Is Jesus Christ a created being (Begotten Son) or has He always existed alongside God the Father (Eternal Son)?

[JLB]

Exactly, the Father is the only true God.

The Father is the Truth.
The Son is the Truth.
The Holy Spirit is the Truth… The Spirit of Truth.

 

[LeviR]

The Father is the Truth.
The Son is the Truth.
The Holy Spirit is the Truth… The Spirit of Truth.

The Father is the Word.
The Son is the Word.
The Holy Spirit is the Word….The Spirit of Truth in Word.

The Father and Son are one in Spirit and in truth.

 

[Tenchi]

Let us delve into scripture, engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold different views, and prayerfully consider the implications of these concepts for our worship and daily lives. Whether Jesus is described as "begotten" or "eternal," the core message remains: He is the divine Son of God, who bridges the gap between humanity and God, offering us salvation and a restored relationship with the Creator. Through an active pursuit of understanding, we can deepen our faith and more effectively share the love of Christ with the world.

Anyone who diminishes the deity of Christ is of the devil, quite frankly, however "sincerely" they may hold their deeply devilish view. Such a person is of the spirit of anti-christ, the apostle John wrote:

1 John 4:2-3
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

If there is any attribute of God that Jesus does not share, Jesus is not God. To say, then, that Jesus was created (i.e. "begotten") is to say he is not God, for God exists as a necessity of His own being, He is "a se" ("of himself"). This cannot be said of a created being, even if he shares every other attribute of God.

And so, the apostle John clearly established the full and uncreated deity of Christ:

John 1:1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

John 10:30-33
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

John 14:8-9
8 Philip *said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."
9 Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

The apostle Paul, also took pains to clarify the full deity of Jesus:

Colossians 2:9
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Titus 2:13
13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

And the apostle Peter, as well:

2 Peter 1:1
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

 

[JLB]

The Father is the Word.
The Son is the Word.
The Holy Spirit is the Word….The Spirit of Truth in Word.

The Father and Son are one in Spirit and in truth.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in Truth; the Spirit of Truth.

 

[LeviR]

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in Truth; the Spirit of Truth.

Is the Son’s God his Father?

 

[JLB]

Is the Son’s God his Father?

God the Father is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As a Man, Jesus would naturally call His Father, God.

Jesus was our pattern of how it was intended for mankind to live.


Do you believe by Jesus honoring His Father as His God, somehow disminishes Him as being the Truth, or being God?

For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
John 5:22-23

• that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.

JLB

 

[tigger II]

I glanced at your study as I have in the past. First, John 1:1c cannot ever be translated as “a god” because Yahweh repeatedly states and it is repeatedly stated throughout Scripture, that there is only one God and there is no such thing as a god.

Second, just a cursory check and the second point in your study—“The next point is that when John (and Matthew, Mark, and Luke also) clearly meant “God” when writing theos (the form of the Greek word which ends in ς), he always used the definite article (‘the’ in English - ho in Greek): ho theos”—is wrong. In John 8:54, John uses theos without the article, and if there is one instance, there could be more. I believe I have pointed this out to you before and yet you still haven’t changed it.

Third, John rights that in Thomas’s exclamation to Jesus, he uses ho theos. So, you should at least be consistent and acknowledge that Thomas called Jesus his God.

......................................................
If you truly just "glanced at" my study, that explains the great display of ignorance - again.

One of the main points of that study is the proven fact that (as in other languages) the exceptions must be known. The study strongly points out the exception of the influence of prepositions and genitives on the noun being examined.

Yes, the noun that is part of a prepositional phrase or is attached to a genitive may or may not use the article, BUT it does not always mean that noun is definite or indefinite. Please try reading the whole study carefully.

However, when the use of theos by John is not one of those affected by the known exceptions, it is always governed by the use or non-use of the article.

The study also shows the use of "god" in scriptures and a long list of trinitarian scholars who agree.

John 8:54 does use theos without the article. But as also pointed out in the studies, it is one of the exceptions ("God of you" - use of genitive) ! I believe you have pointed out this example before and you still refuse to examine what I have actually written. Of course I haven't changed it! Actually discuss what is written in the studies and comment on that.

John 20:28 is an entirely different subject. The article is used there and should be understood as needed. If you need another study of mine to mostly ignore and misuse here is John 20:28 - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

 

[LeviR]

..................................
1. John 1:1 - How could John mean what is mistranslated here when he concludes his Gospel with "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God...." - John 20:31, RSV. Although I know from experience that no one here will actually read and discuss my personal study, nevertheless, here is a link to my shortest version:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2013/02/seven-lessons-for-john-11c-a.html

2. 1 Tim. 3:16 - Not many modern Bibles fall for this. http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/1-tim-316-god-manifest-in-flesh-kjv.html

3. 2 Peter 1:1 - Most Bibles like this translation (for obvious reasons), but there is an alternate understanding based on the grammar usually ignored by them (for obvious reasons): - http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/08/sharps-rule-primer_29.html

When God speaks, He does so by His Spirit. When He creates, He does it by His Spirit. When He gives life, it is by His Spirit.
He gives, wisdom, understanding, knowledge, prophecy and the fear of the Lord by his Spirit.
All of His Word is attributed to His Spirit.
When Jesus is given that Spirit without limit, all of what is attributed to His Spirit, is attributed to His Son.
The Word was made flesh.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB,

Do you understand the concept that God became flesh; He became a Man.
And the Word became 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. John 1:14

Yes, this is what the Yahweh Name incorporates "I will be/become who I will be/become" or as Tyndale renders this "I wilbe what I wilbe".

Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

• God was manifest in the flesh

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16 KJV

Yes, the human Jesus, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection is the central focus of the development of the Yahweh Name.
John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The ultimate development of the Yahweh Name is given in the following:
1 Corinthians 15:24–28 (KJV): 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Refer also my thread "The Yahweh Name".

The Yahweh Name

The Yahweh Name Part 1 Initial Declaration and Fulfilment The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14-15. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ...

christianforums.net

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Yes, the human Jesus, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection is the central focus of the development of the Yahweh Name.
John 20:28–31 (KJV): 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Do you believe Jesus was YHWH the LORD God of Israel before He became flesh.


I ask, because I don't know for sure where you stand from your posts. I do agree with much of what you post but am unclear about this main point.



Thanks JLB

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB and Greetings Tenchi,

Do you believe Jesus was YHWH the LORD God of Israel before He became flesh.

No, I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus revealed God the Father, not God the Son. Yahweh as a father became Jesus, His Son, at his birth, in his character and on his resurrection.

John 14:8–11 (KJV): 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

Anyone who diminishes the deity of Christ is of the devil, quite frankly, however "sincerely" they may hold their deeply devilish view. Such a person is of the spirit of anti-christ, the apostle John wrote:
1 John 4:2-3 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They believe that he had two natures, a contradiction and an impossibility. John is speaking about the beginning of the development of this wrong doctrine.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Tenchi]

Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They believe that he had two natures, a contradiction and an impossibility. John is speaking about the beginning of the development of this wrong doctrine.

Mere assertions - and pejorative ones, at that - do not constitute an argument for your view or against mine. They're just assertions. What's more, you made a Strawman of the Trinitarian view which further diminishes your assertions.

 

[LeviR]

Greetings again JLB and Greetings Tenchi,

No, I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus revealed God the Father, not God the Son. Yahweh as a father became Jesus, His Son, at his birth, in his character and on his resurrection.

John 14:8–11 (KJV): 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.


Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus came in the flesh. They believe that he had two natures, a contradiction and an impossibility. John is speaking about the beginning of the development of this wrong doctrine.

Kind regards
Trevor

The false idea of having two natures causes people to believe they have two natures too.
They imagine they have a good nature that battles with an evil nature.
Perhaps even having two minds or two spirits or two souls within the same body.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Greetings again JLB and Greetings Tenchi,

No, I believe that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus revealed God the Father, not God the Son. Yahweh as a father became Jesus, His Son, at his birth, in his character and on his resurrection.

Where does the Word, who was with God, fit in ?

 

[Hopeful 2]

The false idea of having two natures causes people to believe they have two natures too.
They imagine they have a good nature that battles with an evil nature.
Perhaps even having two minds or two spirits or two souls within the same body.

That is "The Split Personality Doctrine".

 

[LeviR]

That is "The Split Personality Doctrine".

Yeah, isn’t that the one that says sometimes Jesus the man is speaking and other times Jesus the God is speaking? depending on what mind he wanted to use.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yeah, isn’t that the one that says sometimes Jesus the man is speaking and other times Jesus the God is speaking? depending on what mind he wanted to use.

No.
It is the one where men say they are in Christ, but have an evil nature too.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Tenchi and Hopeful 2,

Mere assertions - and pejorative ones, at that - do not constitute an argument for your view or against mine. They're just assertions. What's more, you made a Strawman of the Trinitarian view which further diminishes your assertions.

I do not consider them mere assertions, but this is my understanding of what John is saying, speaking about the early development of the Apostate Church, who later invented the Trinity. I do not consider my comments were "pejorative" (I had to look this up in the dictionary), nor a Strawman.

Where does the Word, who was with God, fit in ?

I consider this to be a personification, similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8 who was with the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in the Creation, as I stated earlier.

I understand "The Word" of John 1:1 is a personification, similar to the Wise Woman "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8 who was with Yahweh in the creation.
I also like 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. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 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.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Tenchi]

I do not consider them mere assertions, but this is my understanding of what John is saying, speaking about the early development of the Apostate Church, who later invented the Trinity. I do not consider my comments were "pejorative" (I had to look this up in the dictionary), nor a Strawman.

Well, it doesn't actually matter what you might think or feel about what you wrote. Objectively, in reality, regardless of what you think or feel, your assertions were just assertions, nothing more. You stated your opinion without any proper, justifying rationale, merely declaring that things were as you stated that they were, as though it was self-evident that what you were asserting was fact. But it isn't by any means self-evident that your assertions are true.

...this is my understanding of what John is saying, speaking about the early development of the Apostate Church, who later invented the Trinity.

Okay. I'm not sure what value your flat declaration of your thinking is supposed to have. I read your words and can only shrug my shoulders and think, "So?" Nowhere in any of what the apostle John wrote does he ever say anything like what you do here.

I do not consider my comments were "pejorative" (I had to look this up in the dictionary), nor a Strawman.

Again, what you think or feel about your remarks doesn't necessarily shape their actual nature. In fact, you were objectively pejorative in framing the trinitarian view as you did:

"They believe that he had two natures, a contradiction and an impossibility."

This remark of yours implies irrationality on the part of trinitarians, which is hardly a flattering characterization of them. And inasmuch as your characterization of the trinitarian reveals your inability to understand their view, your characterization is a Strawman, reflecting your inability to understand, not irrationality in the trinitarian, or an actual problem in their view of the Incarnation.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Tenchi,

This remark of yours implies irrationality on the part of trinitarians, which is hardly a flattering characterization of them.

I appreciate you comments and accept your reprimand to some extent. I firmly hold on to my particular Unitarian position.

Kind regards
Trevor