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

[JLB]

Who designed the daffodil and the rose?

• For by Him all things were created

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB,

Where does it say in Psalm 8:5 that this is David’s commentary of Genesis 1:26-27

Psalm 8 is David's summary of the Edenic Creation, but he also uses this as a framework to speak of the New Creation in and through Jesus.

The same God that created the heavens and the earth also created mankind.

Yes.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Fish153]

Greetings again Free, JLB and Fish153,

I doubt that the children of Israel who listened to Moses believed that this was teaching a compound unity, neither did the scribe who listened to Jesus.

Psalm 8:5 is David's commentary and summary of Genesis 1:26-27. Psalm 8 separates Yahweh from Elohim, and in this context Elohim are the Angels. The new creation, centred in the creation of Jesus is also revealed in Psalm 8:5.

Who designed the daffodil and the rose? Who looked after the events surrounding the Prince of Persia? When did the Angels start working? Who or what were the Cherubim that were placed at the entrance to the Garden after Adam and Eve were expelled?

This is part of the Trinity language. Peter, John and James were three human beings. Jesus is a human being, now exalted and glorified. He is not a third part of a Being.

Kind regards
Trevor

"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5)

"I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another" (Isaiah 42:8)

Jesus states he had "glory with the Father before the world began". Yet God says "My glory I will not give to another". Jesus also says "My Father and I are one". Jesus is God--He is the second Person of the Trinity--The Word of God.

 

[JLB]

Psalm 8 is David's summary of the Edenic Creation, but he also uses this as a framework to speak of the New Creation in and through Jesus.

That is your opinion.


The question I asked is

Where does it say in Genesis 1:1 or Genesis 1:26 that God was speaking to His audience the angels.?


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; Genesis 1:26

• Let Us make man in Our image

The same God that created the heavens and the earth also created mankind.

 

[electedbyHim]

PREEXISTENCE

What kind of existence did Christ have prior to his incarnation? In other words, what was the state of his preexistence in his deity alone before he took on humanity? The second person of the Trinity resided in heaven and came to earth from heaven at the moment of the miraculous conception of his human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38). He was sent by the first person of the Trinity (God the Father) as a result of God’s love for mankind: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the p 237 world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (John 3:16–17). The Son came down from heaven (John 3:31) when the Father sent him (John 6:38; 17:3; 1 John 4:9). The arrival of the Son on earth at the incarnation demonstrates that his prior existence was in heaven.

The second person of the Godhead existed before the creation of the universe. Indeed, the Bible identifies him as the Creator: “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3; see 1:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16–17; Heb. 1:2, 10). The Creator of all things must exist prior to his act of creation—before the existence of all created things. Thus, the Scriptures testify to the fact that he possessed divine glory “before the world existed” (John 17:5). In that preincarnate existence within the Godhead, the second person of the Trinity experienced the first person’s love (John 17:24). The persons of the Godhead exercised this divine, communicable attribute among themselves throughout eternity past.

The second person of the Godhead is eternal in his nature and existence. The clearest biblical statement appears in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Lest the reader think that “the beginning” relates merely to the commencement of creation, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews clearly contrasts the temporary, finite existence of the creation with the permanent, eternal existence of the Creator, the Son of God himself: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end” (Heb. 1:10–12; see Ps. 102:25–27). The Old Testament describes his existence as “from of old, from ancient days” (Mic. 5:2). Isaiah ascribes the titles “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” to him and indicates that the incarnation of the God-man consisted of not only the birth of a child but also the giving of a son (Isa. 9:6). Christ has always existed as the Son of God but became a child only at the moment of his miraculous conception.
Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 236–240.

 

[electedbyHim]

Eternal Son of God3

The eternal existence of the second person raises a question regarding the relationship he had within the Godhead. As the second person of the Trinity (or “the Word,” as John 1:1 speaks of him), he existed from eternity past. But did he always in eternity past exist as Son? Two major views have arisen: eternal sonship and incarnational sonship.

Hebrews 1:5, at first glance, appears to speak of the Father’s begetting the Son as an event that takes place at a point in time: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” and “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” That verse presents some very difficult concepts. Begetting normally speaks of a person’s origin. p 238 Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. Therefore, the text appears to speak of something incompatible with an eternal Father-Son relationship, which demands that perfect equality and eternality must exist among the persons of the Trinity. The incarnational sonship line of reasoning concludes that sonship indicates the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at his incarnation (see John 5:18; Phil. 2:5–8).

The eternal sonship view rests on the observation that the title Son of God, when applied to Christ in Scripture, seems to always speak of his essential deity and absolute equality with God, not his voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’s time understood this. John 5:18 says that they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging him with blasphemy “because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” In that culture, a dignitary’s adult son was deemed equal in stature and privilege with his father. The same deference demanded by a king was afforded to his adult son. The son was, after all, of the very same essence as his father, heir to all the father’s rights and privileges—and therefore equal in every significant regard. So when Jesus was called “Son of God,” it was understood categorically by all as a title of deity, declaring him equal with God and (more significantly) of the same essence as the Father. That is precisely why the Jewish leaders regarded the title Son of God the ultimate high blasphemy.

If Jesus’s sonship signifies his deity and absolute equality with the Father, it cannot be a title that pertains only to his incarnation. In fact, the main gist of what is meant by sonship (and certainly this would include Jesus’s divine essence) must pertain to the eternal attributes of Christ, not merely the humanity he assumed.

The begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though, at first glance, Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“today I have begotten you”), the context of Psalm 2:7 surely refers to the eternal “decree” of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting Psalm 2 speaks of is also something that pertains to eternity rather than to a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

Orthodox theologians since the First Council of Constantinople (381) have recognized this, and when dealing with the sonship of Christ, they employ the term eternal generation—which is an admittedly difficult expression. In Spurgeon’s words, it is “a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance.”4 Yet the concept itself is biblical. Scripture refers to Christ as “the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14; see 1:18; 3:16, 18). The Greek word translated “the only Son” (ESV; “only begotten,” KJV, NASB) is monogenēs. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ’s utter uniqueness. Literally, it may be rendered “one of a kind”—and yet it also clearly signifies that he is of the very same essence as the Father. Therefore, while monogenēs does not explicitly imply generation, it nevertheless p 239 coheres with the biblical concept (cf. Ps. 2:7; John 5:26), for it is precisely his eternal generation that makes Christ the unique Son of the Father.

To say that Christ is “begotten” is itself a difficult concept. Within the realm of creation, the term begotten speaks of the origin of one’s offspring. The begetting of a son denotes his conception—the point at which he comes into being. Some thus assume that “only begotten” refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2:7 and John 1:14 clearly refers to something more than the conception of Christ’s humanity in Mary’s womb.

Indeed, there is another, more vital, significance to the idea of begetting than merely the origin of one’s offspring. In the design of God, each creature begets offspring “according to its kind” (Gen. 1:11–12, 21–25). The offspring bear the exact likeness of the parent. The fact that a son is generated by the father guarantees that the son shares the same nature as the father. Christ in his deity, however, is not a created being (John 1:1–3). He had no beginning but is as timeless as God himself. Therefore, the “begetting” mentioned in Psalm 2 and its cross-references has nothing to do with the origin of either his deity or his humanity. But it has everything to do with him sharing the same essence as the Father. Expressions like “eternal generation,” “only begotten Son,” and others pertaining to the filiation of Christ must all be understood as underscoring the absolute oneness of essence between Father and Son. In other words, such expressions aren’t intended to evoke the idea of procreation; they are meant to convey the truth about the essential oneness shared by the members of the Trinity.

An incarnational view of Christ’s sonship assumes that Scripture employs father-son terminology anthropomorphically—accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. But human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. In the eternal sonship view, the one true, archetypal father-son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are simply earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in mankind’s finiteness yet illustrating a vital eternal reality.

If Christ’s sonship is all about his deity, someone will wonder why this sonship applies only to the second person of the Godhead and not to the third. After all, theologians do not refer to the Holy Spirit as God’s Son. Yet the Spirit is also of the same essence as the Father. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence, yet he exists in three persons. The three persons are coequal, but they are still distinct persons. The chief characteristics that distinguish the persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery. In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, p 240 but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over the centuries of church history. The doctrines of Christ’s eternal sonship and eternal generation ought therefore to be affirmed, even while acknowledging them as mysteries into which we cannot expect to pry too deeply.5

Incarnational sonship viewpoints normally present a case based on either divine declarations concerning the Son at his birth (Mark 1:1; Luke 1:32, 35), his baptism (Matt. 3:17), or his transfiguration (Matt. 17:5), or on the apostolic declaration concerning his resurrection (Acts 13:30–33; Rom. 1:4). In light of the arguments presented above against incarnational sonship, the divine declarations at his baptism and transfiguration merely express the Father’s approval and endorsement, not the initial appointment of the second person of the Godhead to the position and role of Son. The reference in Luke 1:35, when taken in light of Luke 3:38, could be the identification of Jesus as the second Adam.6 The texts mentioning his sonship in the context of or in association with his resurrection do not state that his resurrection “made” him the Son of God. Rather, the resurrection revealed in a powerful fashion that he was the Son of God, not a mere man, and was evidence proving his sonship, rather than installing him as Son. As Schreiner aptly notes, “It is crucial to recall that the one who is exalted as Son of God in power was already the Son.”7 The endorsements at his baptism and transfiguration support such a conclusion, since those occasions preceded Jesus’s resurrection but emphatically declare his sonship. What, then, was the purpose of the Father’s approving endorsements?

In calling Jesus His beloved Son, the Father declared not only a relationship of divine nature but a relationship of divine love. They had a relationship of mutual love, commitment, and identification in every way.

In saying, “with whom I am well-pleased,” the Father declared His approval with everything the Son was, said, and did. Everything about Jesus was in perfect accord with the Father’s will and plan.8[1]


Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 236–240.

 

[JLB]

Eternal Son of God3

The eternal existence of the second person raises a question regarding the relationship he had within the Godhead. As the second person of the Trinity (or “the Word,” as John 1:1 speaks of him), he existed from eternity past. But did he always in eternity past exist as Son? Two major views have arisen: eternal sonship and incarnational sonship.

Hebrews 1:5, at first glance, appears to speak of the Father’s begetting the Son as an event that takes place at a point in time: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” and “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” That verse presents some very difficult concepts. Begetting normally speaks of a person’s origin. p 238 Moreover, sons are generally subordinate to their fathers. Therefore, the text appears to speak of something incompatible with an eternal Father-Son relationship, which demands that perfect equality and eternality must exist among the persons of the Trinity. The incarnational sonship line of reasoning concludes that sonship indicates the place of voluntary submission to which Christ condescended at his incarnation (see John 5:18; Phil. 2:5–8).

The eternal sonship view rests on the observation that the title Son of God, when applied to Christ in Scripture, seems to always speak of his essential deity and absolute equality with God, not his voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’s time understood this. John 5:18 says that they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging him with blasphemy “because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” In that culture, a dignitary’s adult son was deemed equal in stature and privilege with his father. The same deference demanded by a king was afforded to his adult son. The son was, after all, of the very same essence as his father, heir to all the father’s rights and privileges—and therefore equal in every significant regard. So when Jesus was called “Son of God,” it was understood categorically by all as a title of deity, declaring him equal with God and (more significantly) of the same essence as the Father. That is precisely why the Jewish leaders regarded the title Son of God the ultimate high blasphemy.

If Jesus’s sonship signifies his deity and absolute equality with the Father, it cannot be a title that pertains only to his incarnation. In fact, the main gist of what is meant by sonship (and certainly this would include Jesus’s divine essence) must pertain to the eternal attributes of Christ, not merely the humanity he assumed.

The begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though, at first glance, Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“today I have begotten you”), the context of Psalm 2:7 surely refers to the eternal “decree” of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting Psalm 2 speaks of is also something that pertains to eternity rather than to a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

Orthodox theologians since the First Council of Constantinople (381) have recognized this, and when dealing with the sonship of Christ, they employ the term eternal generation—which is an admittedly difficult expression. In Spurgeon’s words, it is “a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance.”4 Yet the concept itself is biblical. Scripture refers to Christ as “the only Son from the Father” (John 1:14; see 1:18; 3:16, 18). The Greek word translated “the only Son” (ESV; “only begotten,” KJV, NASB) is monogenēs. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ’s utter uniqueness. Literally, it may be rendered “one of a kind”—and yet it also clearly signifies that he is of the very same essence as the Father. Therefore, while monogenēs does not explicitly imply generation, it nevertheless p 239 coheres with the biblical concept (cf. Ps. 2:7; John 5:26), for it is precisely his eternal generation that makes Christ the unique Son of the Father.

To say that Christ is “begotten” is itself a difficult concept. Within the realm of creation, the term begotten speaks of the origin of one’s offspring. The begetting of a son denotes his conception—the point at which he comes into being. Some thus assume that “only begotten” refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2:7 and John 1:14 clearly refers to something more than the conception of Christ’s humanity in Mary’s womb.

Indeed, there is another, more vital, significance to the idea of begetting than merely the origin of one’s offspring. In the design of God, each creature begets offspring “according to its kind” (Gen. 1:11–12, 21–25). The offspring bear the exact likeness of the parent. The fact that a son is generated by the father guarantees that the son shares the same nature as the father. Christ in his deity, however, is not a created being (John 1:1–3). He had no beginning but is as timeless as God himself. Therefore, the “begetting” mentioned in Psalm 2 and its cross-references has nothing to do with the origin of either his deity or his humanity. But it has everything to do with him sharing the same essence as the Father. Expressions like “eternal generation,” “only begotten Son,” and others pertaining to the filiation of Christ must all be understood as underscoring the absolute oneness of essence between Father and Son. In other words, such expressions aren’t intended to evoke the idea of procreation; they are meant to convey the truth about the essential oneness shared by the members of the Trinity.

An incarnational view of Christ’s sonship assumes that Scripture employs father-son terminology anthropomorphically—accommodating unfathomable heavenly truths to our finite minds by casting them in human terms. But human father-son relationships are merely earthly pictures of an infinitely greater heavenly reality. In the eternal sonship view, the one true, archetypal father-son relationship exists eternally within the Trinity. All others are simply earthly replicas, imperfect because they are bound up in mankind’s finiteness yet illustrating a vital eternal reality.

If Christ’s sonship is all about his deity, someone will wonder why this sonship applies only to the second person of the Godhead and not to the third. After all, theologians do not refer to the Holy Spirit as God’s Son. Yet the Spirit is also of the same essence as the Father. The full, undiluted, undivided essence of God belongs alike to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is but one essence, yet he exists in three persons. The three persons are coequal, but they are still distinct persons. The chief characteristics that distinguish the persons are wrapped up in the properties suggested by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Theologians have labeled these properties paternity, filiation, and spiration. That such distinctions are vital to our understanding of the Trinity is clear from Scripture. How to explain them fully remains something of a mystery. In fact, many aspects of these truths may remain forever inscrutable, p 240 but this basic understanding of the eternal relationships within the Trinity nonetheless represents the best consensus of Christian understanding over the centuries of church history. The doctrines of Christ’s eternal sonship and eternal generation ought therefore to be affirmed, even while acknowledging them as mysteries into which we cannot expect to pry too deeply.5


In calling Jesus His beloved Son, the Father declared not only a relationship of divine nature but a relationship of divine love. They had a relationship of mutual love, commitment, and identification in every way.

In saying, “with whom I am well-pleased,” the Father declared His approval with everything the Son was, said, and did. Everything about Jesus was in perfect accord with the Father’s will and plan.8[1]


Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 236–240.

Jesus was the LORD God, Creator of heaven and earth… before He became flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1Timothy 3:16


Everything else is just fluff.

 

[electedbyHim]

Jesus was the LORD God, Creator of heaven and earth… before He became flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1Timothy 3:16


Everything else is just fluff.

Theology is fluff?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fish153 and JLB,

"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5)

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

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father, the "Thou" of v5 and v6, knows the end from the beginning. Begore the Edenic Creation Yahweh foresaw the fall of Adam and that it would be necessary to raise up a descendant of Adam, the Son of Man, to fulfill God's purpose with the earth. God foresaw that this Son of Man, the human Jesus, would be crowned with glory and honour.

Jesus also says "My Father and I are one". Jesus is God

You are siding with the false accusation by the Jews.

John 10:30–38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Trinitarians ignore the answers that Jesus gave. Jesus also applies the same language to the believers:
John 17:11,20–23 (KJV): 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The same God that created the heavens and the earth also created mankind.

Yes, the One God, Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator - aka as Elohim, the God of Wisdom and Power who delights to share his work, wisdom, power with others, including the Angels. Veni, vidi, vici.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Not only did Thomas call Jesus God but Lord too. This happened after Jesus was raised from the dead to die no more.

This is no different than the Angel of the Lord being call both LORD and God. God name was in him. He was sent to represent God to man. He was not the only true God and neither is Jesus who has now been exalted above all the angels and now carries the name of God. God’s name is in him.

I am so confused by this response! You say that Jesus being called "God" is no different than the Angel of the Lord being called "God?"

The way I see it there are only two possibilities. Either the Angel of the Lord was a theophany, being a manifestation of God, or there is a very big difference between saying an angel is God and Jesus is God. Quite frankly, no true angel can be called "God!"

Heb 1.4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

You see, God can appear in the form of an Angel, but that doesn't make Him an angel. There are real angels, and they are not God.

But in taking the form of an angel, God is appearing in an illusory form, a revelation of sorts. He is temporarily assuming the form of an angel, and therefore is not truly an angel, who remains an angel forever.

So in calling Jesus "God" it is like calling a theophany "God," as well. They are both forms of God, and in Jesus' case, a real man. But the Angel of the Lord was, I believe, only a temporary form of an angel, being a theophany.

 

[RandyK]

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.

I don't believe this is biblical. All 3 Persons of the Trinity are expressions of the Word. The Word can assume forms, or revelations, of God's Person such that one can say "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth."

When the Word became the man Jesus, that man was God's Person revealed in human form. The Word of God can express who the Father is, and who the Spirit is, and the Word expresses them as such. But the Word does not *become them* in the way that the Word became flesh.

The Word is God's revelation and always assumes the form of God's thought. But that thought does not always crystalize into a material being like it did with Jesus, reflecting God's Person in human flesh.

 

[RandyK]

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.

When we are born from above we obtain a 2nd nature by the gift of Christ. The Holy Spirit worked witht men before the Cross, but after the Cross, the work produced by the Holy Spirit in us granted us New Birth, which is nothing less than full rights to Heaven's inheritance.

When we receive this New Birth we still live in the corrupted flesh, and have a corrupted human spirit. We are left with having to "overcome" our sinful tendencies, which we will always have until we die and are transformed at the resurrection of the Just.

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again Tenchi and Hopeful 2,

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.


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.


Kind regards
Trevor

A "woman" is a personification. A "word" is not.

God is uniquely one with His own revelation. He is His own revelation, or word.

So I don't view His word as a personification, but actually, His Person, who has with Him His ability to reveal who He is in any form He chooses to reveal Himself.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings RandyK,

A "woman" is a personification. A "word" is not.

Proverbs 8 personifies "Wisdom" as a woman.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Greetings again Fish153 and JLB,

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

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father, the "Thou" of v5 and v6, knows the end from the beginning. Begore the Edenic Creation Yahweh foresaw the fall of Adam and that it would be necessary to raise up a descendant of Adam, the Son of Man, to fulfill God's purpose with the earth. God foresaw that this Son of Man, the human Jesus, would be crowned with glory and honour.

You are siding with the false accusation by the Jews.

John 10:30–38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Trinitarians ignore the answers that Jesus gave. Jesus also applies the same language to the believers:
John 17:11,20–23 (KJV): 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


Yes, the One God, Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator - aka as Elohim, the God of Wisdom and Power who delights to share his work, wisdom, power with others, including the Angels. Veni, vidi, vici.

Kind regards
Trevor

Let me know when you are ready to address the scriptures from Genesis 1:1 and 1:26 I presented.

 

[RandyK]

Greetings RandyK,

Proverbs 8 personifies "Wisdom" as a woman.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The "woman" is the personification--not the Word. The idea is personified by the person--not by the word.

 

[Fish153]

Greetings again Fish153 and JLB,

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

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father, the "Thou" of v5 and v6, knows the end from the beginning. Begore the Edenic Creation Yahweh foresaw the fall of Adam and that it would be necessary to raise up a descendant of Adam, the Son of Man, to fulfill God's purpose with the earth. God foresaw that this Son of Man, the human Jesus, would be crowned with glory and honour.

You are siding with the false accusation by the Jews.

John 10:30–38 (KJV): 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Trinitarians ignore the answers that Jesus gave. Jesus also applies the same language to the believers:
John 17:11,20–23 (KJV): 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.


Yes, the One God, Yahweh, God the Father is the Creator - aka as Elohim, the God of Wisdom and Power who delights to share his work, wisdom, power with others, including the Angels. Veni, vidi, vici.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor---- There are many places in the Gospels where the Jews either picked up stones to stone Jesus, or sought to kill him. Jesus proclaimed "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58). He stated "My Father and I are one". These are just two examples where the Jews KNEW WITHOUT A DOUBT that Jesus was calling Himself God. Even in Mark 2 the scribes thought to themselves: "only GOD can forgive sins" when he forgave and then healed the man with the Palsy.
They KNEW Jesus was stating he was God! You are dead-set on NOT believing Jesus is God, or that there is a TRINITY so you have YOUR OWN interpretation of verses that clearly teach the opposite. So, it is actually futile to continue the discussion. I have made more than 2 or 3 posts---as have others--but you continue with false teaching. You may consider the below adversarial----but it really isn't---it is wisdom from the Apostle Paul.

"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself". (Titus 3: 10,11)

 

[RandyK]

Greetings RandyK,

Proverbs 8 personifies "Wisdom" as a woman.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor, I don't know you, and haven't talked with you to any extent. It is thought that you're not open to Trinitarian discussion with any objectivity. Is this true? If so, there is no sense in arguing any of the points.

My primary argument against Unitarianism is the fact that God has appeared as theophanies, as the "Angel of the Lord," and in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in certain places. If God is omnipresent, and yet appears to operate in local vicinities, then by definition He can be expressed at a minimum as 2 Persons.

And if God did appear as the Angel of the Lord, as well, then at a minimum God has revealed Himself in 3 Persons. How do you get around this, if indeed you are objective?

I would argue that the *reason* Unitarians and others like them reject the Deity of Jesus is because he is, well, different. He exemplifies a Divine Nature, as opposed to our own fallen nature.

At best, the saints can demonstrate both their fallen nature and a degree of saintliness. But they cannot demonstrate what is needed for redemption, which is pure righteousness, exemplified only in Jesus.

Nobody else is worthy to approach God the Father on our behalf, and forgive our sins. We cannot forgive our own sins--they must be forgiven by the One we offended, namely God.

Jesus cannot legitimately be the agent of our forgiveness unless he is forgiving sins committed against himself. He cannot legitimately just be the agent of suffering on behalf of God unless he is God Himself in human form!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB, Fish153 and RandyK,

Let me know when you are ready to address the scriptures from Genesis 1:1 and 1:26 I presented.

I do not mind terminating our discussion as I will not submit to your shallow syllogism. I am VERY satisfied with my understanding of Genesis 1:1 and 1:26. Elohim is part of the family of words, El. Eloah, Elohim. El represents Power, Strength, Eloah is the One God, the Powerful, Strong One and this word occurs numerous times in the Book of Job, and Elohim is literally Mighty Ones. I am very satisfied with my definition of Elohim that this is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, El, who delights to share his plan, purpose, character and work with others. You do not see to understand Psalm 8, claiming the obvious teaching of this as "my opinion". Most Trinitarians are unaware of what this Psalm actually teaches about Yahweh, the Creator, about the Angels that are addressed as Elohim, and especially the development of the New Creation in and through the birth, ministry, sufferings, crucifixion, resurrection and the exaltation of the human Son of Man, our Lord Jesus Christ. Psalm 8 together with Psalm 110 are the most quoted OT passages in the NT by Christ and the Apostles, but are unknown, blissfully unaware of or avoided by Trinitarians.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The "woman" is the personification--not the Word. The idea is personified by the person--not by the word.

I consider that The Word, "Logos" in John 1:1 is a personification of the character of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, similar to "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8, but in John 1:14 Jesus has become The Word, or rather The Word has become Jesus, "his glory", moral glory, not physical glory, he was "full of grace and truth".

There are many places in the Gospels where the Jews either picked up stones to stone Jesus, or sought to kill him.

Yes, the history of the Jews is that they tried to kill all the prophets who spake against them and who threatened their position. I have a particular take of this stone throwing, in that the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin were the first to pick up the stones, and hoped that some volatile person in the audience would cast the first stone. But the common people could see through their duplicity, and after John 8 this method was very ineffective. They were NOT attempting to throw stones because they were honest defenders of what they considered was the truth. Caiaphas' statement is a clear evidence of their agenda.

Jesus proclaimed "Before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58).

I have answered this previously as I consider that this should be translated as "I am he", the same as in the immediate context, John 8:24,28. Also I endorse Tyndale's translation of Exodus 3:14 "I wilbe", speaking of the future activity of delivering Israel out of Egypt and into the Promised Land Exodus 6:1-8, not present existence. Refer my thread "The Yahweh Name".

You are dead-set on NOT believing Jesus is God, or that there is a TRINITY so you have YOUR OWN interpretation of verses that clearly teach the opposite.

Yes, I am very content with my understanding of this subject and quite willing to wear the label of heretic and conclude our discussion. We are blessed by God that the days of the Spanish Inquisition are over. I was introduced to this subject in a formal way at a young people's weekend at a camp in the southern highlands of NSW below Sydney. Our Youth Leader gave an exposition and awakened my life long interest in this subject. I was 19 y.o., and I am now 80 y.o. It was also the start of my 4 year courtship of my wife and we have now been married 57 years. Later on I discovered that the pioneer of our fellowship gave a thorough exposition of this subject when in 1858 he was invited by a Trinitarian Jew to address a large audience of Jews in New York. The Trinitarian Jew was having great difficulty in convincing these Jews, and he was completely losing face by his own feeble attempts. The outcome was that the Trinitarian Jew was very disappointed with our speaker and did not allow a return visit. I have a report of what occurred and much of what was stated in his magazine, and then later he collected his teaching in a book, which is a standard reference in my fellowship. He also gave a more thorough exposition of this subject from Revelation chapter 1 as part of his five volume exposition of the Book or Revelation. I appreciate your time and effort.

Trevor, I don't know you, and haven't talked with you to any extent. It is thought that you're not open to Trinitarian discussion with any objectivity. Is this true? If so, there is no sense in arguing any of the points.

I could be wrong, but you seem to reflect some aspects of Oneness Pentecostalism. I have only ever once attended a Pentecostal type meeting, and this was a Oneness Pentecostal meeting. I was invited by a lady and traveled a long distance with her and her two late teenage or early 20's children. During the meeting there were two failed attempts at healing, one session of speaking in tongues by the Pastor and an interpretation by the ladies' daughter, and then an address by the Pastor specifically speaking AGAINST some of my beliefs, as he had been informed of my persuasion by the lady a week or so before the meeting.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

RandyK,
I consider that The Word, "Logos" in John 1:1 is a personification of the character of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, similar to "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8, but in John 1:14 Jesus has become The Word, "his glory", moral glory, not physical glory, he was "full of grace and truth".

Wisdom itself is not personified unless it is expressed as though a person. That happened when it was represented as a woman.

The Word of God is not personified unless it is given human-like attributes. That is not happening. The Word became flesh because it actually was a transition from God's thoughts to a realized physical reality. It was not, as such, a "personification."

You say that "Jesus has become The Word," and that he did not become God's "physical glory." What does this even mean?

How could Jesus "become the Word?" He was a human being, and not he sort of conforms, morally, to what he thinks God is like, and so becomes "the Word?"

I find nothing in the Scriptures suggesting this. I read that he *was* in fact the Word. He did not *become the Word.* Jesus existed before Abraham.

He did not just summon the moral courage to be more moral than other people to represent God's Word! Why wouldn't anybody else be able to do the same, unless he is viewed as either Divine or sinless, or both? And if he was sinless, how is he not something beyond human, which would have to be Divine?

I could be wrong, but you seem to reflect some aspects of Oneness Pentecostalism.

Yes, you're wrong. I am Trinitarian, but having been in a modalistic Christian cult (for a short time) I've developed my own language in describing the Trinity. If it helped me I thought perhaps it could help others who, like me, needed a better understanding?

I distinguish the Persons of God based on the difference between His transcendence and His immanence within the world. God is the infinite Source of His revelations in time, and as such the revelations of His Person, or Word, was with Him in eternity and is revealed in time and space.

Then I show that these multiple Persons, though all expressing the infinite God in our finite reality all inter-relate with one another. This is a characteristic of different Persons.

One God and one Divine Substance uniting 3 distinct Divine Persons and really--many theophanies. God is simply able to appear in time, distinguishing Himself in time from His Person beyond time.