that the Father is, and therefore fully and always God, or he can never have been or will be God, meaning that he cannot be nor ever have been all that the Father is.
Put another way, if the Son is all that the Father is, then the only logical conclusion is that he has always been and always been God just as the Father has always been.
Greetings again Fish153, Free and Johann,
John 1:3 (Tyndale): All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
And this to some extent corresponds to the partial personification in the following:
Psalm 33:6,9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
But in general, I am content with "him" as long as The Word is considered as a personification in John 1:1, similar as "her" for the Wise Woman WISDOM in Proverbs 8:
John 1:3 (KJV): All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Proverbs 8:1 (KJV): Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
I question if many Trinitarians really consider the meaning of the word "Word" in John 1:1. They simply in their mind substitute Jesus, or God the Son for the Word. In English we usually consider the word "word" as the spoken or written word. There appears to be a greater meaning to the word Logos, as we also derive the English word "logic" from this. This can then speak of the thoughts behind the spoken word, and also the plan and purpose of God. All of this is part of the wisdom and character of God, and all of this converges in Jesus, the child born to Mary and begotten by God the Father.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus is full of grace and truth, revealing the full character of God, his Father. All of God's word and purpose also converged in Jesus.
Kind regards
Trevor
I understand that "it" is a valid translation and is rendered that way by a few translations:
John 1:3 (Tyndale): All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
And this to some extent corresponds to the partial personification in the following:
Psalm 33:6,9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
But in general, I am content with "him" as long as The Word is considered as a personification in John 1:1, similar as "her" for the Wise Woman WISDOM in Proverbs 8:
John 1:3 (KJV): All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Proverbs 8:1 (KJV): Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
I question if many Trinitarians really consider the meaning of the word "Word" in John 1:1. They simply in their mind substitute Jesus, or God the Son for the Word. In English we usually consider the word "word" as the spoken or written word. There appears to be a greater meaning to the word Logos, as we also derive the English word "logic" from this. This can then speak of the thoughts behind the spoken word, and also the plan and purpose of God. All of this is part of the wisdom and character of God, and all of this converges in Jesus, the child born to Mary and begotten by God the Father.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus is full of grace and truth, revealing the full character of God, his Father. All of God's word and purpose also converged in Jesus.
In my teenage years we were taught that there is only One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, representing conception not incarnation. The church teaching of the Trinity, seemed to me an obscure and confused teaching. Another major contrast was the churches' belief in immortal souls and heaven going or hell torments on death. We were taught the mortality of man, the promises to Abraham, the resurrection, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, their conversion at the return of Jesus, and the 1000 year reign of Jesus on the Temple Throne of David in literal Jerusalem during the 1000 years. Possibly later I also became aware of another major important difference, that the Atonement is by means of Jesus as our representative, not as a substitute. These three doctrines are the major focus of our understanding and way of life.
Kind regards
Trevor
It is as in the context as I stated. We will disagree.
We differ in how this is so.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,...
He is the image of the invisible God.
Is Jesus impersonal?
Is He God?
- Jul 13, 2012
- 40,062
- 8,366
The Son is God and has always been God; not God the Father but God the Son.
Just like my earthly father is a human being and therefore I am a human being.
We are both human beings
The Father is God (God nature)
The Son is God (God nature)
The Holy Spirit is God (God nature)
He is a person. He is Gods Son from the beginning at some point in history before the world began. The firstborn. He has the same God and Father as us. He has His own spirit.
From your perspective why the need to command the angels of God to bow to Him?
And again, when God brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
It didn't state when God brings God into the world
He is not coeternal He is the firstborn but in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell. In that unity He and the Father are one and He is all that the Father is. God in that context.
It's clear to me.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
It's clear to me - A distinction was made that's not captured by orthodox trinity statements. How could Paul write this to make it clearer to you?
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Just 2
To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb...
- Jul 13, 2012
- 40,062
- 8,366
Yes. There is a distinction between the Father and the Son.
The Son is not the Father.
They are both the same nature (species) which is God.
Lord is God
Father is God
The Father is called the Ancient of days in scripture: He is God; God Nature
The Son is referred to as LORD (YHWH) in scripture: He is God; God Nature
The Father is the source of all things even in the creeds. Even the message/truth Jesus spoke of. God has spoken to us BY His son. God created BY His son. It is the Fathers Deity that lives in the Son.
True God FROM true God.
I don't know how you believe Jesus is a Son of the Father and state He has no beginning.
The Father alone is unbegotten.
Jesus is clear that the one who sits on the throne of heaven is His God and Father.
The only begotten God was with His God and Father and is the only eyewitness of the Father who has appeared in flesh. How are you going to make a case that John's use of begotten is eternally begotten when there is no historical use in the bible to state such and John didn't add anything to explain begotten with any other meaning? Jesus, (His spirit), is a child of the Father the fullness was gifted not formed. Col 1:19 Hence His God and Father.
I'm not leading a rebellion, but my Lord is God's Firstborn and has always been the Son and in Him dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity and they are one.
I agree in part
Begotten of the Father alone before all things but not made.
Randy----
You are making the same error many do when they ask "who created God?" They assume that because TIME is how we judge things, that everything must have a beginning and an end. You are doing the same thing with SON. Because we, as humans, base "son" on the basis that a son has a father, and thus a "beginning" that the Son of God must also. No---God is eternally three persons---He has ALWAYS been the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is not based on OUR UNDERSTANDING of what a son is--- WE are based on God. Eternally God has existed in three persons. FROM all eternity TO all eternity The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit EXIST----with no beginning and no ending. You only assume (based on our human logic) that the SON must have a beginning--and you assume that because that is what happens here on earth, and in time.
But the truth is opposite of that. The SON has ALWAYS EXISTED as the SON, just as the FATHER has ALWAYS existed as the FATHER, and the Spirit has ALWAYS existed as the Spirit.
You are making the same error many do when they ask "who created God?" They assume that because TIME is how we judge things, that everything must have a beginning and an end. You are doing the same thing with SON. Because we, as humans, base "son" on the basis that a son has a father, and thus a "beginning" that the Son of God must also. No---God is eternally three persons---He has ALWAYS been the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He is not based on OUR UNDERSTANDING of what a son is--- WE are based on God. Eternally God has existed in three persons. FROM all eternity TO all eternity The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit EXIST----with no beginning and no ending. You only assume (based on our human logic) that the SON must have a beginning--and you assume that because that is what happens here on earth, and in time.
But the truth is opposite of that. The SON has ALWAYS EXISTED as the SON, just as the FATHER has ALWAYS existed as the FATHER, and the Spirit has ALWAYS existed as the Spirit.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 40,062
- 8,366
- Jul 13, 2012
- 40,062
- 8,366
Greetings JLB,
Kind regards
Trevor
The One God, Yahweh, God the Father begat the human Jesus the Son of God. He was a human and was mortal. He was crucified and died, but God raised him from the tomb and gave him eternal life and immortality. One God cannot create another God except in mythology.
Kind regards
Trevor
Last edited:
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,298
- 452
Randy (I'm a "Randy too), the context is different in which the Psalmist says that "we are all gods." It is a reference to those divinely-endowed with leadership gifts, eg priests. We carry the authority of God when we lead in the Spirit of God.
The Psalmist appears to be acting sarcastic because he declares "we are gods, but we will die" (paraphrased). So this has nothing to do with angels.
God can appear in the form of an angel when understood as a theophany. God can appear in Person in human form or in angelic form. I'm not sure I know the difference, but it is what it is.
As to the Son's preexistence, you're right that he preexisted from eternity just as Deity is eternal in whatever temporal form He may appear. The Son appeared in the temporal form of a man, and yet His person is from eternity "with God."
It just means, in my view, that the temporal manifestation of God in human form issued from God in a form that truly depicted God. It is from God as Source, and it issues forth as God in whatever form God wishes to present Himself as a Person.
But this is so theoretical that it's really just my own self-indulgence in speculation. The Creeds are pretty clear that the Son is the eternal God as he appeared in human flesh.
Whether he can be called "the Son" before his incarnation is more or less a kind of language problem. He, the Son," previously existed with God from eternity. But he was not known as "the Son" until he came to be called that in his Incarnation.
Just my thoughts....
- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,298
- 452
Not really--sounds like Arianism, though you may not be that. The Son is *from eternity,* from the eternal Deity. His revelation came into being when he became a man in the Incarnation. But his revelation emerged from eternity as his source.
Similar threads
