Is Jesus FULLY God & Praying

[Brother Mike]

When Jesus was praying in the garden, he was praying to the Father. A lot of Oneness believers like to say it was his fleshly half praying to his spiritual half.

The earliest hint of a trinity doctrine came just 85 years after the last book of the bible was written. That was most early record of it. Theophilus of Antioch wrote in Latin the Word trinitas describing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It was not a trinity doctrine as we understand today, just a connection of the 3 working together.

The idea floundered and was refuted and changed. It started to get more headway when Gregory wrote this between 270-275?

An interesting last statement. Well, Gregory claimed to see an apparition of the Apostle John as well as Mary, the Mother of Jesus (and is considered the first such person to do so), so it seems he may have gotten some "revelation" from a claimed Marian apparition. According to other sources, he had the power to cause death by placing his cloke on people, promoted non-biblical positions about Mary, and may have been the first to promote the expression "the Holy Trinity" in one of his writings. Notice the following:

He had a vision or something that supported a Trinity concept.

The trinity did not really gain momentum until Constantine set in all in motion. He Worshiped false gods that were also Triune in nature but his opinion swayed many about Our God. This was how he viewed all gods anyway.

The trinity that is now taught comes from the the Council of Nicea.

However in the 4 century both Roman Church leaders took a Anti-trinitarian position. The church endorsed Semi-Arian. This proves the trinity did not come from the Church, Protestant or Catholic.

The trinity was finally formally adopted at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The Roman Church still liked the Niacian verions better but good enough I suppose.

Emperor Theodosius’declared:

…let us believe in the one diety of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that the shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation an the second the punishment of out authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict..

So, anyone not believing this gets punished because "Real" Christians at this time did not teach Trinity.

If the trinity doctrine was originally part of the Christian Church, it would seem that Paul would have mentioned three members of the Godhead in his letters to the churches--he never does. Paul mentions the Father and Jesus in every introduction of every book he wrote. Paul had plenty of opportunity to use the word Trinity, or anything to denote such a doctrine is true. Paul and none of the Gospel writers did. They always separated them, and called Jesus God and the Father God. Even the Father Calls Jesus God in Heb. The concept is not there.

Catholic church stance:

Aside from the Constantinople view or the Niacian view. The Catholic Church wrote this long before any protestant came up with their own version.

It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ, without faith in the Trinity...Wherefore just as, before Christ, the mystery of Christ was believed explicitly by the learned, but implicitly and under a veil, so to speak, by the simple, so too was it with the mystery of the Trinity. And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity

The Roman Church first adopted a stance that was modern. They do not believe the trinity came from the bible, but is a revealed knowledge by faith. Hence, it is a mystery that needs faith to be believed.

John Calvin is the earliest Protestant version I can find. Around the 1500's

The Catholics first adopted the trinity concept long before anyone else, and Long after the apostles had died. It was a doctrine forced on true Christians and not well accepted. How the teaching hung around is the real mystery.

Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist also have their own version which came later.

The history of the trinity is pretty fascinating.

Mike.

 

[Sinthesis]

The concept of the Trinity emerges from the word of God. It is the best way for us fleshy humans to accept the reality of God, the particulars of which are actually beyond our understanding. The problem is that the Trinity offends some people's chosen esthetic ideals of how things ought to be. It can also serve to mask an anti-catholic bias. However we know that the created world is not always as it should seem to us to be (think about Einstein vs Newton, for example). Why then would we demand that we should be able to fully comprehend the Creator of the world. Ultimately it is Faith in God, not some complete knowledge of God, that God desires. Thankfully.

 

[Deborah13]

You can have 3x apples but putting them together does not make one apple it is very simple. You can make apple pie though.

Actually I think I like your explanation as well as mine. I can parrot what I've heard but putting my own thoughts down seem lacking somehow.

However, don't try making an apple pie. Your formula is lacking, it's (3x)(2) make 6 Granny Smith.

 

[Free]

And here we go again....Address the points I am actually making.

You stated that the Father came down and manifested as the Son. My point is that this is false. You need to provide support.

It's not false, it's clearly written in well, TWO scriptures that I have located. My support is in the definition of the word equal. How could God lower himself to son? HE'S GOD, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. I think this debate has hit a dead end.

You have provided no such evidence and appealing to "equal" is irrelevant. The Son is equal to the Father but it was not the Father who humbled himself to become the Son. How, in any rational sense, can a Father be his own Son and a Son his own Father? And, no, "HE'S GOD, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS," is not a valid counter-argument.

The Son humbled himself to take on human flesh. That is what the very context of Phil 2:6 shows. Why do you want to ignore the context?

The evidence is in the definition of the word equal Free.

All that is evidence of is that the Father and the Son are equal, which I have no disagreement with. But it says absolutely nothing about the Father becoming the Son. You have no evidence of this.

The Father did not humble himself to become the son? Are you sure about that? John 14:9-11 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not BELIEVE that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. He lowered himself to humanity because he loves us that much.

Again, this is not at all saying that the Father became the Son. They are always referred to as distinct persons.

This passage should put an end to any idea that the Father became the Son but I know it probably won't:

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (ESV)

You want Phil 2:6 to mean that the Father became the Son when he took on flesh, which would be at Jesus' birth. However, Jesus clearly states that he was in existence before Abraham.

Or how about this one, which I have posted numerous times in these forums, including in our previous discussions:

1Co 8:6 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. (ESV)

Clearly, if all things came into being through Jesus, then not only did he exist long before he came in the flesh, he has always existed. Not to mention he is shown here as distinct from the Father, who himself has always existed.

Or how about this one, which, again, I have posted numerous times:

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 "all things...in heaven and on earth" were created through Jesus, then clearly he could not have ever not existed. Again, he is not the Father and yet has always existed.

And of course those are in perfect agreement with John 1:1-3. So, no, absolutely not did the Father become the Son. Again, it does not make any sense whatsoever that a Father could be his own Son and a Son his own Father.

My reasoning is sound and based solidly on Scripture.

 

[Brother Mike]

Why then would we demand that we should be able to fully comprehend the Creator of the world. Ultimately it is Faith in God, not some complete knowledge of God, that God desires. Thankfully.

As I said, I have lots of Questions when I get to heaven. However the Trinity is very, very loosely based on a handful of scriptures from the Word with many counter scriptures and came from Rome in a nice little package that is a doctrine, men figured out through the years. It was a Roman doctrine long before we finally adopted it.

The problem is that the Trinity offends some people's chosen esthetic ideals of how things ought to be.

It does on both ends. I hear all the time at my church... Jesus is the Word!!! preach it brother. I don't see it, I don't take offense. It's a concept of what you believe God is. One true God? The doctrine just happens to fit that belief and understanding of who we think God is. The core is our belief in God and Trinity throws up a possible explanation to believe in ONE God while trying to define the Part of the Son and Holy Spirit. The rest we accept by faith because it's not explainable in human terms.

Actually I think I like your explanation as well as mine. I can parrot what I've heard but putting my own thoughts down seem lacking somehow.

However, don't try making an apple pie. Your formula is lacking, it's (3x)(2) make 6 Granny Smith.

Well, Praise God. I am not debating Trinity concept in full. God gave Jesus glory long before the earth was created, and restored it back. It could be using any math for something spiritual can not be done because Trinity as Written by several different versions all believe in ONE God. Yet says each person of God is fully distinct and separate from the each other. Human math just can't work that out by it's own definition and why I think it's so hard to explain to others. So the Doctrine itself is flawed somewhere I don't know where or we just don't have God's calculator to figure eternal things out yet.

From Jesus statements though having always been with the Father, and the Father giving glory to him. None of the Apostles mentioned a triune being or a being of 3 equal parts. Makes me believe that the Father and Son had always been, counting Two Whole God's by which the father Sent his son in the flesh to die for us and gave him all things.

Where did the Father and son come from? Nowhere I guess but has always been, I will ask when I get to the throne room though.

That is the problem I have with the Doctrine as written no matter what form it's written in. If there is ONE GOD, then someone is not fully God here. I can't take the Mormon or JW position either because they are in error. If the Father and Son have always been and mentioned together as the Apostles had written about over and over being together then there are TWO and it makes sense that way to me because I don't ask dumb things like who Jesus pray to? His flesh part prayed to the God part in heaven, No wait Jesus was God in flesh so the Flesh God part prayed to Who? I can avoid all that.

Blessings.

Mike.

 

[Deborah13]

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Matthew 12:18 KJV and Isaiah 42:1-4
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

 

[Deborah13]

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Now what does this mean? What would be the Jewish concept here? If He says He is the Son of the Father is making Himself equal to the Father?

Is this just a concept because it relates to God the Father? Or is this a concept of relationship in Hebrew family somehow?

 

[Guest]

[MENTION=142]Free[/MENTION] I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate. I know this is a deep topic and we could go all night. I'm not debating whether Jesus always existed. Whether he did or not is not the point. The POINT is that he lowered himself AS GOD DEITY.

YES, distinct persons. Three different persons/Three different roles/One God. Three persons that are EQUAL in deity. Just because God lowered himself to humanity doesn't mean Jesus is less deity. I AM as in 'equal in deity'. There's just too many scriptures that point to this. Even the trinity that you state says one God, so why can't you understand that God himself lowered himself but is of the same deity. Do you want me to bust out the 3 O's. Omnipresent..

The thing that you're not understanding is the roles that each one plays. God the Father is the creator, Jesus is the intercessor and the Holy Spirit is the helper. BUT THEY ARE ALL EQUAL IN DEITY. Oh by the way, God the Father is the creator, and you deny that Jesus is a created being? Geez. I think you're not understanding the definition of GOD. The definition of God represents the 3 O's. Plainly said.

I believe the Father became the son by lowering himself, but took on different roles with equal deity. Free, the dad you grew up with as a parent is not God deity. Do not get the Father in the Bible and your own pop mixed up. Their not the same.

Jesus always existed. Well, ask yourself how that is possible. Is it clicking yet? [MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION] It says that because Jesus.........is God.

 

[farouk]

Another question I have that is important is that, who do we pray too..God the Father, Jesus or the HS?

Mainly in Scripture it is to the Father, although for example also Revelation 22 says: 'Even so, come Lord Jesus'.

 

[Brother Mike]

Matthew 12:18 KJV and Isaiah 42:1-4
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Well, just one of my many points. I don't think Trinity will allow us to call him a servant of God though. He was here from the Start, He called himself God's Son whom God made all things for and gave him all things (God the Father) First, Jesus died for me and you. I don't want to categorize him as something He is not. He said over and over "In my fathers house, In my Fathers house." As in not His house Same with the throne He said as I sat on my Fathers throne, I'll let you sit on my Throne. There is something here that just making "ONE" God takes something away from who he is, and where he came from. Is saying there is only one disrespect to our King? I see a complete line of utmost respect and Love Jesus has for His Father, It's not Equating into just ONE God, or God the Creator sent himself down.

I'll share this and what got me started thinking this way. I am praying, minding my own business. Trinity concept is Great with me because WOF says Jesus is the Word!!!! I thank Jesus for something, then I felt embarrassed and said NO Thank you God, your the creator Jesus. I was a bit confused suddenly and could not explain it. I then Heard the Lord, Not with my ears but inside. He said, "Do you know who I am? I said I was one in my Father, I am not the Father though."

Mind you I believed the Trinity Concept because that was what I was taught, I figured He meant that there is ONE God but Heck, I did not know what He meant. It took me by surprise so I just went from there and started with where this Trinity Doctrine had come from and what scriptures actually back it up. It was pretty amazing.
The KJV scribes supported Trinity so some things got turned around a bit where they could, they could still not make Jesus not heir to all things meaning the ONE God gave it all back to himself, they did try though

KJV:
Isa_9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Here We have a comma issue and the way it's translated.

YLT:

Isa 9:6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. Jesus is the Father of eternity or eternal life. The first born of the dead. Without Him there is no eternal life

Just a few things I found on a very long road trying to sort it all out.

Quote Originally Posted by urk View Post
This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Now what does this mean? What would be the Jewish concept here? If He says He is the Son of the Father is making Himself equal to the Father?

Is this just a concept because it relates to God the Father? Or is this a concept of relationship in Hebrew family somehow?

Urk Jesus was not exactly making the Jews Mad, it was upsetting the religious leaders of that day not because He said He was equal with God, but because if He was the Son of God, then He makes himself out to be God. Jews Know that each seed produces after it's own Kind and if Jesus is the son of a god, then Jesus is making himself out to be a god. This is what upset them.

Jesus said, ye are gods also, why stone me? It's in your word and scripture can not be broken. Jesus quoted Psalm 82.

ĕlôhı̂ym stands in the congregation of the El's He judges the ĕlôhı̂ym's. God stands in the congregation of the gods, he judges among the gods.

Children of God, the offspring of God is considered by God, gods.............. God is not calling his children a half a cut above a monkey, but calling them like He is in His image. This presented theological issues for them. It still does today but Jesus said it. We are theos also.

This is why there must be judgment and Eternal Hell. We are judged according to who we are and how we were made and who's likeness we were made in.

God asks them. How long will you judge unjustly and accept the wicked?
Help the poor and needy?

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Because man will not acknowledge their Father, creator and the very nature by which they come then they shall die like mere mortal men, and have the same fate as one of the princes.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

So, we are told to be perfect like our father is prefect and turn the other cheek. The "god" label is by nature in who we are and who made us. It does not denote power or any authority.

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Psa 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

I hope this clears it all up.

Blessings
Mike.

 

[Guest]

So confusing.....

 

[Guest]

@Free @Brother Mike @reba How would God want us to simplify this thread so we all agree. What would he want us/christians agreeing too.

 

[jasoncran]

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Now what does this mean? What would be the Jewish concept here? If He says He is the Son of the Father is making Himself equal to the Father?

Is this just a concept because it relates to God the Father? Or is this a concept of relationship in Hebrew family somehow?

No they wanted to kill him because in the torah its a sin to call oneself a God. because jesus was worshipped as God and they saw him as a man.

 

[reba]

[MENTION=93656]urk[/MENTION], I will not speak for God! There are tons of points we agree on ...The major ones.... like Salvation , His death and Resurrection, His return His Blood...

Much of what is discussed in these forums is peripheral. Those of us who have children can quickly see/know that although they have the same parents the kids are not completely alike... One likes chocolate the other vanilla but the both like ice cream... As people we tend to get caught up in our own thoughts and do so wish to be right, which is better then wishing to be wrong . Accepting our differences, as ok!, would be a major step in unity....We don't all have to like chocolate to be united in liking ice cream...

 

[Brother Mike]

@Free @Brother Mike @reba How would God want us to simplify this thread so we all agree. What would he want us/christians agreeing too.

@urk , I will not speak for God! There are tons of points we agree on ...The major ones.... like Salvation , His death and Resurrection, His return His Blood...

Rebba is correct Urk. Jesus is the way the Truth and the Life. Jesus is also 100% without a doubt God, He has always been here, Not a created being and is King of Kings, Lord of Lords who died for us shedding His precious blood that we may also receive of him eternal life by our faith in Him through the free work of Grace by which we did not deserve to be saved. They did not find his bones in any box, He was resurrected on the 3rd day to the Glory of His Father and by that we have great hope in Him. Jesus is not an angel or a demi God, but He is God, and the True God.

So Urk if you go back through the threads those that question this "Trinity" doctrine including myself Believe.

Jesus is God the son. He was not created or has a creation date but came in the flesh and died for us. Jesus is one In His Father as we are one in Him. He came to earth as God but had a flesh body also to lug around. We believe there are 3 distinct persons, not it's, but persons. We believe all 3 think but work as one.

The problem I have as with others is the Wording of the different Trinity Doctrines. By Jesus stating in a couple place as being always with the father and the father giving him glory before the world was created. I question if there is just ONE God only. Trinity believes that God the Father, creator manifested a part of himself in the flesh as a whole and distinct person who is the Son. I believe the Son had always been with the Father, is separate and God. Not his father though or needs to be a triune part to be called God all on His own. In other words I count TWO of them.
The Apostles never mentioned a triune God but always gave reverence to God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. That language did not show up until much later in pieces of theory then later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church who call it a mystery not backed by scripture but a Christian belief by faith in a One and True God. That is there exact wording. Later, the Idea came to Protestant people but they were split on it. The idea and doctrine itself did not come from either church though but through Scholars that studied gods and religions. We just defined it more into what it is today in it's many forms but all say there is ONE GOD.

That is the issue URK all boil down to "ONE" God just worded a bit different to explain 3 of them. There are 3 who are all distinct but equal to each other making ONE. The ONE that is made is called GOD. My problem is the term "GOD" because if 3 all equal all GOD, then where do we get ONE from? That would be the mystery the Roman Catholic Church found as they did not fully accept the doctrine right away.
My issue is that if Jesus is really with His Father from the Start, and His father Gave him Glory before the Earth was formed at the Start, then there is a real son just like His Father, fully God also, that God sent, and God father did not send part of Himself or came but sent His son instead as Jesus stated many times. That would make two. Trinity gets around this by saying they are all distinct but there is only One God. Which then God was just giving Glory to Himself and not another God who would have been His son, and made himself heir of all things not a separate God who was His son that was always with the Father and died for us.

That is what has yet to be explained, but it's been explained from a doctrine that was written long ago and can't be explained in the Bible but through the doctrine itself. That is the problem. I don't want to disrespect my Lord in any way saying there is only one of you when I am standing in Heaven with two thrones who sit the Father and Son. There can't be one.

So the questioning is not the concept of all Working as one, or anyone not being God. It boils down to the definition of "god" If God means team then Trinity is fine, if God means person then I have issue with the way they written it so long ago.

Blessings.
Mike.

 

[farouk]

I think it's also about being in a frame of mind simply to receive the various indications of Scripture that are revealed about this great subject, rather than seeking to over-rationalize it.

It's in the nation of revelation, really.

 

[Guest]

[MENTION=7377]Brother Mike[/MENTION] I will agree with you, ty for post. I know Free has already done, but do you also have scripture that states Jesus was always son and always existed BEFORE creation. Blessings.

This passage should put an end to any idea that the Father became the Son but I know it probably won't:

Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (ESV)

You want Phil 2:6 to mean that the Father became the Son when he took on flesh, which would be at Jesus' birth. However, Jesus clearly states that he was in existence before Abraham.

Or how about this one, which I have posted numerous times in these forums, including in our previous discussions:

1Co 8:6 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. (ESV)

Clearly, if all things came into being through Jesus, then not only did he exist long before he came in the flesh, he has always existed. Not to mention he is shown here as distinct from the Father, who himself has always existed.

Or how about this one, which, again, I have posted numerous times:

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 "all things...in heaven and on earth" were created through Jesus, then clearly he could not have ever not existed. Again, he is not the Father and yet has always existed.

 

[Brother Mike]

@Brother Mike I will agree with you, ty for post. I know Free has already done, but do you also have scripture that states Jesus was always son and always existed BEFORE creation. Blessings.

Deborah Gave this scripture comparing the OT with the NT:

Matthew 12:18 KJV and Isaiah 42:1-4
18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Jesus is refereed to as "God's Servant" That does not fit how we think of Jesus and the only place where He is refereed to as servant by His Father (I think) but He did serve as man, as a servant. Was God referring to Him as Servant Before He came? Or prophecy of him Serving God after He came? All scriptures point that Jesus was honored by God before he came.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus was here before the Earth was formed and His father had given him Glory even before that. This proves Jesus is not created, had always been here, had always been honored by the Father whom Jesus always honored as His Father.

It's in the nation of revelation, really.

The Roman Church saw this and the problem trying to prove Trinity in scripture. They still believe it true though and said that not found in scripture it is the mystery of the Christian faith. This by itself can't be debated because......

1) They already said it is not clearly found in scripture.
2) It is something you just know as revealed knowledge and part of the Christian faith.

It was the protestant Church that came later and tried to prove with a few scriptures what the Roman Church said can not be proved.

"Had Paul or any of the writers had known of a triune God, it would have been mentioned as such in the form we know today, but had always mentioned both as Father and Son."

So who is right? The first Church to come up with the Doctrine saying it can't be proved but is a mystery of faith? Or those that came later? The concept did not come from either church but was adopted later.

Mike.

 

[Free]

[MENTION=142]Free[/MENTION] I want to thank you for the opportunity to debate. I know this is a deep topic and we could go all night. I'm not debating whether Jesus always existed. Whether he did or not is not the point. The POINT is that he lowered himself AS GOD DEITY.

No, the point is very much whether or not Jesus has always existed. You claim here that Jesus lowered himself, yet this whole discussion over the last several pages resulted because you used Phil 2:6 to say that the Father lowered himself and became the Son. So which is it, because it certainly cannot be both?

And that brings us to the point. If the Father lowered himself and became the Son, then Jesus clearly had a beginning and could not have always existed.

YES, distinct persons. Three different persons/Three different roles/One God. Three persons that are EQUAL in deity. Just because God lowered himself to humanity doesn't mean Jesus is less deity. I AM as in 'equal in deity'. There's just too many scriptures that point to this. Even the trinity that you state says one God, so why can't you understand that God himself lowered himself but is of the same deity. Do you want me to bust out the 3 O's. Omnipresent..

Don't patronize me. Of course they're all equal. I have consistently argued that. Your position, however, does not allow for that. If the Father lowered himself and became the Son, then the Son had a beginning and by definition cannot be God, since God is uncreated and has always existed.

The thing that you're not understanding is the roles that each one plays. God the Father is the creator, Jesus is the intercessor and the Holy Spirit is the helper. BUT THEY ARE ALL EQUAL IN DEITY. Oh by the way, God the Father is the creator, and you deny that Jesus is a created being? Geez. I think you're not understanding the definition of GOD. The definition of God represents the 3 O's. Plainly said.

I very much understand the roles but if they are all equal in deity, then all three must necessarily have always existed. So, yes, of course I deny that Jesus is a created being. If he is deity, as we agree, then by definition he is uncreated. I have pointed this out many times with Scripture, which you have continually failed to engage.

I believe the Father became the son by lowering himself, but took on different roles with equal deity. Free, the dad you grew up with as a parent is not God deity. Do not get the Father in the Bible and your own pop mixed up. Their not the same.

Again, don't patronize me. And here once again you are entirely inconsistent. You are once again claiming that "the Father became the son by lowering himself." If that is the case, then Jesus has not always existed and is, therefore, not God.

Jesus always existed. Well, ask yourself how that is possible. Is it clicking yet? [MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION] It says that because Jesus.........is God.

Please dispense with the condescending tone. My position has been consistent through this entire thread and all our past discussions. I have made it more than abundantly clear that Jesus has always existed.

Your position though is entirely inconsistent and contradictory. You state that here once again that Jesus is God and has always existed. Yet, you have stated more than once that "the Father became the son by lowering himself." But if that really is the case, then clearly Jesus could not have always existed and therefore could not be God.

 

[farouk]

Actually, the Trinity is there in Scripture.

Look at John's Gospel, especially chapters 13 thru 17; and at John's First Epistle, for example, and the end of Matthew 28. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all seen in these passages.

Any ecclesiastical boudy that tries to claim the credit for what is in Scripture itself is being rather too bold.