Proof of Trinity

[By Grace]

By Grace (#499) to Jesse Stone:
<SNIP>

It was not me.

The Greek word in question is en (ἐν). Most often this is translated “in.” But there are other meanings for this word.

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells...
<SNIP>

Seriously, if you want to dabble in Greek, I recommend that you do not do it.

Anyone who ever exegeted one verse of Scripture from Hebrew or Greek will tell you that doctrines do not stand or fall on a misapplied definition of a preposition, but on the entire context of the verse. By their nature, prepositions are relational words are placed before nouns, pronouns or substantitives (a group of words such as a participial phrase that act like nouns or pronouns) which create prepositional phrases that modify nouns, verbs or adjectives. The relationship that they create can be temporal, personal, spacial, etc.

That above is the English definition of the word and function of preposition. If one takes intro consideration that Greek verbs have mood in addition to having voice, tense and person, and there are 8 ways to decline a Greek noun, you can see how many things that you are not considering in your attempt to put the "insignificant" preposition into a small cubby hole.

 

[Free]

Four things:

Presenting New Testament verses considered proofs for Trinitarianism is not a compelling answer. Proof texts are notorious for their ability to be interpreted in more than one way. And until my problem with the Trinity is resolved, they are indeed understood in a different way by me.

And yet, the 'proof-texts', which aren't proof-texts when they are explained in a way that makes sense, particularly with the rest of the context, as most have been, must be taken into consideration.

Using the ad hominem argument that I simply don't want to know the truth is unwarranted, unwanted, and unappreciated.

Saying that one is not saved or in darkness because one is a non-Trinitarian is a simple bias of an extremist mind that leads to nowhere. Certainly doesn't lead to discussion or argument as defined by Administrator Reba.

As the pot calls the kettle black. The use of 'extremist' is an ad hominem and a strawman.

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)

And that leaves these verses. In this case I look forward to Genesis 3:22, and see no reason to assume that God did not have his entourage with him at this point also. If Satan is to be regarded as an angel, I only need to look as far as Genesis 3:1 and think that the angels were present at the creation of man. This is a presumption on my part. But a good one I think. No less so than presuming that no one other than God was present.

I've already dealt with this. The problem with this argument is that you are ignoring the context. It is clearly stated that "God created man in his own image." Man is made in the image of God, not angels or any other created being. Therefore, when God says "Let us make man in our image," he cannot be speaking to angels.

Remember the usage of both plural and personal pronouns in the other three verses. In v. 26 plural pronouns are used. In v. 27 suddenly plural pronouns change into personal pronouns. When the idea is presented - plural pronouns. When the idea is executed - personal pronouns. This gives me the impression that God himself is creator. And he had help in creating. We know for instance that Jesus was there. That creation was THROUGH him, not BY him. That creation was THROUGH instead of BY suggests to me that Jesus is not God. But that too is just a presumption. Even though the logic is sound. To me. Certainly not to a Trinitarian.

But the problem is that the logic isn't sound and I don't know how you can't see it. I've dealt with this, too, several times actually in this thread and not one anti-trinitarian has responded to my argument, which is this:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

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)

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" were created through Jesus, then the only logical conclusion is that he isn't created. If Jesus has been created, then at least one thing has been created without Jesus, so those passages are false. If Jesus isn't created, then by definition he is God, since God is the only uncreated being.

Whether or not creation was "through" or "by" Jesus is utterly irrelevant to the context of the passages and misses the whole point.

My primary problem with Trinitarianism is that in all Old Testament references other than the four mentioned, God refers to himself by personal pronouns. That suggests to me that God is just one person, rather than two or more. That the unique God (only one God) with a unique name (Jehovah, or however one wishes to understand it in English, including LORD) is only one person.

One of the fundamental rules for biblical interpretation is that the OT is to be interpreted in light of the NT. While the OT neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, the NT reveals much more about the nature of God. Only the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that is said about God. I would change my mind if I found compelling arguments to the contrary, but I have yet to see one.

As for personal pronouns, there really is no problem since it is the one God who is speaking to his people.

 

[Free]

By Grace (#499) to Jesse Stone:



The Greek word in question is en (ἐν). Most often this is translated “in.” But there are other meanings for this word.

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells us that en (or ἐν) may be rendered into English as ‘in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ ‘through,’ etc. – ‘Index-Lexicon to the New Testament,’ Eerdmans Publ., 1978 printing.

W. E. Vine tells us the ‘instrumental’ use of the NT Greek word en (or ἐν) is often intended to mean ‘with’ and ‘by means of.’ (“Through” is equivalent to ‘by means of.’ E.g., “God gave the law through Moses“ or “God gave the Law by means of Moses.”)

Thayer agrees with this meaning of ἐν (en):

“d. of the instrument or means by or with which anything is accomplished …, where we say with, by means of, by (through)” – p. 210, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1984 printing

Strong’s shows ‘through’ as one of the meanings of en in the KJV:

Ro. 3:7; 6:23 (and many more) KJV - Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows us that the NASB has rendered en as ‘through’ 18 times. - pp. 1267, 1268 and p. 1648, Holman Bible Publishers, 1981.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology discusses en encroaching on the territory of dia (‘through’) in some situations (p. 1190) and specifically mentions en as an “Agency or instrumentality” in one of its meanings when used in the phrase “in (en) Christ.” It cites 2 Cor. 3:14 as an example: “The veil is not lifted because only through Christ is it removed”. - Vol. 3, p. 1192.

Nigel Turner:

“c) en appears to approximate dia ‘through’ in Gal. 1:16 (to reveal his Son ‘through me’), 1 Cor. 4:6 (learn ‘through us’). 2 Cor. 13:3 (to speak ‘through me’), 1 Tim. 1:16 (to show ‘through me’), Heb. 1:1 (‘through’ the prophets).” - The Bible Translator 10/3 (July 1959), pp. 113-120.

This explains why at Col. 1:16, for example, ‘For in [en] him all things were created,’ as found in NRSV, RSV, ASV, NIV, etc. is also properly translated ‘For through him…’ (GNB; MLB;AT; NLT; C.B.Williams; and Phillips), and ‘For by Him…’ (NIV; KJV; NKJV; BBE; MKJV; Webster; Darby;Moffatt; & Barclay).

The last part of this same verse further confirms this proper rendering of the instrumental en of the first part. Yes, “For through or by means of (ἐν) him all things were created” (Col. 1:16a) is made certain by the concluding clause: “All things were created through [dia] him….” (Col. 1:16c) – NKJV.

As I just stated to Jesse Stone, the argument of 'in' vs. 'through' is utterly pointless and completely misses the point by ignoring just what it is that the Greek en is referring to; completely ignores what is being said.

 

[Asyncritus]

As I just stated to Jesse Stone, the argument of 'in' vs. 'through' is utterly pointless and completely misses the point by ignoring just what it is that the Greek en is referring to; completely ignores what is being said.

To say that the correct meaning of such an important pair of prepositions is 'utterly pointless and completely misses the point' is not wise.

How can you know 'what is being said' if you ignore the correct meaning of the prepositions? I submit that you cannot know.

The scriptures use no word/s casually, especially not in such important matters, and you do well to pay some attention to the precision and accuracy of the text.

In the meantime, in my previous post to Reba, I mention the 4 passages which demonstrate beyond any doubt that Jesus did not exist at the time of writing those passages.

I would welcome your exposition of them.

Thank you

 

[Randy]

And yet, the 'proof-texts', which aren't proof-texts when they are explained in a way that makes sense, particularly with the rest of the context, as most have been, must be taken into consideration.


As the pot calls the kettle black. The use of 'extremist' is an ad hominem and a strawman.


I've already dealt with this. The problem with this argument is that you are ignoring the context. It is clearly stated that "God created man in his own image." Man is made in the image of God, not angels or any other created being. Therefore, when God says "Let us make man in our image," he cannot be speaking to angels.


But the problem is that the logic isn't sound and I don't know how you can't see it. I've dealt with this, too, several times actually in this thread and not one anti-trinitarian has responded to my argument, which is this:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

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)

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" were created through Jesus, then the only logical conclusion is that he isn't created. If Jesus has been created, then at least one thing has been created without Jesus, so those passages are false. If Jesus isn't created, then by definition he is God, since God is the only uncreated being.

Whether or not creation was "through" or "by" Jesus is utterly irrelevant to the context of the passages and misses the whole point.


One of the fundamental rules for biblical interpretation is that the OT is to be interpreted in light of the NT. While the OT neither proves nor disproves the Trinity, the NT reveals much more about the nature of God. Only the doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all that is said about God. I would change my mind if I found compelling arguments to the contrary, but I have yet to see one.

As for personal pronouns, there really is no problem since it is the one God who is speaking to his people.

I disagree; as Scripture claims that Jesus is the living God.

". . . because we have fixed our hope on [the living God], who is the Savior of all men, . ." (1Ti 4:10). Jesus is our Savior (2Tim 1:10, 1Jn 4:14, Tit 1:4; Tit 2:13 & 2Pet 1:1 [even our God and Savior]).

". . . that you should turn from these vain things to [a living God], WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM" (Act 14:15). The Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator; the One who made heaven, earth, and sea (Jn 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2).

- - -

I also believe that the Father and the Son together are One God, co-eternal, the same Being, who have One Spirit in common.

I believe Jesus is God in context but in that context all the fullness of God was given to a firstborn Son and Jesus's scope of authority is within the framework of the Fathers will. In others words Jesus could NOT go off on His own and create another world with life etc... The very one in Jesus is the Father and that's the Oneness that Jesus taught. It is the Father in Him doing His work. God is Spirit and Only our Heavenly Father speaks in terms of "My Spirit" in regard to the Holy Spirit. Jesus as a Son has His own spirit. If Jesus's spirit always was and always was God then you have two Gods. Hence Jesus has always been the Son and at some point before the world began Jesus was not. But as I state at the point Jesus was the fullness was given. A Jesus apart from the Father has never and will never exist. When the Firstborn came into the world He was not emptied of the Father. What I see in scripture is not a God who always was but a Son who was given power and glory and honor by the One He called His God and our God. His Father and our Father.

So we will continue to disagree.

Randy

 

[Asyncritus]

Why should we disagree? I believe you have the same deep respect for the Word of God as I have.

Let's move to some common ground.

Here are 3 key passages I believe you should seriously consider, all of which combine to show that Jesus did not exist at the time the passages were written:

1 in that He was not yet the firstborn (Ps 89),

2 He was not yet God's Son (Ps 2)

3 and God was not yet His Father (2 Sam 7, Luke 1.36),

 

[Randy]

Asyncritus, The Holy Spirit came at the Will of the Father and the Child conceived in the Virgin Mary by the Spirit was declared to be the Son of God. As in today I have begotten you. Begotten but not made. Spirit gives birth to Spirit and Jesus was before the world began. The creation that was made through Him. A firstborn Son long before Mary was. To me the Son (One and Only) that was occupied the body that was prepared for Him and Jesus was not emptied of the Father. So while God is announcing or declaring His parentage of Jesus Christ the Lord when Jesus came into the world born of women I do not read that as Jesus's beginning or that He was a product of a male and female coming together to produce a offspring.

Randy

 

[Free]

I don't think so, and the fact that 3 of the major passages I have presented, all of which show that Jesus did not pre-exist,

1 in that He was not yet the firstborn (Ps 89),

2 He was not yet God's Son (Ps 2)

3 and God was not yet His Father (2 Sam 7, Luke 1.36),

have received no refutation by anyone in the discussion, notably Free, tells me that there is a serious and glaring problem here. It needs addressing by your side of the debate.

Did the Son exist in some way prior to his birth as the son of Mary and Joseph?

 

[Free]

To say that the correct meaning of such an important pair of prepositions is 'utterly pointless and completely misses the point' is not wise.

How can you know 'what is being said' if you ignore the correct meaning of the prepositions? I submit that you cannot know.

The scriptures use no word/s casually, especially not in such important matters, and you do well to pay some attention to the precision and accuracy of the text.

And once again you didn't even attempt to respond to my argument.

 

[chessman]

The immediate context does not mention who the other persons are. So it is two out of four wherein the persons are not all described. So I look to a slightly wider context and think that God had his entourage of angels with him.

Problems I have with your posts against the Trinity are;
1) Actually, the persons are described, yet you say they are not at all described. At least with respect to what it is these persons are doing. It’s hard to trust in someone that teaches things so obviously false. Making man, that's what these persons are described as doing. Angels don't create anything, much less create man. Yet, you reject any evidence within this passage that points toward a triune God and assume the “us” means angels when clearly it doesn’t. Odd, really. And very obvious.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Genesis 1:26 ESV​

The “us” cannot be angels.
2)

1 John 4: 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.​

God is love, right? Always has been, always will be love:

Psalm 118:4 Let those who fear Yahweh say, “His loyal love is forever.”​

Love is clearly a part of His nature (Yahweh's nature that is):

Psalm 145 Yahweh is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and great in loyal love.​

Prior to the angels being created (whenever that occurred, as they are creatures of God's making, see Heb 1:6); Who did God love?

[6] And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,​

“Let all God's angels worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6 ESV)

Answer = The Son

John 3:35 The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. 36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who disobeys the Son will not see life—but the wrath of God remains on him.​

Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24 ESV)​

God is unchanging. God has always loved The Son. Our knowledge of Him, however, is not unchanging or at least it shouldn’t be:

Col 1:12 ... increasing in the knowledge of God, ... according to his glorious might, for all steadfastness and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, 13 who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves.​

3)

I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. (Isaiah 42:8 ESV)​

Revelation 21:23 (ESV) And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.​

 

[Asyncritus]

Did the Son exist in some way prior to his birth as the son of Mary and Joseph?

That is for you to decide, Free. Let me know what you decide after considering the following facts:

He was obviously in the purpose of God - as are we, predestinated in other words. He was predestinated to be slain before the foundation of the world:

1 Pet 2.19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained [to be slain, hence 'blood' in the previous verse] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[It isn't in existence as yet, but all the preparations have been made]

Lu 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

[This is an odd one. No prophet was slain from the foundation of the world, apart from Abel. Which leads us to wonder what 'foundation of the world really means']

Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[But we were not there, literally]

Looking at those passages, it is obvious that nothing that happened to Jesus before He was born didn't happen to us too.

Before His birth, He was:

1 Not God's firstborn (Ps 89)

2 Not God's son (2 Sam 7 and Lk 1.36, and Ps 2)

3 Not 'conceived'

Those are facts, and you may do with them as you will.

 

[Free]

That is for you to decide, Free. Let me know what you decide after considering the following facts:

He was obviously in the purpose of God - as are we, predestinated in other words. He was predestinated to be slain before the foundation of the world:

1 Pet 2.19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained [to be slain, hence 'blood' in the previous verse] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[It isn't in existence as yet, but all the preparations have been made]

Lu 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

[This is an odd one. No prophet was slain from the foundation of the world, apart from Abel. Which leads us to wonder what 'foundation of the world really means']

Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[But we were not there, literally]

Looking at those passages, it is obvious that nothing that happened to Jesus before He was born didn't happen to us too.
Before His birth, He was:

1 Not God's firstborn (Ps 89)

2 Not God's son (2 Sam 7 and Lk 1.36, and Ps 2)

3 Not 'conceived'

Those are facts, and you may do with them as you will.

I'm asking you your position, not for any proof. Did he actually, literally exist in some way?

 

[chessman]

1 Pet 2.19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained [to be slain, hence 'blood' in the previous verse] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

That's not 1 Peter 2:19-20. You err and must have meant 1 Peter 1:19-20.
Which is an interesting passage:

[19] but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. [20] He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you [21] who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him [Christ] glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:19-21 ESV)​

Especially in light of:

[8] I am the LORD; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
(Isaiah 42:8 ESV)​

 

[Gregg]

It is the Father in Him doing His work. God is Spirit and Only our Heavenly Father speaks in terms of "My Spirit" in regard to the Holy Spirit. Jesus as a Son has His own spirit. If Jesus's spirit always was and always was God then you have two Gods.

You say Jesus has His own spirit, which you distinguish from the Holy Spirit [which belongs to the Father]. How do you reconcile these two verses:

1) "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" (Jn 14:26).
Here, the Father is doing the action, sending the Holy Spirit.

2) "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you" (Jn 16:7).
Here, the Son is doing the action, sending the Holy Spirit.

- - -

The following verse implies that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ is the very same Spirit.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Rom 8:9).

We do not have the Spirit of God and another spirit of Christ two distinguished spirits; but rather we have the Holy Spirit which belongs to God [to Elohim, the Father and the Son - together being one God].

- - -

This verse states that Christians have withing them the Spirit of God's Son.
"Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' " (Gal 4:6).

According to your understanding, Jesus has His own spirit, different from the Holy Spirit. So in the verse above, whose spirit [or Spirit] did God send?

According to my understanding, the Holy Spirit of the Father is the very same Holy Spirit of the Son. God [who is the Father and the Son] sent the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Free]

That is for you to decide, Free. Let me know what you decide after considering the following facts:

He was obviously in the purpose of God - as are we, predestinated in other words. He was predestinated to be slain before the foundation of the world:

1 Pet 2.19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained [to be slain, hence 'blood' in the previous verse] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[It isn't in existence as yet, but all the preparations have been made]

Lu 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

[This is an odd one. No prophet was slain from the foundation of the world, apart from Abel. Which leads us to wonder what 'foundation of the world really means']

Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[But we were not there, literally]

Looking at those passages, it is obvious that nothing that happened to Jesus before He was born didn't happen to us too.
Before His birth, He was:

1 Not God's firstborn (Ps 89)

2 Not God's son (2 Sam 7 and Lk 1.36, and Ps 2)

3 Not 'conceived'

Those are facts, and you may do with them as you will.

Alright, based on what you've stated above, I'll assume that you don't believe that the Son existed in any way prior to being born to Mary and Joseph. But, once again, is what you have given all that the Bible says on the matter? Far from it. Instead of pitting Scripture against Scripture, let's look at what else there is that we need to consider and try to make sense of it all.

From Jesus' own mouth:

John 3:13,16-17, "13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man....16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. (ESV)

John 6:31-37, 45-51, 57-58, 60-62, 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always." 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
....
45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.'Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-- 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
....
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
....
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (ESV)

John 8:56-59, 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (ESV)

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

It simply cannot get any clearer than this, and that is not an exhaustive list of Jesus' own words on the matter, just ones that came to mind. I think even Teddy and Jesse would be in agreement with me that in the very least, Jesus was in existence prior to being physically born. It is the nature of that existence about which I and they disagree.

But that's not all. Let's look at the passages which constitute an argument which has been completely ignored several times in this thread:

John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

1 Cor 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)

Col 1:16-17, 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. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

If these passages are true, then the Son could not have been made. That is a very simple logical conclusion based on what these verses say. If Jesus had been created, then at least one thing has been made without Jesus, immediately showing these verses to be false. And, of course, God is the only being, the only "thing" in existence, which is uncreated. So by definition, Jesus is also God.

 

[teddy trueblood]

You need to properly address the correct poster. It was not me.



Seriously, if you want to dabble in Greek, I recommend that you do not do it.

Anyone who ever exegeted one verse of Scripture from Hebrew or Greek will tell you that doctrines do not stand or fall on a misapplied definition of a preposition, but on the entire context of the verse. By their nature, prepositions are relational words are placed before nouns, pronouns or substantitives (a group of words such as a participial phrase that act like nouns or pronouns) which create prepositional phrases that modify nouns, verbs or adjectives. The relationship that they create can be temporal, personal, spacial, etc.

That above is the English definition of the word and function of preposition. If one takes intro consideration that Greek verbs have mood in addition to having voice, tense and person, and there are 8 ways to decline a Greek noun, you can see how many things that you are not considering in your attempt to put the "insignificant" preposition into a small cubby hole.

I do apologize for any misunderstanding. In my post #500 I was referring to post #499 by gr8grace3. I will attempt to remember to give the full name in the future.

I was merely answering the bolded portion of gr8grace3’s post #499 concerning the meaning of en:

"Colossians 1:16-17~~16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." [underlining added]

If you have serious disagreement with the scholars and translators I have quoted or referred to, that is certainly your right. (I disagree with many scholars and translators myself.)

If you can show me how any of the aspects of Greek grammar you cited affect the meaning of en in this scripture, I would appreciate it.

If it is grammatically clear that “by” is the proper understanding of en in the verse in question (as gr8grace3 prefers) and “in“ or “through” are improper, please show us.

Respectfully,
T2

 

[Randy]

You say Jesus has His own spirit, which you distinguish from the Holy Spirit [which belongs to the Father]. How do you reconcile these two verses:

1) "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" (Jn 14:26).
Here, the Father is doing the action, sending the Holy Spirit.

2) "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you" (Jn 16:7).
Here, the Son is doing the action, sending the Holy Spirit.

- - -

The following verse implies that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ is the very same Spirit.
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Rom 8:9).

We do not have the Spirit of God and another spirit of Christ two distinguished spirits; but rather we have the Holy Spirit which belongs to God [to Elohim, the Father and the Son - together being one God].

- - -

This verse states that Christians have withing them the Spirit of God's Son.
"Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' " (Gal 4:6).

According to your understanding, Jesus has His own spirit, different from the Holy Spirit. So in the verse above, whose spirit [or Spirit] did God send?

According to my understanding, the Holy Spirit of the Father is the very same Holy Spirit of the Son. God [who is the Father and the Son] sent the Spirit of Christ.

As I stated the Spirit Jesus poured out was received from the Father. Read acts 2. The Fathers promise -Joel: In the last days I will pour out my Spirit....

The Holy Spirit was sent in Jesus's name. In Christians the Spirit conveys the Will and mind of Jesus. But there is only One Holy Spirit. We are not that Spirit the Holy Spirit dwells with us as we have are own spirit.

The Father - I shall place "MY SPIRIT" upon Him (Jesus) and He shall proclaim Justice to the nations....
The Son - The Spirit of the sovereign Lord is upon me....
John the baptizer Then John testified, "I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him

Jesus stated the Father was the one true God. If your premise is Jesus always was and always was God how then do you believe in One God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"?

If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

According to what I read the Father is in the Son and the Son is in us. And in regard to Jesus's being the Fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him.

No God will be formed after the Father. Jesus's spirit cannot be God. He has always been the Son. However Jesus is not alone. The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. All the fullness of God. The Father is in Him. And in that Jesus is all that the Father is and in the framework of the Fathers will Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit carries out the Lords Will because the Father has placed all things in Jesus's hand. All that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son. (given) As Jesus testified about his disciples in His prayer to the Father "they were yours and you gave them to me"

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son.

Randy

 

[Asyncritus]

OK Free

Let's attempt to make some sense of all this.

First, the rock hard, unmistakable facts which I have already listed, to which I will require your agreement. Then I will come on to those references you have made to John's gospel, which, noteworthily ONLY OCCUR in John's gospel.

The Facts

1 At the time Ps 89 was written, ISRAEL was God's Firstborn.

Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

They were going to be deposed because of their ill behaviour, and replaced by Christ:

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

The unmistakable conclusion from that statement, is that AT THE TIME the Psalm was written, Jesus WAS NOT YET God's First born.

But God was going to declare Him the Firstborn (of all Creation, as Col.1 says), thus replacing Israel in that position.

Furthermore, He was NOT YET God's Son:

He SHALL CRY....Thou art my Father

That also hadn't happened yet. In other words, He hadn't been born, nor yet come into existence.

Psalm 2 confirms this:

7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (= the day of resurrection Rom .1. 4)

So too does 2 Sam 7:

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

Furthermore, He hadn't yet cried 'thou art my God', but He was certainly going to do so.

We know that this prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus on many occasions, the most noteworthy being:

Jn 20.17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Two very clear allusions to Ps 89, 'my Father and my God' coming significantly together here.

Mr 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So to summarise:

1 Israel was God's Firstborn in the time of Ex.4

2 They were to be replaced by Christ (Ps 89)

3 That means that AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, (starting at the time Ps 89 was written) Christ was going to be declared God's Firstborn. Meaning of course, that at the time of writing, HE WAS NOT YET the Firstborn.

Therefore the expression 'firstborn of all creation' DOES NOT imply any form of pre-existence.

4 At the time of writing of Ps 89, He was NOT YET GOD'S SON. Of course, He hadn't yet been conceived and born.

5 Ps 2 confirms this very powerfully, being stated by Paul to have happened on the day of Resurrection.

6 At the time 2 Sam was written, Jesus was NOT YET God's Son.

So Sonship and Firstborn-ship were titles that were TO BE CONFERRED upon Christ (first at His birth, then confirmed on the Day of Resurrection).

They DO NOT refer to some peculiar relationship that existed pre- Genesis 1.

Can you please comment in detail on these passages, as I consider them to be of the very highest importance in any understanding of this subject.

Thank you.

 

[Gregg]

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son.
Randy

Randy,
Thank you for your patience. Bear with me as I ask a couple more questions. I genuinely want to understand your point of reference.

1) You say Jesus has always been the Son. Do you understand that He is the Son only from His conception forward [as in Luke 1:31], or was He the Son from eternity [before the world was]?

2) Would you address your understanding about God sending His Spirit (John 14:26), and Jesus sending His Spirit (John 16:7) as I asked in the previous post?

 

[Randy]

n

Randy,
Thank you for your patience. Bear with me as I ask a couple more questions. I genuinely want to understand your point of reference.

1) You say Jesus has always been the Son. Do you understand that He is the Son only from His conception forward [as in Luke 1:31], or was He the Son from eternity [before the world was]?

2) Would you address your understanding about God sending His Spirit (John 14:26), and Jesus sending His Spirit (John 16:7) as I asked in the previous post?

1: The Son that was with the Father before the world began occupied the body that was prepared for Him. Jesus was not emptied of the Father. When Jesus came into the world He was begotten (the one and only) but not made. God is declaring to mankind His parentage of Jesus. Today I have begotten you... Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to her firstborn.
2: The One and Only Holy Spirit sent was received from the Father (His Spirit) and sent in Jesus name. As Jesus lives by the living Father we live by Him. In us the One and Only HS represents Christ Jesus. Jesus wills the HS acts. Christ in Us. All things have been placed in Jesus's hands by the Father. All that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son (given) The apostles laid their hands on some, as we read in the NT, and some received the HS at that time but the Spirit poured out always represents Christ in US.

Randy