My Rock
Member
If only everyone seen it that wayThe answer to your question is: Yes.
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
If only everyone seen it that wayThe answer to your question is: Yes.
"The beginning" doesn't necessarily have to apply back to the very beginning. It can apply to whatever the beginning of the context it's talking about in. You mentioned John 1:1-14, but the context is regarding [the beginning] of Jesus' ministry with no mentioned of the beginning of the world. There is also no mention of a person named the Word in the literal beginning with God in Genesis.It is important to understand that the scriptures speaking of Jesus "in the beginning" or "before the foundation of the world" are addressing the eternal plan and purpose of God, not a pre-existent Son distinct from the Father. John 1:1-14 reveals that the "Word" (Greek: Logos) was with God and was God, and that this Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. The Word here is understood as God's divine plan or expression, which was with Him from the beginning, not as a separate person but as the very mind and purpose of God Himself.
There is a good clue in John 17 about what Jesus was referring to and it wasn't a literal pre-existence or else it would follow that Jesus somehow or another lost his glory. The glory which Jesus shared with the Father refers to God's plan and foreknowledge of anointing and empowering him to do miraculous works. Thusly, Jesus said in John 17:5 "now, O Father, glorify thou me..." So Jesus was only then, at that present time, being glorified.When Jesus speaks in John 17:5 of the glory He had with the Father before the world was, this is seen as a reference to the glory ordained for the Messiah in God's foreknowledge and purpose, rather than a literal pre-existence of the Son as a separate being. In God's eternal plan, Jesus was always the focal point of His redemptive work, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). This is not to say that Jesus existed as a separate entity before His incarnation but that in God's sovereign plan, the incarnation and the work of Christ were foreordained.
As we have discussed already, the word incarnate doesn't exist in Scripture nor is the idea described in Scripture. Thank you for admitting that there is nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in Scripture though. Therefore there is no proof to argue for him being God.The key idea is that Jesus, as the incarnate Word, came into existence at a specific point in time—born of a virgin, fully God and fully man (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4). The scriptures speak of God's plan being realized in Jesus, who is the embodiment of God's eternal Word and purpose. There are no verses that depict Jesus performing actions or speaking in a pre-incarnate state because His existence as the Son of God began with His incarnation. Thus, the focus of scripture is on Jesus as the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose, made manifest in the flesh to bring about our salvation.
Not at all.To assert unequivocally that Jesus is not the Father incarnate, regardless of any interpretive nuances or rationalizations, fundamentally disrupts the unity of God as revealed in Scripture.
And, in Trinitarianism, God is also an indivisible entity and the incarnation of Jesus is seen as a profound manifestation of this one God.In Oneness theology, God is understood to be a singular, indivisible entity, and the incarnation of Jesus is seen as a profound manifestation of this one God.
This all agrees with Trinitarianism.According to this perspective, Jesus embodies the fullness of the Godhead in human form, as stated in Colossians 2:9, which asserts that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This theological view emphasizes that there is no division in the nature of God; rather, Jesus is the visible expression of the one true God.
The concept of Jesus as God incarnate means that while He assumed a fully human nature, including all its limitations and experiences, this does not imply a division in the divine essence. Rather, it illustrates the remarkable condescension of the divine to enter into human experience fully. Jesus' human limitations, such as His knowledge and physical constraints, were part of His voluntary self-limitation in the incarnation, not a reduction of His divine nature. This perspective maintains that God, in His fullness, chose to reveal Himself through Jesus, experiencing human life in all its dimensions while remaining fundamentally one in essence and purpose.
This also agrees with Trinitarianism.Therefore, the distinction between Jesus’ humanity and divinity is not a matter of dividing God into separate persons or entities but is about understanding how the one true God chose to manifest His presence and work within the confines of human experience. This unity underscores the Oneness belief that God has revealed Himself as both transcendent and immanent, operating fully as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the singular, undivided essence of the divine.
It's called context."The beginning" doesn't necessarily have to apply back to the very beginning. It can apply to whatever the beginning of the context it's talking about in. You mentioned John 1:1-14, but the context is regarding [the beginning] of Jesus' ministry with no mentioned of the beginning of the world.
This displays a serious ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity and is fallaciously begging the question.There is also no mention of a person named the Word in the literal beginning with God in Genesis.
This has been shown to you to be an exegetical fallacy numerous times, which you not only don't even bother to try and rebut, you continue to repeat it. That the word of life is spoken of in neuter terms has absolutely zero bearing on what John says about the Word in John 1:1. Again, this has been proven without question numerous times. You really need to start addressing arguments instead of repeating your errors. That you continually avoid addressing things shows that truth is unlikely to be on your side.We can get a better idea of what beginning this is referring to by cross-examining other scriptural accounts. A good place to begin to understand John 1 better is 1 John 1.
1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
As you will observe from the above context, the Word of life is described as a thing in which the disciples were able to heard, see, and touch with their hands. Since the disciples didn't exist in the literal beginning of creation, then the beginning applies to the context of Jesus' ministry.
The Word is a thing that was manifested in Jesus. This refers to the various doctrines, teachings, and the gospel in which Jesus was taught and received from the Father (John 8:28, John 8:40) during his ministry.
No, there is simply no way that it can mean anything but Jesus, as the Son, actually shared in the glory of the Father. It makes zero sense to say that "Jesus shared with the Father refers to God's plan and foreknowledge of anointing and empowering him to do miraculous works." That is makes Jesus speak nonsense. You'll twist everything any which way to avoid the most plain and obvious statements.There is a good clue in John 17 about what Jesus was referring to and it wasn't a literal pre-existence or else it would follow that Jesus somehow or another lost his glory. The glory which Jesus shared with the Father refers to God's plan and foreknowledge of anointing and empowering him to do miraculous works. Thusly, Jesus said in John 17:5 "now, O Father, glorify thou me..." So Jesus was only then, at that present time, being glorified.
No. There are two different things being talked about.After that, Jesus spoke of giving this very same glory to the disciples in John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"
The glory which Jesus had with the Father before the world was also included giving that glory to the disciples.
This is fallacious and nonsensical.Since Jesus didn't give the disciples glory before the world was, then Jesus didn't literally pre-exist.
The Word incarnate absolutely does exist in Scripture. A plain reading cannot lead anyone to believe your position. Once again:As we have discussed already, the word incarnate doesn't exist in Scripture nor is the idea described in Scripture. Thank you for admitting that there is nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in Scripture though.
Ample proof has been given to you, but you twist Scripture and avoid those things most difficult for your position.Therefore there is no proof to argue for him being God.
1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."There is also no mention of a person named the Word in the literal beginning with God in Genesis.
The relationship between the Father and the Son is foundational in understanding God's self-revelation. The terms "Father" and "Son" are different manifestations of the one God. The Father represents God's invisible, omnipresent nature—His role as Creator and Sustainer of all things. The Son, on the other hand, represents God’s incarnation—His visible manifestation in human form, born to fulfill the redemptive plan. John 14:9, where Jesus says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," reveals the unity of this relationship. It shows that in seeing Jesus, we are witnessing the full revelation of God as the same divine being expressed through different roles. Thus, the Father-Son relationship is about God revealing Himself in different aspects.Why is it that you keep avoiding addressing my argument to the meaning of the Father and Son relationship?
In natural human experience, we don’t have a perfect analogy where a father is his own son or a son is his own father. This limitation highlights the uniqueness of God's nature, which transcends human categories. However, from a Biblical perspective, the lack of a direct analogy in nature points to the mystery of the incarnation, where the infinite God, who is Spirit, took on human flesh. This is not about biological fatherhood but about God’s self-revelation. Just as God said in Isaiah 43:10-11 that there is no God formed before or after Him, this emphasizes His unique role in creation and redemption. The Son is the means by which God, who is Spirit, entered the physical world fully engaging with humanity in a way that nature cannot fully illustrate.Can you provide just one example from nature where a father is his own son or a son is his own father?
Understanding that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father hinges on the concept of God manifesting Himself in different roles or offices. When Scripture speaks of the Father, it refers to God in His omnipresent, invisible, and transcendent role. When it speaks of the Son, it refers to God as He has made Himself known in the flesh—Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This means that God has revealed Himself in these different capacities. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," signifying that the Son is the full embodiment of the one God. This revelation communicates that God’s plan of salvation is deeply personal—He did not send another but came Himself to redeem us, demonstrating the unity and singularity of His divine essence.If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, how are we to understand that?
The Father-Son relationship communicates the profound truth that God’s nature is unified and singular, yet He can relate to us in multiple ways. It shows that God is both transcendent (as the Father) and immanent (as the Son), fully engaged in the human experience while remaining the one true God. This understanding underscores God’s deep involvement in our lives and His willingness to bridge the gap between the divine and the human through the incarnation. It communicates that God’s love and redemption are not distant or abstract but are made real and tangible in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the complete revelation of the one God. This revelation invites us into a relationship with God where we understand Him not as distant and divided, but as near, present, and whole in His love and purpose for us.What does that meaningfully communicate to us about who God is?
The jury has been out on this verse for some time now. 1 John 5:7 is a scriptural corruption and has been removed from all modern Bible versions.1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
We all have the choice to believe what we want to.Yes I know this and I also do not believe the word is a person.
The incarnation emphasizes that the same God who is omnipresent and transcendent became visible and accessible in Jesus Christ. It signifies the act of God becoming fully human (God's Human body had a beginning, but is and always will be the Self Expressive Eternal Word (Word made flesh) while remaining fully divine.leaving no other possibility than that the Word is also God the Son, & the Son is also God the Father, & God the Word.
Do you believe that the Son did not exist until Mary made Him ?The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?
It is crucial to understand that the Son did not come into existence through Mary; rather, Mary served as a vessel for the manifestation of the pre-existing divine Word. The belief is that the Word of God, is eternal and not created. John 1:1-14 affirms that the Word was with God and was God, and that the Word became (SON) flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. This means that the divine Word existed eternally and was not contingent upon Mary’s role. Mary, though a blessed and significant figure, was simply the chosen vessel through whom the Word was incarnated into human form (SON). Her role was to bring forth the already-existing Word into the world in a manner that made it possible for God to fully reveal Himself to humanity. Therefore, the notion that Mary’s involvement somehow created or initiated the existence of the Son is fundamentally at odds with the belief that the Son’s divine nature (The Word) is eternal and uncreated.Do you believe that the Son did not exist until Mary made Him ?
Why then do you ask me who was the "pre-existing" Son's mother?It is crucial to understand that the Son did not come into existence through Mary; rather, Mary served as a vessel for the manifestation of the pre-existing divine
The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?
You said:Why then do you ask me who was the "pre-existing" Son's mother?
It takes two partners together in a sexual act to make/made a baby. You indicated that mary made Jesus. She had no secual act part in His creation. Therefore, I was just pointing out that mistake is all. Of course you have to have a mother to have a Son but being virgin is a whole different ball game.Do you believe that the Son did not exist until Mary made Him ?
I was referring to your initial question to me which implies the Son's existence in the beginning prior to taking the form of a baby would require a "mother"You said:
It takes two partners together in a sexual act to make/made a baby. You indicated that mary made Jesus. She had no secual act part in His creation. Therefore, I was just pointing out that mistake is all. Of course you have to have a mother to have a Son but being virgin is a whole different ball game.
Your question implies you believe there could not have been a Son in heaven prior to Mary giving birth to Him on earth .if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?
You are saying there is an eternal son. I say where is His Eternal Mother? Simple question I thought?I was referring to your initial question to me which implies the Son's existence in the beginning prior to taking the form of a baby would require a "mother"
Yes. Son can refer to the Humanity or Deity resident in Humanity never refers to deity alone. And you can't use God the Son either because then it would equate Jesus to deity alone.Your question implies you believe there could not have been a Son in heaven prior to Mary giving birth to Him on earth .
Is that what you believe ?
Sad, no. It may come from heresy, and certainly proceeds to heretical ideas, as seen in some of the carnal man's religion(s) ....You are saying there is an eternal son. I say where is His Eternal Mother? Simple question I thought?