Is the Trinity biblical and does it matter?

[Free]

John said,

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 KJV)

Can you explain how that is?

I take it you are referring to "the only begotten of the Father," correct? Firstly, as you are probably aware, the interpretation of monogenes is debated. We see in Heb. 11:17 for instance that Isaac is said to be--in the KJV and NASB--Abraham's "only begotten," when that is not in fact the case. Of course, to be fair, that poses a difficulty for all translations but some other translations use "only" (ESV; AMP), "unique" (HCSB; NRSV), or "one and only" (NIV). The use of monogenes as it relates to Christ seems to be more that of the uniqueness of the relationship between the Father and the Son. That is also supported by verses 12 and 13, which speak of those to whom God "gave the right to become children of God" (ESV), and who are born "of God." So John is contrasting those creatures born of God with the uniqueness of the Son in relation to the Father.

Secondly, when we consider the context, namely, John 1:1-3, we know that before the beginning began, the Word was already in existence. We also know that everything that has ever come into existence came into existence through the Word. So the Word logically cannot be something that has come into existence; the Word has absolute existence, just as the Father does. If there was ever a time when the Son did not exist, then these verses are false. We can suggest that he was eternally begotten but we must understand that that in itself is a mystery as to our minds it seems to be an oxymoron. Similarly, if the Son did not eternally exist in the past, then his coming into being would be the beginning, something that verse 1 refutes.

 

[Free]

What is discourteous is misrepresenting the truth of my posts in this thread.
And what is inhibiting this discussion is your derailing to a false premise. Lets get back to the topic per the rules, whats say?

Nothing has been misrepresented.

As to getting back to the topic, I will once again point you to another post (the one above) where I have explained what I think the Bible is saying regarding a certain passage. When someone asks for an explanation, that is what they are looking for.

 

[Butch5]

I take it you are referring to "the only begotten of the Father," correct? Firstly, as you are probably aware, the interpretation of monogenes is debated. We see in Heb. 11:17 for instance that Isaac is said to be--in the KJV and NASB--Abraham's "only begotten," when that is not in fact the case. Of course, to be fair, that poses a difficulty for all translations but some other translations use "only" (ESV; AMP), "unique" (HCSB; NRSV), or "one and only" (NIV). The use of monogenes as it relates to Christ seems to be more that of the uniqueness of the relationship between the Father and the Son. That is also supported by verses 12 and 13, which speak of those to whom God "gave the right to become children of God" (ESV), and who are born "of God." So John is contrasting those creatures born of God with the uniqueness of the Son in relation to the Father.

I think that argument falls apart because I believe verse 13 is speaking of Christ and not those who received Him. Verse 13 reads.

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn. 1:13 KJV)

All humans have been, born of blood, born of the will of the flesh, and the will of man, with the exception of one, Jesus. Jesus was not born of the will of man, nor the will of the flesh, but of God.

Tertullian argues that the heretics changed the verse from the singular to the plural to support their doctrine.

Chapter 19.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.
What, then, is the meaning of this passage, “Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? ” I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it. They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural) “ Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves. But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.” And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men, because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh? For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency, which is condensed by infusing the rennet. We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse? Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.[11]
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

His argument not only makes sense it also fits the context better. The passage from verse 1 is about Jesus, not those who received Him.

Secondly, when we consider the context, namely, John 1:1-3, we know that before the beginning began, the Word was already in existence. We also know that everything that has ever come into existence came into existence through the Word. So the Word logically cannot be something that has come into existence; the Word has absolute existence, just as the Father does. If there was ever a time when the Son did not exist, then these verses are false. We can suggest that he was eternally begotten but we must understand that that in itself is a mystery as to our minds it seems to be an oxymoron. Similarly, if the Son did not eternally exist in the past, then his coming into being would be the beginning, something that verse 1 refutes.

This is based on your understanding of the passages. That understanding is based on the presuppositions you bring to the text. This is the point I was trying to get you guys to understand in the other post. You mentioned the beginning, what is the beginning? I would submit that John understood the beginning as Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Gen. 1:1 KJV)

You also said, "We also know that everything that has ever come into existence came into existence through the Word." I would argue that this in not what the Scriptures say. We read in Scripture, through Him all things were made. The Son was begotten not made. All things that are made come into existence, but not all things that come into existence are made.

You also said, "If there was ever a time when the Son did not exist, then these verses are false." This too, is based on your understanding of those passages. Have you considered that they could be understood differently? The presuppositions that we bring to the text or evidence determines how we perceive that evidence. This is why a creation scientist and a scientist believing in evolution can both look at the same evidence and come away with two different interpretations of that evidence. If you have a certain beliefs about the Trinity and approach the Scriptures assuming those beliefs are true you'll perceive the passages in a certain way. Let me give you an example. Supposed you believe in Martians and another guy doesn't. Now suppose I said, "last night there were some aliens in my yard". You might assume I mean there were martians in my yard. Whereas the other guy is going to assume that there were foreigners in my yard. Both of you heard the same evidence, but because of the presuppositions or beliefs that you each held you came away with two different understandings of what I said. This is the point I was trying to get across to you, Oz, and Jim in that other thread.

 

[Randy]

Again, there is simply no context in which Jesus is God and another context in which he is not God. He is either God or he is not, not both.
This means that there is only one God but that in some way, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share in that one being that is God, each being fully God.

Again I disagree. Jesus is Firstborn. Jesus told us how He and the Father are One. Ref:"In some way" and Jesus has His own Spirit. The God in Jesus is the Father. The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. As opposed to Jesus is Himself that fullness. (God) So if you can't accept that Jesus can be the "image" of the invisible God because the fullness of the Father is in Him then that leaves only the other context. Jesus is not (his spirit) God. But its clear to me He is ALL that the Father is.

Randy

 

[Randy]

Yes. Period.
Jesus is God's spoken word; Logos.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Jesus is a living being not a spoken word. He has His own spirit, mind and will. And as I read the Son was in the beginning and the world became through Him. (Hebrews) About the SON...

I also agree that all the fullness of God dwells in Him in bodily form. As in a bodily resurrection. That the SON is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, since we both agree He is not the Father and there is only One God then we disagree on the how the Son came to be the "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being" You believe He always was and always was God and in some mysterious way He and the Father share the same being but are two persons both fully God As opposed to a firstborn Son in whom God (the one Jesus calls His God) was pleased to share His fullness with His Son. And we read Jesus the Son is first in everything which includes every being. The firstborn of every creature or all creation. That is the correct context. When God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to Him. Now the angels also belong to the Son. If there is but One God and Jesus is God and always has been God then why would God (I assume you believe Father in God here), need to command the angels to bow to Jesus?

Jesus calls the Father the one true God. If Jesus always was and always was God then HOW do you believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"

And to us who all called by God (salvation context) both Jews and Gentiles Jesus is the wisdom and power of God. We disagree on the "how that is so" but agree on the wisdom and power of God.

Jesus is "called" both God and Son. The Father has glorified His Son.

I also don't hold that the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord who searches and knows the deep things or thoughts of Gods mind is a separate distinct person (with His own mind, will and spirit) from the Father. The Fathers Spirit to me is the Holy Spirit. The Fathers promise ..pour out His Spirit. The Spirit Jesus received from the Father and sent into the world. He sent the Spirit to us. (baptizes) with the Holy Spirit.

Jesus =>
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is Gods Christ. God has installed HIS King.


Randy

 

[chessman]

His argument not only makes sense it also fits the context better.

He provided no evidence that the Text was altered (i.e. the original was singular then later changed to plural). He simply said it was tampered with. That provides as much evidence as you (or me) or the Watchtower saying it was tampered with. Which is zero. His 'argument' is based on his misunderstanding of "blood" being, umm, 'transferred' during sex. Which is false. DNA is transferred but not blood. He thinks v12 is talking about Jesus because he thinks humans get blood from their biological fathers. They don't get blood, they get DNA.

Plus, verse 13 is not even a complete grammatical sentence. Verse 12 contains the main subject of the one sentence (children, plural). You'd have to alter a lot more than one word in the sentence to make it a singular main subject (i.e. Jesus). John's explaining how humans that receive Him (versus those that reject Him) are given authority to BECOME children to God.

John 1:12-13 (LEB) But as many as received him—to those who believe in his name—he gave to them authority to become children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a husband, but of God.​

Jesus says essentially the same thing here:

John 3:3, 5-6 (LEB) Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless someone is born from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God.” ... Jesus answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless someone is born of water and spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
​

 

[Mike]

Butch5 and Randy I'm not sure my question about half way back in this thread was ever addressed, because the discussion got sidetracked so badly right after I posted it.

Four times in Revelation Jesus refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega. The last being Rev 22:12-13.

"12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

If He is the Alpha and beginning, how can it be that He was created at any point along the way?

I understand how someone could have a hard time conceiving of, and so believing, the Truth of God's triune nature. What is beyond reason for me is to somehow miss that He's always been. You'd have to embrace the latter before you could the former.

 

[Free]

Butch5 and Randy I'm not sure my question about half way back in this thread was ever addressed, because the discussion got sidetracked so badly right after I posted it.

Four times in Revelation Jesus refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega. The last being Rev 22:12-13.

"12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

If He is the Alpha and beginning, how can it be that He was created at any point along the way?

I understand how someone could have a hard time conceiving of, and so believing, the Truth of God's triune nature. What is beyond reason for me is to somehow miss that He's always been. You'd have to embrace the latter before you could the former.

I think that in Rev. 1:8, it is either God in general speaking or the Father specifically:

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (ESV)

But I think that makes the case even more solid as we then have Jesus clearly applying titles to himself that are used of God alone (I know you've given these before; I just want to bring them up for clarification as to what is being discussed):

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,(ESV)

Rev 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (ESV)

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (ESV)

And to further support the case, we can look to Isaiah:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

We very clearly have Jesus using titles of himself that YHWH uses of himself. And of course, these are not the only titles Jesus uses that YHWH uses, and there are other passages in the OT which speak of YHWH and are applied to Christ. I think the implication is quite clear.

 

[Randy]

First and last. (One and only) (Only begotten)
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
or
God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.

Is Jesus God?
Yes, He is all that the Father is.

All the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Him. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him. The creation was made through Him. The Father is in the SON.

Randy

 

[chessman]

Rev 22:20 (ESV) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!​

John explains that the one who is "coming soon" and who testifies to these things written in His book is none other than Jesus, Lord Jesus.

Revelation 22:12-13 (ESV) “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.” ​

John also records Jesus' testimony that the one who is "coming soon" (Jesus) is also "The Alpha and The Omega"
[the beginning (see Gen 1:1, John 1:1) and the end (see Daniel 12, Rev 22)]

Revelation 1:8 (LEB)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God,
the one who is and the one who was and
the one who is coming,
the All-Powerful. ​

John records Jesus saying that He is thusly God! And He's coming soon.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5 and Randy I'm not sure my question about half way back in this thread was ever addressed, because the discussion got sidetracked so badly right after I posted it.

Four times in Revelation Jesus refers to Himself as the Alpha and Omega. The last being Rev 22:12-13.

"12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

If He is the Alpha and beginning, how can it be that He was created at any point along the way?

I understand how someone could have a hard time conceiving of, and so believing, the Truth of God's triune nature. What is beyond reason for me is to somehow miss that He's always been. You'd have to embrace the latter before you could the former.

Mike, Let me say firstly, that I don't believe that Jesus was created. I believe he was begotten. However, regarding the title "Alpha and Omega" in 1 Tim 6 Paul applies to the Father another title that people apply to Jesus, that is "King of kinds and Lord of lords."

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;1
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:13-16 KJV)

There's no doubt here that the title is being applied to the Father as Paul said, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see." That cannot be speaking of Jesus as He can be seen. Paul said that He is the "only" potentate. So, how can this be applied to both the Father and Jesus? I think the answer is found in the Scriptures. After the Resurrection Jesus said,

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matt. 28:18 KJV)

The word power isn't the best translation. The word is actually authority. All Authority in heaven and in earth had been given to Him. If the Father is the Alpha and Omega, and the King of Kings and Lord of lords, and He gives that authority to Jesus, then that makes Jesus the Alpha and Omega and the King of Kings and Lord of lords. However, that's not to say that Jesus has authority over the Father, that never happens. Paul states,

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:27-28 KJV)

This passage shows that even though the Father gave all authority to Jesus, He is never subject to Jesus. And in the end Jesus returns everything to the Father and is subject to the Father.

Another point is that often in the Scriptures Jesus is called the angel of the Lord. The word Angel, aggelos, means messenger. He was speaking the message of the Father. Jesus Himself said that the words He spoke were not His, but were the Father's words. The Book of Revelation opens with these words.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: (Rev. 1:1 KJV)

Jesus was the messenger that was relaying the Father's message to His servants. If Jesus is relaying the message that the Father gave Him then it would seem that the title, "King of kings and Lord of lords" would apply to the Father as Paul said in 1 Tim 6.

There's also another bit of information that Paul gives us in that quote from 1 Tim. 6. In that passage Paul makes the distinction between Jesus and the Father. He said when Jesus comes He will show who is the only potentate. This is obviously the Father as no one can see Him. However, Paul also says that He alone has immortality. If one has existed for eternity they have to, by nature, be immortal. Yet Paul indicates that the Father alone has immortality. That begs the question, how can Jesus be eternal if the Father alone is immortal? I believe this presents a problem to the view that you guys are espousing. However, it presents no difficulties at all for the view I hold. In my view Jesus can be eternal while the Father alone has immortality.

 

[Butch5]

I think that in Rev. 1:8, it is either God in general speaking or the Father specifically:

Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (ESV)

But I think that makes the case even more solid as we then have Jesus clearly applying titles to himself that are used of God alone (I know you've given these before; I just want to bring them up for clarification as to what is being discussed):

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,(ESV)

Rev 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (ESV)

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (ESV)

And to further support the case, we can look to Isaiah:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

We very clearly have Jesus using titles of himself that YHWH uses of himself. And of course, these are not the only titles Jesus uses that YHWH uses, and there are other passages in the OT which speak of YHWH and are applied to Christ. I think the implication is quite clear.

Jesus is the messenger of the Lord. He said the words He spoke were not His, but were the Father's.

 

[Mike]

Mike, Let me say firstly, that I don't believe that Jesus was created. I believe he was begotten.

You must have gone further to explain this, so I apologize for having missed it and asking you to do it again if you have. Regardless of how you explain it, He would have to be a creation if He ceased to exist at one point and then did exist. If you take that singular word "begotten" and take it as you say, it separates it from all other scripture. Recognizing it as Free and others have, that it means He is "unique" and "set apart", everything falls into place.

All Authority in heaven and in earth had been given to Him. If the Father is the Alpha and Omega, and the King of Kings and Lord of lords, and He gives that authority to Jesus, then that makes Jesus the Alpha and Omega and the King of Kings and Lord of lords.

Having all authority in no way explains why he calls Himself the Alpha and states that he is the beginning. That sounds like a reach and a leap. It's true that He does have all authority, but also true and even more is that He is the Alpha. I would say it's specifically clear that, being the Alpha and the beginning, He never had a beginning. Jesus was/is the beginning.

John 5:21-23
"21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

The Son honors the Father. The Father honors the Son. The creator never honors the created.

John 8:54-57
"54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

"I AM. Another obvious reference to Him being of one substance with the Father. With "begotten" meaning "uniquely set apart", it is all consistent with God's Triune nature.

 

[Butch5]

You must have gone further to explain this, so I apologize for having missed it and asking you to do it again if you have. Regardless of how you explain it, He would have to be a creation if He ceased to exist at one point and then did exist. If you take that singular word "begotten" and take it as you say, it separates it from all other scripture. Recognizing it as Free and others have, that it means He is "unique" and "set apart", everything falls into place.

I'm not using monogenes (μονογενοῦς). The Nicene Creed says that Jesus was begotten of the Father before all ages. However, keep in mind that people translate the Scriptures according to their theological beliefs.

Another thing that's interesting is that monogenes is translated "only begotten" in older translations. It seems that it's only in the newer translations that we see this idea of the one and only. Koine Greek is a closed language. It's not changing like languages that are in use. Makes one wonder if there is an agenda here.

Having all authority in no way explains why he calls Himself the Alpha and states that he is the beginning. That sounds like a reach and a leap. It's true that He does have all authority, but also true and even more is that He is the Alpha. I would say it's specifically clear that, being the Alpha and the beginning, He never had a beginning. Jesus was/is the beginning.

Remember, He is the messenger of the Father. He was sent to give the Revelation to John.

I'm not sure how "Alpha and Omega" equates to eternal. It is the beginning and end of the Greek alphabet. I can see how it can equate to "everything".

John 5:21-23

"21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

The Son honors the Father. The Father honors the Son. The creator never honors the created.

Neither the Father, nor the Son were created.

John 8:54-57

"54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

"I AM. Another obvious reference to Him being of one substance with the Father. With "begotten" meaning "uniquely set apart", it is all consistent with God's Triune nature.

Again, He is the messenger of the Father. The words He speaks are the Father's words. I was The Son who spoke to Moses on the mountain and it was the Son who said to the Jews in John 8, I AM. Whose will was it to send Moses to Egypt? It was the Father's will

 

[Randy]

I'm not using monogenes (μονογενοῦς). The Nicene Creed says that Jesus was begotten of the Father before all ages. However, keep in mind that people translate the Scriptures according to their theological beliefs.



Remember, He is the messenger of the Father. He was sent to give the Revelation to John.

I'm not sure how "Alpha and Omega" equates to eternal. It is the beginning and end of the Greek alphabet. I can see how it can equate to "everything".



Neither the Father, nor the Son were created.



Again, He is the messenger of the Father. The words He speaks are the Father's words. I was The Son who spoke to Moses on the mountain and it was the Son who said to the Jews in John 8, I AM. Whose will was it to send Moses to Egypt? It was the Father's will

The nicene creed states....
I use the NT. Jesus has always been the Son. Firstborn .Therefore at some point in history before the world began God formed Jesus's spirit and was pleased to have the fullness of God dwell in Him. It was the Father living in the Son doing His work. Jesus did state He spoke all that the Father commanded Him state and also stated those words did belong to the Father. So I agree in that. Jesus is the word of the Father. (God)

Randy

 

[Randy]

Rev 22:20 (ESV) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!​

John explains that the one who is "coming soon" and who testifies to these things written in His book is none other than Jesus, Lord Jesus.

Revelation 22:12-13 (ESV) “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.” ​

John also records Jesus' testimony that the one who is "coming soon" (Jesus) is also "The Alpha and The Omega"
[the beginning (see Gen 1:1, John 1:1) and the end (see Daniel 12, Rev 22)]

Revelation 1:8 (LEB)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God,
the one who is and the one who was and
the one who is coming,
the All-Powerful. ​

John records Jesus saying that He is thusly God! And He's coming soon.

Rev 22:20 (ESV) He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!​

John explains that the one who is "coming soon" and who testifies to these things written in His book is none other than Jesus, Lord Jesus.

Revelation 22:12-13 (ESV) “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.” ​

John also records Jesus' testimony that the one who is "coming soon" (Jesus) is also "The Alpha and The Omega"
[the beginning (see Gen 1:1, John 1:1) and the end (see Daniel 12, Rev 22)]

Revelation 1:8 (LEB)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God,
the one who is and the one who was and
the one who is coming,
the All-Powerful. ​

John records Jesus saying that He is thusly God! And He's coming soon.

Which is it? Is Jesus the Father (Lord God) or is the Father His God?
I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

I do believe the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and in that manner they are one.

 

[chessman]

in 1 Tim 6 Paul applies to the Father another title that people apply to Jesus, that is "King of kinds and Lord of lords."

You realize that 1 Tim 6 does not say anything about "the Father". Aren't you just mentally inserting The Father into every passage that speaks of God?

1 Tim 6 is yet another passage that clearly describes Jesus Christ as God. Jesus is Not The Father mind you, but Jesus is God, none the less.

Which is it? Is Jesus the Father (Lord God) or is the Father His God?

You establish a false dichotomy above.

Is the Son the Father? No.
Is the Son God? Yes.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory in the two statements above. Nor the two below:

Is the Father God? Yes
Is the Father Jesus' God? Yes

Only if you assume that Everywhere in the Bible that speaks of God, it means the Father, do you get contradictions.

The Trinity is a solution, not a problem.

https://www.str.org/publications/so...-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1#.WDrRcbVOKEc

 

[Mike]

Neither the Father, nor the Son were created.

Yes, you implied that already. I asked you to explain how something is begotten (as you define the word) somewhere along the way but has never been created. You are not obligated to answer my question if you choose not to, and I won't keep asking it. You tried to account for Jesus' words in Rev 22:13 and throughout Revelation by mixing up Him having all authority and being the beginning. If we're not going to have a give & take conversation, I'll let you have the last word and bow out.

Therefore at some point in history before the world began God formed Jesus's spirit and was pleased to have the fullness of God dwell in Him.

I asked you to give me your thoughts about the way Jesus refers to Himself in Revelation as well, and apparently you've declined. That's fine I suppose, but then you make comments like this that have no basis in scripture.

As a side note, I believe it is specifically accurate and true to say that God manifests Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is inaccurate to say the three form one God. Seeing people imply this makes me wince. It sounds close, but it is so very different and false.

 

[Runner]

I have a hard time understanding what armchair theologians who are not scholars think they gain by debating topics such as this. Are people simply bored out of their minds? If one is sincerely interested in questions such as the one posed here, one educates oneself by consulting reputable scholars, not anonymous posters on Internet forums. Virtually every thread of this type ends up comprising hundreds of posts by people who (1) have no idea what they are talking about, (2) are revisiting heresies that were settled centuries ago, and/or (3) think they can resolve, by simplistic analyses of Bible verses, genuine controversies that have divided the greatest minds in Christendom for centuries.

Insofar as the Trinity is concerned, it is a fact that the very earliest Christians believed Jesus was divine. This is one of the most startling aspects of early Christianity; the notion of Jesus as divine didn't evolve but was there from the start. Obviously various heresies arose as to what exactly His divinity entailed, but generally the heresies were focused more on what it meant for Him to be an incarnated human than on what it meant for Him to be divine (i.e., His divinity was not an issue). The pronouncement at Nicaea that Jesus was fully man and fully divine merely formalized what Christians had always believed. The Trinity isn't a "Catholic" doctrine; it is a Christian doctrine. If anyone can "claim" the doctrine of the Trinity in its original development and formulation at Nicaea, it is the Eastern Orthodox. The Orthodox accept that what it means for the Son to be "begotten" by the Father and the Holy Spirit to "proceed" from the Father is simply a mystery. Scholars have shown convincingly that modern understandings of the Trinity have shifted very far indeed from the original understanding. In any event, if anyone is sincerely interested in the doctrine, as opposed to Bible-verse pissing contests, the following are worthwhile resources available for Kindle.

Good surveys of the early history:
View attachment 10468 View attachment 10469

Good survey of the development of the doctrine and the modern perversions of it:
View attachment 10470

Contains a good discussion of the doctrine as originally understood, even if the rest of the theology isn't your cup of tea:
View attachment 10471

 

[Randy]

Yes, you implied that already. I asked you to explain how something is begotten (as you define the word) somewhere along the way but has never been created. You are not obligated to answer my question if you choose not to, and I won't keep asking it. You tried to account for Jesus' words in Rev 22:13 and throughout Revelation by mixing up Him having all authority and being the beginning. If we're not going to have a give & take conversation, I'll let you have the last word and bow out.

I asked you to give me your thoughts about the way Jesus refers to Himself in Revelation as well, and apparently you've declined. That's fine I suppose, but then you make comments like this that have no basis in scripture.

As a side note, I believe it is specifically accurate and true to say that God manifests Himself in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is inaccurate to say the three form one God. Seeing people imply this makes me wince. It sounds close, but it is so very different and false.

You can't have both. Is Jesus the Father (thats what you imply as Lord God) or is the Father His God?
I know Jesus is not the Father. There are a great many "it is also writtens" to support that. I know how Jesus and the Father are one. Jesus taught that as well. And it wasn't because Jesus always was and always was God. So either the Spirit in Jesus (the Father) spoke those words or the Father Himself spoke those words. Haven't you read the fulness was pleased to dwell in the firstborn of all creation? Haven't you read "Father into your hands I commit my spirit" Didn't you believe the Son who calls the Father His God and our God? God is Spirit. Jesus calls the Father the one true God. The Holy Spirit is the Fathers Spirit. God states so. So how can Jesus's spirit be devine? That would be two Gods. Rather you read all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Him. Him=>The firstborn as in when Gods brings the firstborn into the world He commands all HIS angels to bow to Him (Jesus). What you should see is God put all things under His firstborn Son. That God has glorified His Son like no other. And it that Jesus is the first and last. The one and only. He is Christ the Lord as opposed to God our Father.

So we will continue to disagree in part. Jesus always was and always was God vs Jesus God's firstborn whom the fullness was pleased to dwell.

Randy