God became Man under the name Jesus Christ.

[Imagican]

And a Merry Christmas to you Mutz. Hoping the New Year bring you and yours an abundance of Blessings.

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Ed and Merry Christmas to you and your also.

There are certain truths in Scripture that at first, seem obscure. As you know from your studies, the concept of Jesus as both God and man and the concept of a triune God was not taken lightly and was debated among the ECFs. It took minds and spirits much greater than ours to come to the conclusion that Jesus was both God and man.

I'm not much into modalism like Harry, but read his statement from the post above:

The Doctrine of the Church that is received in the whole Christian world is that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man, who, although He is God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one, by the taking of the manhood into God; one altogether, by unity of person; for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. These words are taken from the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, which has been received in the whole Christian world; and they are what is essential in it concerning the unition of the Divine and the Human in the Lord.

Now there may be certain points in the quote above that could use clarification and even correction, but that's for a different time. The basic concept of what we are discussing is there though, which is, Jesus as both God and man; a hypostatic union.

If I may, let me share some of what I sent MEC in a PM:

Hypostatic union

http://clublet.com/why?TrinityAndHypostaticUnion

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/SPROUL18.HTM

http://escholarship.bc.edu/dissertations/AAI9818614/

http://www.spirithome.com/defchurt.html...

Peace and God bless,
Vic

 

[mutzrein]

Thanks Vic - yes I understand what you are discussing but I'm trying to understand what is it that MEC said that you find confusing and which you say has him on the edge of a theological cliff.

Could it be that you are actually on one side of a divide - you on one cliff and he on the other. You actually have to be on the other side to see things from his perspective. The problem is, the divide started out as a small crack and people have been able to cross back and forth for some time, but it is widening and there will be a point when one is unable to cross over when the realisation comes that they should be on the other side. I fear for those who have chosen 'theology' over Christ.

Blessings

 

[Imagican]

You ARE a 'wise man' Mutz. Perhaps we often DO get 'caught up' in 'things' that are NOT NEAR as 'important' as others. For our 'purpose' is NOT to 'judge' but to LOVE regardless. Our friends as well as our enemies. To seek NOT our own but that of our brothers and sisters.

And sad it would be, as mutz has given clear example, to forego that which DOES matter most for perhaps insignificant differences that 'may' have NO bearing on 'that which matters MOST.

Always count on you, Mutz, for a bit of sanity and wisdom in a 'world full of INSANITY' and unstable philosophy. Thank you, my brother.

MEC

 

[SpiritualSon]

There is only one God. This is the emphatic teaching of the Old Testament. The Jews were the people who knew their God if anyone did (John 4:22), and they had no concept of persons within the Godhead. In the book of Isaiah God makes some very strong statements which I believe do not allow for a Trinitarian understanding. In Isaiah 44:6&8 God makes the statement, "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Could scripture be any plainer than this? In verse 24 he states, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone." If language means anything then "by Myself" and "alone" mean that there was no other person present. If God is not claiming that he is absolutely one here, then what stronger language would one suggest to convey this? Why would God be so emphatic about oneness, if in reality he were three persons? Would not these statements be misleading? In the next chapter he states, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. . . . That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these" (Isa. 45:5-7). Once again, if God were really three persons, could he use such emphatic language as this? If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would it be honest for him to say, "There is no one besides Me?" Would he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead? In 46:9 God says, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." In this statement, there is one person speaking (notice the singular pronouns) and that singular person says that there is no one like him. I do not see how it is possible to see a Trinity in these passages.1

Surely the coming of Christ did not in any way compromise this strict Monotheism taught in the Old Testament. There is only one God. That God is our father. If Jesus is that God then Jesus is our father. As to his deity, Jesus Christ is God the Father. Isaiah 9:6 clearly calls him the Father. Some have argued that this should be translated "Father of Eternity," but not one major translation translates it that way (see my article: Should Isaiah 9:6 read "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity?"). However, even if we adopt the translation "Father of Eternity" does that diminish the force? Jesus is called the Father. I Corinthians 8:6 tells us that, "to us there is but one God, the Father." There is no God outside of the Father. So in the sense that Jesus is that God, then Jesus is the Father. Malachi 2:10 asks the question "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" So we all have one Father, and our Father is God. The reason we call God our Father is because he created us. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 tell us that all things were created by Jesus, thereby making him our Father.

Harry :fadein:



Now I will readily admit that on the surface Jesus does seem to speak of himself and the Father as if they were two persons. In fact, I would say that the first indication of Trinitarian thought began with Philip in John 14 when he asked Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father" (v. 8). Jesus had been speaking of God in a distanced way all this time, and poor Philip thought that he was speaking of another person. But, notice Jesus' response. He almost sounded as if he were puzzled when he said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" (v. 9). Jesus was saying that he himself was the one that Philip was asking for.

 

[Free]

In the book of Isaiah God makes some very strong statements which I believe do not allow for a Trinitarian understanding. In Isaiah 44:6&8 God makes the statement, "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me . . . Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Could scripture be any plainer than this?

These certainly do allow for a trinitarian understanding. In fact, it is precisely because of verses such as these that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed. The Trinity is monotheistic and that is what these verses are stating.

If language means anything then "by Myself" and "alone" mean that there was no other person present. In verse 24 he states, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone."

This is not stating that "there was no other person present"; it is merely stating that it was God alone who created.

In the next chapter he states, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. . . . That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these" (Isa. 45:5-7). Once again, if God were really three persons, could he use such emphatic language as this? If we take this to be one of the members of the Trinity speaking here, would it be honest for him to say, "There is no one besides Me?" Would he not be forced to admit that there are indeed two other persons in the Godhead? In 46:9 God says, "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." In this statement, there is one person speaking (notice the singular pronouns) and that singular person says that there is no one like him. I do not see how it is possible to see a Trinity in these passages.

Again, these are statements of monotheism which the doctrine of the Trinity supports.

There is only one God. That God is our father. If Jesus is that God then Jesus is our father. As to his deity, Jesus Christ is God the Father.

No, that clearly goes against a plain reading of Scripture.

As to his deity, Jesus Christ is God the Father. Isaiah 9:6 clearly calls him the Father. Some have argued that this should be translated "Father of Eternity," but not one major translation translates it that way (see my article: Should Isaiah 9:6 read "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity?"). However, even if we adopt the translation "Father of Eternity" does that diminish the force? Jesus is called the Father.

Isaiah refers to Jesus as God and also as Father, in separate statements. To say that he shall be called "Father" in no way means that he is God the Father, especially since he prayed to the Father and taught the disciples to pray to the Father.

You state that some of the verses above would be misleading if God were a Trinity but ignore the misleading of your position. Would it not be misleading for Jesus to be the Father and yet look up to heaven and pray to the Father? What about at his baptism - would it not be misleading for a voice to come from heaven and say "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Mat. 3:17), if Jesus was the Father? That would be outright deception.

If Jesus is the Son, how can he also be the Father? A Son cannot be his own Father nor a Father be his own Son. This is the clear distinction which is also supported by the doctrine of the Trinity.

I Corinthians 8:6 tells us that, "to us there is but one God, the Father." There is no God outside of the Father. So in the sense that Jesus is that God, then Jesus is the Father. Malachi 2:10 asks the question "Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?" So we all have one Father, and our Father is God. The reason we call God our Father is because he created us. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 tell us that all things were created by Jesus, thereby making him our Father.

No. You are taking verses out of context and making them say something that is not being said. One must not take certain passages of Scripture regarding a certain topic while ignoring others. The ultimate context of a passage is that of the entirety of Scripture.

Throughout the entire NT the Father is differentiated from the Son, clearly making them two distinct "persons". There is no way to say that the two are one and the same. We would have to rewrite the rules of grammar to make your arguments work.

The term "father" had many meanings in Hebrew, among them being a literal father, a grandfather, an ancestor, a ruler or an instructor. One meaning of the phrase "Everlasting Father" as applied to Christ could be that he would be the one who rules over them and bless them forever, as a father rules over and blesses his children. This is supported by verse 7.

But the obvious one, despite your objection, is "Father of eternity", which would be understood as saying that he is eternal.

John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 tell us that all things were created by Jesus, thereby making him our Father.

That does not make Jesus our Father. Again, to call Jesus "Father" is to ignore the distinction made between Jesus and the Father throughout the entire NT. Let's look at your passages in context:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Here the distinction is made in verses 1 and 2 between Jesus, the Word, and God. While he is God, he is yet distinct from God. What this is stating, and I would argue the only way this can truly be understood, is that Jesus is God but distinct from the Father. There is no other way in which he can both be God and yet be distinct from God.

Col 1:2 To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
Col 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,
...
Col 1:11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,
Col 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Again, Christ is clearly seen as distinct from the Father.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Heb 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
Heb 1:7 Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire."
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Yet again the Son is shown to be clearly distinct from the Father.

 

[Free]

Now I will readily admit that on the surface Jesus does seem to speak of himself and the Father as if they were two persons. In fact, I would say that the first indication of Trinitarian thought began with Philip in John 14 when he asked Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father" (v. 8). Jesus had been speaking of God in a distanced way all this time, and poor Philip thought that he was speaking of another person. But, notice Jesus' response. He almost sounded as if he were puzzled when he said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" (v. 9). Jesus was saying that he himself was the one that Philip was asking for.

That is not what Jesus was saying. Again, looking at the context:

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Jesus' response to Phillip is that since he is in the Father and the Father is in him and since it is the Father doing the works through him, Phillip has seen the Father in seeing Jesus.

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
...
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
...
Joh 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
...
Joh 14:31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

There are many more examples throughout the gospel of John and, in fact, the entire gospel of John makes little sense if Jesus is the Father. This also holds true for much of the NT.

 

[SpiritualSon]

What Jesus meant by these words:
"I am come from God" (John 8:42) - the Body came forth from the Soul.
"The Son can do nothing of Himself, - but what He seeth the Father do"
(John 5:19) - the Body can do nothing of Itself, but what it is directed to do by the Soul.

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16: 16) - The Messiah, the Body of the Infinite itself, which alone is Life-in-itself.

"This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17) - the Divine Body in which it pleased the Father to dwell in while on earth.

"My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) - the Soul is greater than the Body, since it directs it.

"No Man cometh unto the Father but by Me" (John 14:6) - Just as we cannot know a man's soul except insofar as his body reveals it.

The Father and the Son are two distinct Persons was assumed by the church - taken for granted - by the Councils of the Early Christian Church from 325 AD onwards and has been unthinkingly accepted as the orthodox Christian faith itself. But search as you will, you will never find a passage that says explicitly that the Father and the Son are TWO, or that he who has seen the Son has yet to see the Father.

Harry :fadein:

 

[Free]

I have thus far proven you wrong with Scripture and yet you do not reply. Instead you state some esoteric/gnostic meanings of what Christ supposedly meant. Your claims are nothing but smoke - they are completely unsupported by Holy Scripture. There is absolutely nothing in the entirety of Scripture to back up your claims.

Jesus meant what he said and he was speaking plainly so that all could understand, including us, without having some hidden knowledge.

But search as you will, you will never find a passage that says explicitly that the Father and the Son are TWO

A plain, common sense reading of the NT reveals that the Father and Son are two separate "persons", over and over again. There are numerous passages stating such. The very idea of a Father and a Son demands that these are two separate persons. A son cannot in any sense, ever, be the father of himself nor a father be his own son. That defies all logic and rational, coherent thinking.

Just as every son, in all places and at all times, has had a father who is a distinct person from himself, so the Father is distinct from the Son.

or that he who has seen the Son has yet to see the Father.

No trinitarian or non-trinitarian in these forums has ever made such a claim.

 

[MarkT]

Thanks Imagican

Now take the Father, 'I AM WHO I AM' and take 'I AM' from the Father. Take the first word, 'I' and the last word, 'AM' and what do you get? You get, 'I AM'; the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. Rev. 22:13 Now take, I AM the name of the LORD and take the name of the LORD from the LORD and you get, I AM taken from WHO I AM.

 

[mutzrein]

Thanks Imagican

Now take the Father, 'I AM WHO I AM' and take 'I AM' from the Father. Take the first word, 'I' and the last word, 'AM' and what do you get? You get, 'I AM'; the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. Rev. 22:13 Now take, I AM the name of the LORD and take the name of the LORD from the LORD and you get, I AM taken from WHO I AM.

AM I confused? I AM that I AM :o

 

[SpiritualSon]

The Holy Bible has spiritual sense in it, as well as a natural sense. The natural sense is its foundation. The spiritual sense of the Holy Word is meant by the white horse come out of the book in Revelation. In the OT the words "that day," "in that day," and "in that time;" in which, by "day," and "time," is meant the Father's advent into this world.

In the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities (Ezek. 36:33).

In Daniel: God in the heavens hath revealed secrets, what shall be in the futurity of days (Dan. 2:28).

Jehovah their God shall serve them in that day, as the flock of His people (Zech. 9:16).

It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: this Jehovah the Father we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isaiah 25:9).

The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make plain in the solitude a pathway for our God. For the glory of the Father shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come in strength, and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd (Isaiah 40:3, 5, 10-11).

These passages proves that it was Jehovah the Father who came into this world under the name Jesus Christ. He came as Divine Truth, which is the Holy Word, and that a second person was never sent. Jesus Christ is Jehovah the Father, as in John 1:3 All things were made BY Him, and without was nothing made that was made. Amen

Harry :fadein:

 

[Imagican]

Harry,

While I will admit that the Godhead is a mytery of sorts, your explanation has holes in it as big as those of 'trinity'.

For EACH of Paul's letters offers DISTINCTION between Christ and God. The names Son and Father themselves offers distinction between the two. The Spirit it simply that which both Father and Son are able to communicate THROUGH. While all Three are ONE in Spirit and purpose, all scripture points to a distinction of EACH. NO, not EVERY word contained with the Bible, but when ALL are taken in context and understanding there is most CERTAINLY a 'distinction offered'.

Oft times, many choose to attempt to 'understand' The Word through the 'words'. These are practically meaningless unless one is "guided" to the Truth BY The Spirit. And NEVER underestimate the power of 'other spirits' when it comes to a discernment of the truth offered through The Word.

MEC

 

[Free]

The Holy Bible has spiritual sense in it, as well as a natural sense. The natural sense is its foundation.

If that is in fact the case, then the spiritual sense you give is wrong as it contradicts the natural sense. As the Bible clearly states, the Father and the Son are distinct persons. If this is the foundation then your spiritual sense is wrong because it is contradictory.

These passages proves that it was Jehovah the Father who came into this world under the name Jesus Christ.

Actually they don't.

Jesus Christ is Jehovah the Father, as in John 1:3 All things were made BY Him, and without was nothing made that was made.

I have already proven this interpretation wrong.

 

[Imagican]

Free,

It would appear as if our views are more similar than I thought.

For it would appear that you plainly accept that oneness DOES exist in Godhead, yet each; Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE separate entities.

MEC

 

[Free]

Free,

It would appear as if our views are more similar than I thought.

For it would appear that you plainly accept that oneness DOES exist in Godhead, yet each; Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE separate entities.

MEC

Basically that is it, yes. As a prof of mine once said: "There is a threeness in the oneness of God". This is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity is trying to put words to. The three basic foundations of the Trinity are:

1. There is one God (monotheism).
2. There are three divine persons.
3. The three persons are coequal and co-eternal.

 

[Imagican]

While I would wholeheartedly agree with the first TWO, it is the 'last one' that I would have trouble understanding through scripture. For there are 'places' in scripture that offer 'indication' of coequality, there are too many others that contradict this for it to make any sense. Therefore, when we decide that there cannot be contradiction in TRUTH, we must head in a 'different' direction than that which doesn't 'fit'.

That Christ openly offers that there IS one 'greater' than He is perfect example of a 'lack' of coequality. That Christ could be abandoned by The Father is another. And there are the three instances of temptation to deal with. And the list goes on and on. Christ openly offering that the words that He offered were NOT HIS OWN but given Him by The Father, etc, etc.....There are only a couple of lines that are vague indeed that would allow one to form an 'idea' of coequality. And these are NOT specific in there content. They are most certainly open to much interpretation.

And there is much indication that there may well have been a 'time' before Christ.

So the coeternal and coequal part offers quite a bit of confusion when we take ALL of scripture into account.

For there MUST be a 'lack' of contradiction in understanding for us to be 'able' to actually understand ANYTHING so far as 'sound doctrine' is concerned.

MEC

 

[Free]

While I would wholeheartedly agree with the first TWO, it is the 'last one' that I would have trouble understanding through scripture. For there are 'places' in scripture that offer 'indication' of coequality, there are too many others that contradict this for it to make any sense.

If you agree with the first two, then you must agree with the third as it follows from the first two. God alone has divinity. To ascribe divinity to someone or something other God is to make them a god and that is polytheism.

For there are 'places' in scripture that offer 'indication' of coequality, there are too many others that contradict this for it to make any sense. Therefore, when we decide that there cannot be contradiction in TRUTH, we must head in a 'different' direction than that which doesn't 'fit'.

Not necessarily. Your understanding of these other passages could be wrong.

That Christ openly offers that there IS one 'greater' than He is perfect example of a 'lack' of coequality. That Christ could be abandoned by The Father is another. And there are the three instances of temptation to deal with. And the list goes on and on.

Taken out of context it may appear that way. But this shows that it is your understanding that is wrong. As I have had to point out many times, those who disagree with the Trinity must ignore or completely reinterpret several key verses.

There are only a couple of lines that are vague indeed that would allow one to form an 'idea' of coequality.

There are more than a couple and they are so clear that they cannot be understood any other way.

And there is much indication that there may well have been a 'time' before Christ.

What do you mean?

 

[MarkT]

MarkT wrote:
Thanks Imagican

Now take the Father, 'I AM WHO I AM' and take 'I AM' from the Father. Take the first word, 'I' and the last word, 'AM' and what do you get? You get, 'I AM'; the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. Rev. 22:13 Now take, I AM the name of the LORD and take the name of the LORD from the LORD and you get, I AM taken from WHO I AM.

AM I confused? I AM that I AM

:D OK Let me clarify this. Look at it like Eve being taken from Adam. Adam declares, 'This at last is the bone of my bones and the flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

If 'I AM WHO I AM' is a true representation of God, and we know God is spirit, so we're not talking about flesh and blood, then when God said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM' has sent me to you', Ex. 3:14, he is saying, 'say the first and the last word has sent me to you'. God also said, 'Say this to the people of Israel, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you; this is my name forever'. When God said it, he revealed or perhaps declared, I'm not sure which, the first word and the last word to be his name; the LORD. In other words, God declared his name was the God of Israel. He declared his name Holy. Or it was revealed to be Holy. The name of the LORD, 'the LORD' is/was set apart; Holy, meaning set apart from or taken from God. In a sense taking I AM from I AM WHO I AM is like taking Woman from Man. They are One but He is set apart. 'I am God and also henceforth I am He. Isaiah 43:13 It was He who led the Israelites out of Egypt. It was He who appeared to Abraham as God Almighty. When God said of Jesus, 'this is my Son', he was saying the LORD is my Son; the LORD, the God of Abraham, the Holy One of Israel, is come in the flesh. I guess you have to have the eyes to see it.

 

[Imagican]

Free,

We've been through this: God is able to DO what God 'chooses' to DO. He is NOT confined to 'our understanding'. If He chooses to place divinity 'into' another that IS His Choice. And an offering of divinity, (holiness), is NOT confined by 'OUR' limitations.

And I am confused as to 'trinity' being any more or any LESS 'monotheism' than a simple acceptance of Christ AS the 'only begotten, or The Son of, etc.....

As for indication of a 'time before' Christ: only begotten, firstborn, etc..........These are the indications to which I refer. And there are many others.

MEC