How to defend the trinity!

[Peterlag]

Don't you think Jesus's own words in Matthew Chapter 28 would be sufficient ?

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Verse 18 is because God made Jesus both Lord and Christ after He raised him from the dead.

 

[Peterlag]

We shouldn’t have to defend the Trinity.
We should share it with those that have a hunger to receive it.

We shouldn’t have to defend the Trinity.
We should share it with those that have a hunger to receive it.

If I said no one comes to my father except through me. Would that make me my father?

 

[Peterlag]

He stated "I Am" and that "before" Abraham was born. As in I existed before Abrahams birth.. I am not bringing in the God context as in I am that I Am. I am showing a I existed context and it is valid. Did I not give you enough translations? And I gave the intended context. "Before Abraham was born" I existed.

Considering all the other text that puts Jesus before all things and through whom all things were made it is consistent truth.

The old English is hard. It's probably more along the lines of before it was Abraham. But I'm what counts now.

 

[Peterlag]

These are some of my attempts to understand the Trinity from a biblical perspective:

1. How to understand three persons in the Trinity
2. Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?
3. Problems with the Trinity
4. Is Allah the same personal God as the Christian Lord God Almighty?

Oz

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the Trinity is taught. Even Trinity scholars admit that there are only about eight verses in the entire New Testament that can be understood to say that Jesus is God, and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture.

 

[Free]

My post is 100% undeniable facts.

It certainly isn't. Some facts, properly understood, and some falsehoods or misunderstanding on your part.

Those that believe in the trinity tell you different. Every Israelite Hebrew scholar will tell you 100% my post is undeniable facts of true God worship history.

What do you mean by a "Israelite Hebrew scholar"?

And when Catholicisms own encyclopedia teaches the same, its truth. No matter what other men say.

And what does the Catholic encyclopedia teach about God being a Trinity? Are you going to believe that whatever it says about the nature of God is true, no matter what other men may say? Please share with us what it says.

Here is what an online Catholic encyclopedia says:

"The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God)."

And they go on to provide other early church writings to prove their case.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-trinity

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion—the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another."

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

Do those agree with the encyclopedia you referenced?

Even in the Greek lexicons-trinity translation, At John 1:1--The true God is called Ho Theos in the second line, Jesus is called plain Theos showing a difference in what is being taught. Ho Theos= The God, plain Theos = a god.

I've already proven that this is a fallacious argument, but you ignored the evidence. I would appreciate it if you addressed my specific points.

In 1822 a Greek scholar in his NT translation compared the Greek to English side by side proving that a god was correct in translating.

No offense intended, but this shows a significant ignorance of the process of translation.

Its the real reason Jesus teaches-The Father is his God just like ours-John 20:17, Rev 3:12--Paul teaches that truth as well-Coll 1:3, Eph 1:13,17-- 2Cor 1:3--and Pater 1 Peter 1:3

I believe all that Jesus, Paul, and Peter teach. I also believe as Thomas did, that Jesus is my Lord and my God. Taking verses out of context is largely why you believe what you do.

In the larger context of John, we already have John saying that the Son was the Word, who "was with God" and "was God." Also, in 1:3, John writes that, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV). So, the only logical conclusion is that the Word, which we know is the Son, cannot be a thing that was made. Therefore, the Son is eternal, having existed before creation began (we can get into the Greek grammar of it if you like).

And, only 11 verses after John 20:17, Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!". Does Jesus correct him, since, according to you, this would be blasphemy? No, he does not. In John 9:38 (and elsewhere in the Gospels), Jesus is worshiped. Again, does Jesus correct this blasphemy (according to your position)? No, he does not. Yet, Peter, when he is worshiped in the exact same manner, in Acts 10:25, lifts up Cornelius and says, "Stand up; I too am a man." Additionally, what does the angel in Rev 22:8-9 do when John "fell down to worship at the feet of the angel"? The angel said to him, "You must not do that!".

The context of Col 1:3 also includes verses 16-17:

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.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

If Jesus created all things, and Paul says he did, then he cannot be a created thing. Therefore, he has always existed, which is a property of God alone. Therefore, Jesus is truly God, but not the Father.

What else does Paul write to the Corinthians? Well, in 1 Cor 8:6, he writes: "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." First, this agrees with John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17. If, as Paul writes, all things exist through Jesus, then Jesus cannot be a thing (or person or being) that has come into existence. Therefore, he has always existed. This is an attribute of God alone. Therefore, Jesus is God. Second, because I know what you'll argue, if "one God, the Father" means only the Father is God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ," means that the Father cannot be Lord.

Don't forget that Peter also wrote 2 Pet 1:1, "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (ESV)

No trinity exists, All being mislead into serving it are breaking Gods #1 commandment daily, being taught by a house divided( 33,999 trinity religions) they will not stand.

The doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that Scripture reveals about the nature of God. And there are not 33,999 "trinity religions." There is one trinitarian religion, Christianity, and many denominations, which is irrelevant as to the truth of trinitarianism.

 

[keiw1]

It certainly isn't. Some facts, properly understood, and some falsehoods or misunderstanding on your part.


What do you mean by a "Israelite Hebrew scholar"?


And what does the Catholic encyclopedia teach about God being a Trinity? Are you going to believe that whatever it says about the nature of God is true, no matter what other men may say? Please share with us what it says.

Here is what an online Catholic encyclopedia says:

"The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God)."

And they go on to provide other early church writings to prove their case.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-trinity

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion—the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another."

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

Do those agree with the encyclopedia you referenced?


I've already proven that this is a fallacious argument, but you ignored the evidence. I would appreciate it if you addressed my specific points.


No offense intended, but this shows a significant ignorance of the process of translation.


I believe all that Jesus, Paul, and Peter teach. I also believe as Thomas did, that Jesus is my Lord and my God. Taking verses out of context is largely why you believe what you do.

In the larger context of John, we already have John saying that the Son was the Word, who "was with God" and "was God." Also, in 1:3, John writes that, "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV). So, the only logical conclusion is that the Word, which we know is the Son, cannot be a thing that was made. Therefore, the Son is eternal, having existed before creation began (we can get into the Greek grammar of it if you like).

And, only 11 verses after John 20:17, Thomas says to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!". Does Jesus correct him, since, according to you, this would be blasphemy? No, he does not. In John 9:38 (and elsewhere in the Gospels), Jesus is worshiped. Again, does Jesus correct this blasphemy (according to your position)? No, he does not. Yet, Peter, when he is worshiped in the exact same manner, in Acts 10:25, lifts up Cornelius and says, "Stand up; I too am a man." Additionally, what does the angel in Rev 22:8-9 do when John "fell down to worship at the feet of the angel"? The angel said to him, "You must not do that!".

The context of Col 1:3 also includes verses 16-17:

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.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

If Jesus created all things, and Paul says he did, then he cannot be a created thing. Therefore, he has always existed, which is a property of God alone. Therefore, Jesus is truly God, but not the Father.

What else does Paul write to the Corinthians? Well, in 1 Cor 8:6, he writes: "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." First, this agrees with John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17. If, as Paul writes, all things exist through Jesus, then Jesus cannot be a thing (or person or being) that has come into existence. Therefore, he has always existed. This is an attribute of God alone. Therefore, Jesus is God. Second, because I know what you'll argue, if "one God, the Father" means only the Father is God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ," means that the Father cannot be Lord.

Don't forget that Peter also wrote 2 Pet 1:1, "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." (ESV)


The doctrine of the Trinity best takes into account all that Scripture reveals about the nature of God. And there are not 33,999 "trinity religions." There is one trinitarian religion, Christianity, and many denominations, which is irrelevant as to the truth of trinitarianism.

Maybe you missed facts of history, they are as follows-100% fact.

From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelite religion serve the Abrahamic God, They teach, serve and worship a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah)-thus while Jesus attended those places of worship, was taught served and worshipped a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah) as was EVERY bible writer God used.
At the first council of Nicea in 325 ce no trinity was being taught or served, in 381ce at the first council of Constantinople, all of a sudden God is taught as a trinity, never before.
In the 2nd century a man named Tertullian was considering God to be a trinity-Why? Because a single being God of Israel was being served still.
The trinity does not exist, by satans will he had God altered at that council. Jesus was NEVER with that religion that came out of Rome. Her own translating expose her as false. Its why the Protestants ran to start with, yet they didnt have a clue as to all the errors translated in by satans will to mislead.
Even in the Greek lexicons-It proves 100% no capitol G God belongs in the last line at John 1:1.
Hard to throw the facts away.

 

[Free]

Maybe you missed facts of history, they are as follows-100% fact.

From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelite religion serve the Abrahamic God, They teach, serve and worship a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah)-thus while Jesus attended those places of worship, was taught served and worshipped a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah) as was EVERY bible writer God used.

Of course, that is why the doctrine of the Trinity affirms monotheism.

At the first council of Nicea in 325 ce no trinity was being taught or served, in 381ce at the first council of Constantinople, all of a sudden God is taught as a trinity, never before.

No, I have provided a link which shows this to be 100% false. The Council of Constantinople merely affirmed what was already accepted as true Christian teaching. I also have history books on the matter, and, like I said previously, any church historian will confirm that the foundational elements of the Trinity, as well as the Trinity itself, were being taught long before the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea confirmed the deity of Jesus, which is one of the foundational elements of the doctrine of the Trinity.

In the 2nd century a man named Tertullian was considering God to be a trinity

See, you just contradicted yourself.

-Why? Because a single being God of Israel was being served still.

Tertullian "was considering God to be a trinity . . . because a single being God of Israel was being served still"? This argument doesn't make sense.

The trinity does not exist, by satans will he had God altered at that council. Jesus was NEVER with that religion that came out of Rome. Her own translating expose her as false.

But you stated previously: "And when Catholicisms own encyclopedia teaches the same, its truth. No matter what other men say." You've contradicted yourself again. Or do you just quote from the Catholic encyclopedia and call it true when it is convenient for your argument?

Its why the Protestants ran to start with, yet they didnt have a clue as to all the errors translated in by satans will to mislead.

I don't understand what your point is here.

Even in the Greek lexicons-It proves 100% no capitol G God belongs in the last line at John 1:1.

No, I have shown how your position on this is false. Why do you not address my points and merely continue to repeat your erroneous understanding? Here, I'll even post my points again so you won't have to go back and look for them:

We can immediately dismiss the translation of "a god" simply on the basis of monotheism. There is only one being that is God; there are no beings between God and man that are truly gods. That would be polytheism or Gnosticism and certainly not a Christian idea.

However, you, and those you quote, do not understand the anarthrous (without the article) use of Theos. That is must be translated as "a god" ignores the 282 times that Theos is used anarthrously in the NT, including four times in John 1: vss. 6, 12, 13, and 18.

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Do you think we should translate those as "There was a man sent from a god," "he gave the right to become children of a god," "but of a god," and "no one has ever seen a god"? Why or why not?

What about 2 Cor 5:19, "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation"? Should we be translating that as "in Christ a god"? Why or why not?

One of the problems is that if John did use the article in 1:1c, then God and Word become interchangeable, which would support Modalism. But that is false. Without the article then, the only meaning we can get is one of a qualitative nature, that is, it is speaking of the nature of the Word, his divinity.

Based on what you posted above, there is another serious contradiction that needs to be pointed out:

You stated: "From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelite religion serve the Abrahamic God, They teach, serve and worship a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah)-thus while Jesus attended those places of worship, was taught served and worshipped a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah) as was EVERY bible writer God used."

But you're also arguing that "Even in the Greek lexicons-It proves 100% no capitol G God belongs in the last line at John 1:1."

So, which is it? Does the Bible teach that there is a "single being God" or, as you are also arguing, does the Bible teach there are two gods? Is there a "single being God" and a "single being god," or is there a "single being God" and many beings that are gods? How do you know?

Hard to throw the facts away.

You haven't given many facts.

 

[keiw1]

Of course, that is why the doctrine of the Trinity affirms monotheism.


No, I have provided a link which shows this to be 100% false. The Council of Constantinople merely affirmed what was already accepted as true Christian teaching. I also have history books on the matter, and, like I said previously, any church historian will confirm that the foundational elements of the Trinity, as well as the Trinity itself, were being taught long before the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea confirmed the deity of Jesus, which is one of the foundational elements of the doctrine of the Trinity.


See, you just contradicted yourself.


Tertullian "was considering God to be a trinity . . . because a single being God of Israel was being served still"? This argument doesn't make sense.


But you stated previously: "And when Catholicisms own encyclopedia teaches the same, its truth. No matter what other men say." You've contradicted yourself again. Or do you just quote from the Catholic encyclopedia and call it true when it is convenient for your argument?


I don't understand what your point is here.


No, I have shown how your position on this is false. Why do you not address my points and merely continue to repeat your erroneous understanding? Here, I'll even post my points again so you won't have to go back and look for them:

We can immediately dismiss the translation of "a god" simply on the basis of monotheism. There is only one being that is God; there are no beings between God and man that are truly gods. That would be polytheism or Gnosticism and certainly not a Christian idea.

However, you, and those you quote, do not understand the anarthrous (without the article) use of Theos. That is must be translated as "a god" ignores the 282 times that Theos is used anarthrously in the NT, including four times in John 1: vss. 6, 12, 13, and 18.

Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Do you think we should translate those as "There was a man sent from a god," "he gave the right to become children of a god," "but of a god," and "no one has ever seen a god"? Why or why not?

What about 2 Cor 5:19, "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation"? Should we be translating that as "in Christ a god"? Why or why not?

One of the problems is that if John did use the article in 1:1c, then God and Word become interchangeable, which would support Modalism. But that is false. Without the article then, the only meaning we can get is one of a qualitative nature, that is, it is speaking of the nature of the Word, his divinity.

Based on what you posted above, there is another serious contradiction that needs to be pointed out:

You stated: "From Moses on up until this very day, the Israelite religion serve the Abrahamic God, They teach, serve and worship a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah)-thus while Jesus attended those places of worship, was taught served and worshipped a single being God-YHWH(Jehovah) as was EVERY bible writer God used."

But you're also arguing that "Even in the Greek lexicons-It proves 100% no capitol G God belongs in the last line at John 1:1."

So, which is it? Does the Bible teach that there is a "single being God" or, as you are also arguing, does the Bible teach there are two gods? Is there a "single being God" and a "single being god," or is there a "single being God" and many beings that are gods? How do you know?


You haven't given many facts.

It was Catholicism that created the trinity at the council of Constantinople-381 CE, that is why their encyclopedia states it was not served before the end of the 4th century.

 

[Free]

It was Catholicism that created the trinity at the council of Constantinople-381 CE, that is why their encyclopedia states it was not served before the end of the 4th century.

I even pointed out that one of your other points contradicts to is. Care to actually address any of the points I made?

 

[keiw1]

I even pointed out that one of your other points contradicts to is. Care to actually address any of the points I made?

They cant be valid since facts back my statements.
In the Greek lexicons, the true God is called Ho Theos in the second line at John 1:1, plain Theos is in the last line, to show that Jesus was not being called The God as in the second line, but a god is correct. Your scholars know its fact.

 

[Free]

They cant be valid since facts back my statements.
In the Greek lexicons, the true God is called Ho Theos in the second line at John 1:1, plain Theos is in the last line, to show that Jesus was not being called The God as in the second line, but a god is correct. Your scholars know its fact.

Why do you continue to ignore the points I made? You keep repeating this error even though I have given sufficient proof that it is false, and I could give more.

Who is Jesus? Who is the Son of God?

 

[OzSpen]

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the Trinity is taught. Even Trinity scholars admit that there are only about eight verses in the entire New Testament that can be understood to say that Jesus is God, and every one of them can either be translated in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position, or disputed textually, or can be explained from the use of the word “God” in the culture.

Peter,

For you to conclude this way, you did not take notice of the content of my 6-7 links in a post above. I provided the biblical evidence for the Trinity and discussed some of the difficulties.

You seem to be resistant to listen to the biblical revelation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

They cant be valid since facts back my statements.
In the Greek lexicons, the true God is called Ho Theos in the second line at John 1:1, plain Theos is in the last line, to show that Jesus was not being called The God as in the second line, but a god is correct. Your scholars know its fact.

keiw1,

Your line of reasoning is incorrect according to the "bible" of Greek lexicons, Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press / Zondervan 1957) pp 357-358 ff, where Ho Theos means "of divine beings generally", with reference to Christ, quite predominately of the true God without the article, without the article, etc.

I encourage you to take a few courses in NT Greek to overcome your shortsighted understanding of God. Your view of God doesn't hold up with that presented in the NT.

In this discussion, you seem to be out of your depth in lack of understanding.
Oz

 

[keiw1]

Why do you continue to ignore the points I made? You keep repeating this error even though I have given sufficient proof that it is false, and I could give more.

Who is Jesus? Who is the Son of God?

I know its fact about Ho Theos--Only the Father is called that in the NT. There have been at least 19 other translations in history with a god in the last line at John 1:1--because its correct. A Greek scholars NT translation in 1822 compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct. Jesus teaches( John 17:3) the Father=one who sent him is the only true God-proves a god is correct--you throw Fact and Jesus away to believe trinity false words. And so do the men you believe over fact and Jesus. Its sad. The Abrahamic God was and always will be a single being God.

 

[keiw1]

keiw1,

Your line of reasoning is incorrect according to the "bible" of Greek lexicons, Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press / Zondervan 1957) pp 357-358 ff, where Ho Theos means "of divine beings generally", with reference to Christ, quite predominately of the true God without the article, without the article, etc.

I encourage you to take a few courses in NT Greek to overcome your shortsighted understanding of God. Your view of God doesn't hold up with that presented in the NT.

In this discussion, you seem to be out of your depth in lack of understanding.
Oz

I dont lack understanding, the men you listen to do. Only the Father is called Ho Theos in the NT. I put Ho Theos in my bing search engine-that is the reality of it.

 

[Free]

I know its fact about Ho Theos--Only the Father is called that in the NT. There have been at least 19 other translations in history with a god in the last line at John 1:1--because its correct. A Greek scholars NT translation in 1822 compared Greek to English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct. Jesus teaches( John 17:3) the Father=one who sent him is the only true God-proves a god is correct--you throw Fact and Jesus away to believe trinity false words. And so do the men you believe over fact and Jesus. Its sad.

This is false. I've reposted the evidence twice but you refuse to engage it. Why is that? Simply repeating something doesn't make it true. This strongly suggests that you really don't understand the matter.

The Abrahamic God was and always will be a single being God.

Of course, and that is what the doctrine of the Trinity affirms. So, I ask again: Who is Jesus? Who is the Son of God?

 

[keiw1]

This is false. I've reposted the evidence twice but you refuse to engage it. Why is that? Simply repeating something doesn't make it true. This strongly suggests that you really don't understand the matter.


Of course, and that is what the doctrine of the Trinity affirms. So, I ask again: Who is Jesus? Who is the Son of God?

The one whom God sent=The Messiah, Gods appointed king. The speaker at Proverbs 8= The one who came to be by Gods side as his master worker( one whom God created all other things through) The one God grew especially fond of. He tells you he was created at Prov 8--If you knew him, you would already know that.

 

[Free]

The one whom God sent=The Messiah, Gods appointed king. The speaker at Proverbs 8= The one who came to be by Gods side as his master worker( one whom God created all other things through) The one God grew especially fond of. He tells you he was created at Prov 8--If you knew him, you would already know that.

No, Jesus was not created. Numerous verses and passages make this very clear. I don't consider Pro 8 to be speaking of the Son anyway. And I do know him. Better familiarize yourself with the ToS.

 

[keiw1]

keiw1,

Your line of reasoning is incorrect according to the "bible" of Greek lexicons, Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich (University of Chicago Press / Zondervan 1957) pp 357-358 ff, where Ho Theos means "of divine beings generally", with reference to Christ, quite predominately of the true God without the article, without the article, etc.

I encourage you to take a few courses in NT Greek to overcome your shortsighted understanding of God. Your view of God doesn't hold up with that presented in the NT.

In this discussion, you seem to be out of your depth in lack of understanding.
Oz

The teachers Jesus is with do not need the schools of men to have truth. The Pharisees back in Jesus day sound like you. They said its impossible for Jesus and the apostles to be spiritual teachers, they did not attend their schools of men. We all see where the schools of men got them=living in darkness. Jesus provides holy spirit to his teachers. Its all they need to have truth. Not much truth is found in the schools of men. Dogma is.

 

[keiw1]

No, Jesus was not created. Numerous verses and passages make this very clear. I don't consider Pro 8 to be speaking of the Son anyway. And I do know him. Better familiarize yourself with the ToS.

Of course you dont, you do not know him. He tells you there you need to listen to him,8:32-34) it is not God speaking, who else in the bible are we told to listen to= Jesus. Who else came to be beside God as his master worker then? Enlighten us all please, since you know its not Jesus.