Proof of Trinity

[Asyncritus]

1Ch 28:5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
1Ch 28:6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
1Ch 28:7 Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

I have pointed out something that you really should know already, but just in case, I'll repeat it.

Many prophecies have 2 fulfilments: a proximal one, and a distal one: meaning one near, and another further along IN TIME.

That is the case here. Solomon was the first, lesser fulfilment, and Jesus the second and far greater one.

The proof of that is in 2 parts:

1 Solomon was David's son. Jesus was God's Son.

2 The kingdom was to last forever. Solomon's didn't. Jesus' will.

Therefore you're back to square one.

Was Jesus God's Son at the time 2 Sam 7 was written? I'm certain you know the answer to that is 'DEFINITELY NOT'.

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus #662


Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. (Acts 8:29 )

While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. (Ac 10:19 )

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things (Acts 15:28)

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27)

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30)

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever (John 14:16)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15:26)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

I fail to understand how anyone can think the Holy Spirit is just a force seeing as he talks like a person, intercedes like a person, is grieved like a person, and is the "another" comforter, replacing a person.

It's very simple Jesse. 'The Spirit' is being put by metonymy for God Himself. And that's it.

It is also put by metonymy for Jesus Himself, when He chooses to exercise it (as in Acts 2 and Jn 16.7)

7 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9 If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10 Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. (Psalms 139:7-10)

How is it possible for God to be everywhere at once?

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)

Could it have something to do with God being Spirit? Isn't the Holy Spirit a Spirit?

Another spirit? Another God?

If the 'spirit of God' moved upon the face of the waters (Gen 1) then what was the Father doing at the time?

Ps 104:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

Isn't it clear that this is the power of God being spoken of here? Why do we need a third person? Or eight as you aptly point out below?

[...] The mentions of the Spirit could be one Spirit or many Spirits, and can be interpreted as anything, common sense notwithstanding. The plain reading of the text says to me that there are at least eight Spirits mentioned in Revelation. So what do you have now? Eight forces of God altogether?[/quote]

Comments, Free?

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus himself didn't tell anyone to worship him. On the contrary, he said to worship the father. So it would be to anyone's best interests to heed the one who knows what he's talking about.

:biggrin

He said, 'I am the Son of God'. Again and again and again.

Gabriel said so.

The Father said so.

Paul said so.

Peter said so.

John said so.

Those who say otherwise have a very serious problem.

 

[Asyncritus]

1) I will agree with you that Solomon had not been born yet. This is not a prophesy about Jesus. Why do I say this?
2Sa 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:
2Sa 7:15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
Surely God was not suggesting the Jesus would ever sin. Solomon did and was chastened.

See my previous post to you for the answer to this point.

2&3) Both JLB and Free have made this quite clear. But I will try one time, as well.
Psalms 2 and 89 of coarse were both written before He was BORN (BEGOTTEN).
God's firstborn or first begotten, actually only begotten.

Precisely.

But as you now go on to show conclusively, begotten means to be born.

I take this very literally to be 'begotten' as the word is used in the Hebrew.
H3205
yâlad
yaw-lad'
A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage: - bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).

So 'this day have I begotten thee, means this day you have been 'born'.

There are only 2 possible days allowable here, looking at those definitions:

1 The day of his birth of Mary and

2 The Day of resurrection (Rom 1.4)

Which day, you ask.

On the day that God ordained that He would be born in the flesh. From the foundation of the world God ordained (determined) it.

Not so. The decrees were made in Ps 2, and in 2 Sam 7, and as prophecies, were fulfilled later on in the way we all know.

Gabriel made it quite clear that Jesus' birth was the fulfilment of those prophecies:

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, [please notice the word 'conceive.'

This is a very plain statement that Jesus was not transplanted, implanted, engrafted into the womb of a surrogate mother. It was a conception, and implies that He did not exist anywhere else before His birth of Mary] (As Isaiah 7.14 says A virgin SHALL CONCEIVE)

and bring forth a son [notice, not a spirit or anything else, besides a son], and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: [ I will be His Father, and He shall be my Son (2 Sam 7, Psalm 2)

and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:[which was given tp Solomon]
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [2 Sam 7 'FOREVER twice)

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. [He shall be my Son; This day have I begotten thee...]

Do you believe He was born of a virgin?

Of course.

 

[Edward]

Well Jesus has his own will and mind and submitted to the Father Will. God is Spirit. So if the one on the throne is the Father and the Father sends His Spirit into the world is that Spirit a 3rd person distinct from the Father? It seems to me the Spirit searches the deep thoughts of God or mind of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit does bear witness but its stated "Those that listen to the Father and learn from Him go to the Son" (all will be taught by God).

Its not like the HS is going to state you know the Son and the Father but let me introduce myself (smile) -

So if the Hs is a distinct person from the Father (not what I read) I don't know Him as the Spirit conveys the Will and Mind of Jesus and the Father.

Randy

I agree with much of your post. The same could be said of Jesus. Jesus said he only does what He sees the Father do. That they only do they will of the Father makes them well pleasing to the Father. I personally do believe that the HS is distinct. I have had a conversation with the HS. (well, I asked one question of Him when he told me to pray for my brother, and He answered me, so it wasn't long.) I do not think that I spoke with the Father.

There is something here that we all are missing, I feel. I don't know what it is, for I miss it too, lol. We will know more when we are all translated into our new spiritual bodies. (Yay!) ")

 

[Free]

Jesus himself didn't tell anyone to worship him. On the contrary, he said to worship the father. So it would be to anyone's best interests to heed the one who knows what he's talking about.

And so what do we see in the NT? We see Jesus being worshiped and accepting that worship several times, from his birth to his ascension. Then in Hebrews we see the Father saying "Let all God's angels worship him." Jesus rightly says to worship the Father but if he were not also God, it would be very wrong for him to be worshiped and accept it, saying nothing.

 

[Deborah13]

See my previous post to you for the answer to this point.

Precisely.

But as you now go on to show conclusively, begotten means to be born.


So 'this day have I begotten thee, means this day you have been 'born'.

There are only 2 possible days allowable here, looking at those definitions:

1 The day of his birth of Mary and

2 The Day of resurrection (Rom 1.4)



Not so. The decrees were made in Ps 2, and in 2 Sam 7, and as prophecies, were fulfilled later on in the way we all know.

Hmm.... I think that if you believe that God did not decree Jesus birth until He told man His plan then we need to go back to Genesis. I think this is the first time God made what He had determined known to man.
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
God is under no obligation to tell man what He has determined until He so chooses to. When He does proves nothing about When He determined it.
I don't see God as a 'fly by the seat of his pants' kind of planner (no plan). I must say I don't see Him as a micro-manager either but that's another topic.

I can't conceive why you would see prophesy given to man to be the time of the conception of the plan. My goodness, even I can make a plan and not tell anyone else until much later and it actually happens much later. I have that limited authority in my home.

Gabriel made it quite clear that Jesus' birth was the fulfilment of those prophecies:
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, [please notice the word 'conceive.'

This is a very plain statement that Jesus was not transplanted, implanted, engrafted into the womb of a surrogate mother. It was a conception, and implies that He did not exist anywhere else before His birth of Mary] (As Isaiah 7.14 says A virgin SHALL CONCEIVE)

Well yeah, that is what the language of this Hebrew word means, to become physically pregnant. I think that is the way God designed physical bodies to come into the world. What is you point in that?

and bring forth a son [notice, not a spirit or anything else, besides a son], and shalt call his name JESUS.

Was He Mary's son? Yes

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: [ I will be His Father, and He shall be my Son (2 Sam 7, Psalm 2)

and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:[which was given tp Solomon]
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [2 Sam 7 'FOREVER twice)

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. [He shall be my Son; This day have I begotten thee...]

Of course.

Was Jacob, Solomon, anyone for that matter (begotten) of God, besides Jesus? We have biological earthly fathers.
I really don't see how any of this makes any kind of point as to the pre-exsistence of Jesus with the Father.
I can see much stronger arguments than this one. imo, this one is very weak.

 

[Asyncritus]

And so what do we see in the NT? We see Jesus being worshiped and accepting that worship several times, from his birth to his ascension. Then in Hebrews we see the Father saying "Let all God's angels worship him." Jesus rightly says to worship the Father but if he were not also God, it would be very wrong for him to be worshiped and accept it, saying nothing.

Come Free, you're letting the side down.

Do you remember this?

Gen 41.39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

See any parallels with Christ here? I'm sure you can.

41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.
42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;

Wherefore, God also hath highly exalted him, and given him the name which is above every name...

43 And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.

That in the name of Jesus, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW

Of things in heaven = the angels

Of things on the earth = living men

and of things under the earth = the dead (when they are raised)

44 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

From this it ought to be plain that knee-bending is not restricted to God alone.

But in heaven, Jesus is THE SON of God, higher than any angel, hence the statement by the writer of the Hebrews

"Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.."

And you notice how it goes on:

"As he hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they (the angels)"

This is, of course one reason why the title has come to him:

Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.

He has inherited the name/title 'God'. It is a TITLE that he has inherited from His Father.

This in no way makes Him equal to His Father, as Pharaoh said:

40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

And just as Philippians 2 says, ..that in the name of Jesus, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord - (and here's the bit that finishes your arguments once and for all) - TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.

The Father is God - Jesus' God: He said so (I ascend unto my Father and your Father, to my God and your God).

The Father is God - our God.

How you can possibly insist that Jesus is equal to God, in the face of all that scriptural weight, I really don't know. I really think it is time for you to reconsider the position you have adopted.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hmm.... I think that if you believe that God did not decree Jesus birth until He told man His plan then we need to go back to Genesis. I think this is the first time God made what He had determined known to man.

Again, you're perfectly correct. It's called a prophecy, and it is always about things THAT HADN'T COME TO PASS AS YET.

So the prophecy which says I WILL BE (note the future tense) His Father and He WILL BE my Son is describing things yet future to the time the prophecy was given. Isn't it?

Therefore, at the time of writing, Jesus was NOT YET God's Son. He hadn't been born yet. Thought of, yes. Prophesied about, yes. Known about, yes. But not yet in existence - or the prophecy is sadly mistaken.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God is under no obligation to tell man what He has determined until He so chooses to. When He does proves nothing about When He determined it.

That's also correct. But the point I'm making, is that despite all the foreknowledge, all the prophecies, Jesus WAS NOT YET IN EXISTENCE. He was 'foreknown from the foundation of the world', as are we. But just as we were not there, so He was not there, physically, I mean.

Note the future tenses again, which I have highlighted.

I can't conceive why you would see prophesy given to man to be the time of the conception of the plan. My goodness, even I can make a plan and not tell anyone else until much later and it actually happens much later. I have that limited authority in my home.

Please, I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I am simply saying if His birth was prophesied, then it is obvious that He wasn't there yet! He was in God's plan, certainly, but that is entirely different to the trinitarian proposition. From the athanasian creed: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html Go have a look and let me know if you agree with all that.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

Well yeah, that is what the language of this Hebrew word means, to become physically pregnant. I think that is the way God designed physical bodies to come into the world. What is you point in that?

Don't you get it?

If Jesus was born of Mary, then HE DIDN'T EXIST physically before that. That is my perfectly simple point, and I don't see why it's so difficult to grasp.

But perhaps you aren't really acquainted with the guts of trinitarian doctrine. Have a read of the athanasian on the link above. It might open your eyes to a few things.

 

[Sinthesis]

Jesus pre-existed as The Word. The Word is with God, and The Word is God. When The Word finally put on the entirety of flesh, He became Jesus. Sure, a body was created, but He is not defined by a physical body. The Word can choose to exist physically in whatever manifestation He finds appropriate. However, the physicality we can best relate to, and the only one which payed for our sins, is Jesus.

 

[Deborah13]

Jesus pre-existed as The Word. The Word is with God, and The Word is God. When The Word finally put on the entirety of flesh, He became Jesus. Sure, a body was created, but He is not defined by a physical body. The Word can choose to exist physically in whatever manifestation He finds appropriate. However, the physicality we can best relate to, and the only one which payed for our sins, is Jesus.

I agree with this whole statement. Which makes it clear to me how Moses could see the backside of God.
I think this is the clearest statement of the pre-existence of Jesus.
Can you describe what you believe the Word is?

 

[Randy]

I agree with much of your post. The same could be said of Jesus. Jesus said he only does what He sees the Father do. That they only do they will of the Father makes them well pleasing to the Father. I personally do believe that the HS is distinct. I have had a conversation with the HS. (well, I asked one question of Him when he told me to pray for my brother, and He answered me, so it wasn't long.) I do not think that I spoke with the Father.

There is something here that we all are missing, I feel. I don't know what it is, for I miss it too, lol. We will know more when we are all translated into our new spiritual bodies. (Yay!) ")

Jesus in the garden prayed not my will but your will be done.

Randy

 

[JLB]

When I pointed out to you that God cannot sin, or be tempted with evil, but Christ could, and certainly was, you ignored that. Why? Because you have no answer.

He either could sin, or couldn't.

If He couldn't sin, then it was all a big joke.

But of course, He could sin, which is an entire denial of any trinitarianism.

'Son of God' does not mean that He is 'God in nature' (and that is a totally non-scriptural description), far less that He is God, full stop.

We are the 'sons of God' - are we 'God in nature' too? Of course not - so why make the mistake and attributing that to Jesus?

He took part of the nature of man - Hebrews says so very clearly and extremely emphatically, but doubtless you've missed or ignored that too:

2.14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; [Notice the mounting, cumulative, powerful emphasis which cannot be denied? Where is this 'God in nature' business in that passage? Nowhere to be seen]

Here's the Amplified - that bunch of trinitarians - agreeing with me :

15 For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning.

KJV

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Now James weighs in:

13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

God CANNOT sin, Free.
God CANNOT SIN!
God is INCAPABLE OF SINNING.

What more do you want Him to say? What more can I say?

Jesus COULD SIN.
Jesus WAS IN EVERY WAY tempted to SIN,like as we are!
Jesus could have done His own will and WALKED OFF THAT CROSS.
Jesus said 'NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE'

You cannot deny these things, and every one of them is entirely contrary to trinitarian doctrine, and fundamental to any understanding of the immensity of the sacrifice of Christ. If He couldn't sin, because He was God, then His conquest of sin was no contest, and no conquest took place.

But on the other hand, and this is the reality of it, He COULD HAVE SINNED, and despite every temptation to do evil that came to Him, He OVERCAME them all, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: which, be it clearly noted, He could have refused to do (Not my will, but thine be done).

THE FATAL CONSEQUENCE

What none of you seems to realise is that if Jesus was God, and Jesus could sin, then God the Father could sin too. That is the logical corollary of this doctrine.

How can you even think it?

I'm sure you haven't thought this through, but if you have, and conclude that the Father could sin, then the whole universe will collapse: and should have done so a long time ago.

It hasn't - therefore the axiomatic statement above is entirely correct. God CANNOT SIN, but JESUS COULD. In fact, Paul says concerning the RISEN CHRIST, exalted to God's right hand,

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Note, not 'the God Christ Jesus'. If He isn't God NOW, then what becomes of your teaching? When is He going to be God?

I'll leave that there for you to chew on for a while, but in the meantime, I return to the 3 fatal questions.

1 Was God Jesus' Father at the time 2 Sam 7 was written?

2 Was Jesus God's firstborn at the time Ps 89 was written?

3 On which Day (Ps 2) did Jesus become God's Son?

Man can sin.

He became flesh.

He was made a little lower than the angels.

As God He could not sin. As a man He could be tempted.

Your carnal reasoning is just that, carnal. This does not come from a renewed mind, it only strives to bring doubt.


JLB

 

[JLB]

Again, you're perfectly correct. It's called a prophecy, and it is always about things THAT HADN'T COME TO PASS AS YET.

So the prophecy which says I WILL BE (note the future tense) His Father and He WILL BE my Son is describing things yet future to the time the prophecy was given. Isn't it?

Therefore, at the time of writing, Jesus was NOT YET God's Son. He hadn't been born yet. Thought of, yes. Prophesied about, yes. Known about, yes. But not yet in existence - or the prophecy is sadly mistaken.



That's also correct. But the point I'm making, is that despite all the foreknowledge, all the prophecies, Jesus WAS NOT YET IN EXISTENCE. He was 'foreknown from the foundation of the world', as are we. But just as we were not there, so He was not there, physically, I mean.

Note the future tenses again, which I have highlighted.



Please, I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I am simply saying if His birth was prophesied, then it is obvious that He wasn't there yet! He was in God's plan, certainly, but that is entirely different to the trinitarian proposition. From the athanasian creed: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html Go have a look and let me know if you agree with all that.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.



Don't you get it?

If Jesus was born of Mary, then HE DIDN'T EXIST physically before that. That is my perfectly simple point, and I don't see why it's so difficult to grasp.

But perhaps you aren't really acquainted with the guts of trinitarian doctrine. Have a read of the athanasian on the link above. It might open your eyes to a few things.

Angels manifest themselves as men.

Angels manifested themselves as men and had relations with women, in the days of Noah.

Angels can have a body without being born of a woman.

The Lord appeared to Abraham as a man.


JLB

 

[Free]

When I pointed out to you that God cannot sin, or be tempted with evil, but Christ could, and certainly was, you ignored that. Why? Because you have no answer.

He either could sin, or couldn't.

If He couldn't sin, then it was all a big joke.

But of course, He could sin, which is an entire denial of any trinitarianism.

I did not ignore it but very clearly answered it; you just didn't like the answer. Your argument is a perfect example of proof texting and divorcing parts of Scripture from the rest.

'Son of God' does not mean that He is 'God in nature' (and that is a totally non-scriptural description), far less that He is God, full stop.

Sure it does. What else could it mean? You want us all to believe that "Son of Man" means he was human in nature but that "Son of God" does not mean that he was God in nature. You are inconsistent in your reasoning.

We are the 'sons of God' - are we 'God in nature' too? Of course not - so why make the mistake and attributing that to Jesus?

As I have asked time and time again, and have yet to have anyone do it, look up every instance of the use of Son of God when it refers to Jesus, and take note of the circumstances and context. But even then, your argument is made null by John 1:14 and John 3:16, to give only two. Jesus is the unique, the one and only, Son of God. This is made abundantly clear in Scripture.

He took part of the nature of man - Hebrews says so very clearly and extremely emphatically, but doubtless you've missed or ignored that too:

2.14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; [Notice the mounting, cumulative, powerful emphasis which cannot be denied? Where is this 'God in nature' business in that passage? Nowhere to be seen]

That does nothing to show that anything I've said is incorrect and I'm not sure why you think it does. The most we can say about that is that he existed prior to his incarnation.

But you, on the other hand, continue to ignore Heb 1:2, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." According to your theology, that is a false statement, just like John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17. If Jesus was created, then all those passages are false. That is an argument I have made more times in this thread than I can count, yet you have not addressed it.

But it doesn't stop there in Heb 1. We have verse 8, where the Father says of the Son:

'But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.' (ESV)

This supports what was said in verse 2. Also supporting verses 2 and 8 are verses 10-13:

Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."
Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? (ESV)

We see that the Father is referring to Jesus as YHWH and as having "laid the foundation of the earth," where "the heavens are the work of [his] hands." This alone completely and utterly does your position in. We have an OT passage which is very clearly speaking of YHWH, being applied to the Son by the Father.

Here's the Amplified - that bunch of trinitarians - agreeing with me :

15 For we do not have a High Priest Who is unable to understand and sympathize and have a shared feeling with our weaknesses and infirmities and liability to the assaults of temptation, but One Who has been tempted in every respect as we are, yet without sinning.

KJV

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Now James weighs in:

13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

God CANNOT sin, Free.
God CANNOT SIN!
God is INCAPABLE OF SINNING.

What more do you want Him to say? What more can I say? ]
Jesus COULD SIN.
Jesus WAS IN EVERY WAY tempted to SIN,like as we are!
Jesus could have done His own will and WALKED OFF THAT CROSS.
Jesus said 'NOT MY WILL BUT THINE BE DONE'

You cannot deny these things, and every one of them is entirely contrary to trinitarian doctrine, and fundamental to any understanding of the immensity of the sacrifice of Christ. If He couldn't sin, because He was God, then His conquest of sin was no contest, and no conquest took place.

But on the other hand, and this is the reality of it, He COULD HAVE SINNED, and despite every temptation to do evil that came to Him, He OVERCAME them all, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: which, be it clearly noted, He could have refused to do (Not my will, but thine be done).

THE FATAL CONSEQUENCE

What none of you seems to realise is that if Jesus was God, and Jesus could sin, then God the Father could sin too. That is the logical corollary of this doctrine.

How can you even think it?

I'm sure you haven't thought this through, but if you have, and conclude that the Father could sin, then the whole universe will collapse: and should have done so a long time ago.

It hasn't - therefore the axiomatic statement above is entirely correct. God CANNOT SIN, but JESUS COULD. In fact, Paul says concerning the RISEN CHRIST, exalted to God's right hand,

The "bunch of trinitarians" agree with you precisely because there is absolutely nothing there to show the Trinity false. I still maintain that you do not even know what a basic doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

Jesus is both God and man. This the Bible clearly teaches. If we are to say that Jesus could have sinned, it does not follow that the Father could therefore sin. That is an error in reasoning on your part. What we could say is that with his human nature, Jesus could have sinned, but his divine nature is precisely what kept him from sinning.

But I prefer to say that the question is unanswerable since it attempts to split the mystery of the incarnation. The only thing that is important is that he was tempted and yet did not sin.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Note, not 'the God Christ Jesus'. If He isn't God NOW, then what becomes of your teaching? When is He going to be God?

There is nothing there to suggest that he isn't God now. Simply referring to Jesus as "the man," which he is, does not mean that he is not also God. Indeed, God always has been and always will be God, by definition. Just as a creature cannot become God, he cannot cease to be God.

I'll leave that there for you to chew on for a while, but in the meantime, I return to the 3 fatal questions.

1 Was God Jesus' Father at the time 2 Sam 7 was written?

2 Was Jesus God's firstborn at the time Ps 89 was written?

3 On which Day (Ps 2) did Jesus become God's Son?

He has always been the Son and has always existed. I have shown this time and time again, yet you willfully ignore all the strongest arguments against your position. Your "three fatal questions" are based on divorcing these biblical passages from the context of the entirety of Scripture. You must cease pitting Scripture against Scripture and instead try to reconcile it all as you should be doing, as the doctrine of the Trinity alone does.

I have given plenty of verses which show that the Son has, at a minimum, existed since prior to Abraham, although such passages leave no room for any conclusion other than he has always existed.

 

[Free]

Come Free, you're letting the side down.

Do you remember this?

Gen 41.39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

See any parallels with Christ here? I'm sure you can.

41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.
42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;

Wherefore, God also hath highly exalted him, and given him the name which is above every name...

43 And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.

That in the name of Jesus, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW

Of things in heaven = the angels

Of things on the earth = living men

and of things under the earth = the dead (when they are raised)

44 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.

From this it ought to be plain that knee-bending is not restricted to God alone.

But in heaven, Jesus is THE SON of God, higher than any angel, hence the statement by the writer of the Hebrews

"Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.."

And you notice how it goes on:

"As he hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they (the angels)"

This is, of course one reason why the title has come to him:

Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.

He has inherited the name/title 'God'. It is a TITLE that he has inherited from His Father.

This in no way makes Him equal to His Father, as Pharaoh said:

40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

And just as Philippians 2 says, ..that in the name of Jesus, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord - (and here's the bit that finishes your arguments once and for all) - TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.

The Father is God - Jesus' God: He said so (I ascend unto my Father and your Father, to my God and your God).

The Father is God - our God.

How you can possibly insist that Jesus is equal to God, in the face of all that scriptural weight, I really don't know. I really think it is time for you to reconsider the position you have adopted.

Your parallel to Egypt is irrelevant and your use of Phil 2 ignores the obvious: that it is speaking of Christ after his death and resurrection being the basis for every knee bowing to him. But he was very clearly worshiped, as I stated, from his birth to his ascension. There are several instances in there prior to his death and resurrection.

They knew he was God in the flesh and worshiped him as such. One cannot inherit "the name/title 'God'," that is nonsense. It would be an utter lie and misleading for the Bible to refer to a creature as God. God alone is God and God alone can be God. Either one is and always has been God, or one is not and never will be God. To say otherwise is to ignore the whole of Scripture.

 

[Randy]

Man can sin.

He became flesh.

He was made a little lower than the angels.

As God He could not sin. As a man He could be tempted.

Your carnal reasoning is just that, carnal. This does not come from a renewed mind, it only strives to bring doubt.


JLB

Well God is Spirit. Why wouldn't Gods offspring be spirit? Who said Jesus BECAME flesh in that context that it changed His Spirit? It was stated a body was prepared for Him. Begotten by the Holy Spirit. The Him (into your hands I commit MY SPIRIT) occupied the tent of a fully human body. Since I hold Jesus always was the Son (firstborn) it was the Son who was that occupied the begotten body. Jesus was not emptied of the Father. Jesus was without sin which tells me He wasn't a slave to sin not that He couldn't choose to sin.

Jesus testified to things that happened in the beginning. How can that just be from human experience?

He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Jesus KNEW Abraham.

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[b]”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Jesus’ Claims About Himself
48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.



So Jesus would have learned starting as a baby like us but at some point as a adult He clearly remembered things that He didn't learn from His walk on this earth.

So I agree with you He could sin but chose not to but not for the same reasons. If Jesus always was and always was God then I don't know how one could state He could sin.

And I state again the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. Jesus is the image of the living (invisible God) and the exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father is) God in that context. The Father is in Him always and forever.

Randy

 

[JLB]

Well God is Spirit. Why wouldn't Gods offspring be spirit? Who said Jesus BECAME flesh in that context that it changed His Spirit? It was stated a body was prepared for Him. Begotten by the Holy Spirit. The Him (into your hands I commit MY SPIRIT) occupied the tent of a fully human body. Since I hold Jesus always was the Son (firstborn) it was the Son who was that occupied the begotten body. Jesus was not emptied of the Father. Jesus was without sin which tells me He wasn't a slave to sin not that He couldn't choose to sin.

Jesus testified to things that happened in the beginning. How can that just be from human experience?

He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

Jesus KNEW Abraham.

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[b]”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Jesus’ Claims About Himself
48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.



So Jesus would have learned starting as a baby like us but at some point as a adult He clearly remembered things that He didn't learn from His walk on this earth.

So I agree with you He could sin but chose not to but not for the same reasons. If Jesus always was and always was God then I don't know how one could state He could sin.

And I state again the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. Jesus is the image of the living (invisible God) and the exact representation of Gods being. (All that the Father is) God in that context. The Father is in Him always and forever.

Randy

Jesus is YHWH.

He is the Lord God who became flesh and dwelt among us.

In that He had flesh and was legally a human, in that capacity He could be tempted to sin, as Adam was sinless and was tempted and did in fact sin.

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Hebrews 4:15

The Angels who were disobedient is the days of Noah, were sinless until they weren't.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

Again, you're perfectly correct. It's called a prophecy, and it is always about things THAT HADN'T COME TO PASS AS YET.

So the prophecy which says I WILL BE (note the future tense) His Father and He WILL BE my Son is describing things yet future to the time the prophecy was given. Isn't it?

Therefore, at the time of writing, Jesus was NOT YET God's Son. He hadn't been born yet. Thought of, yes. Prophesied about, yes. Known about, yes. But not yet in existence - or the prophecy is sadly mistaken.



That's also correct. But the point I'm making, is that despite all the foreknowledge, all the prophecies, Jesus WAS NOT YET IN EXISTENCE. He was 'foreknown from the foundation of the world', as are we. But just as we were not there, so He was not there, physically, I mean.

Note the future tenses again, which I have highlighted.



Please, I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I am simply saying if His birth was prophesied, then it is obvious that He wasn't there yet! He was in God's plan, certainly, but that is entirely different to the trinitarian proposition. From the athanasian creed: http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html Go have a look and let me know if you agree with all that.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.



Don't you get it?

If Jesus was born of Mary, then HE DIDN'T EXIST physically before that. That is my perfectly simple point, and I don't see why it's so difficult to grasp.

But perhaps you aren't really acquainted with the guts of trinitarian doctrine. Have a read of the athanasian on the link above. It might open your eyes to a few things.

See post #691 and 692, especially 691.

I am somewhat curious about how you would describe 'the Word' in John 1:1.
Would it be more in line with the Hellenized Jew, Philo or would it be closer to how John uses it.

As far as me posting, I have read from the beginning of this thread again and I can see that every scripture that I would know to post, has already been posted. Therefore, what can I add? Nothing, the others are doing quite well, better than I could.

Oh, I could be wrong about this but I don't see that all prophesy is partially fulfilled and later completely fulfilled. I see types and shadows. I see people like Moses and Joseph, etc. as being a type of Christ. God using them as figures alluding to the fulfillment of the prophecy. I don't see them as a partial fulfillment of the Messiah.

 

[chessman]

Heb1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? [Psalm 2:7 is God’s word spoken to David ~ 1,000 B.C. What’s up with His Son (who’s not even supposed to be around until Mary/Bethlehem) hearing these words spoken way back then?]

Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

[2 Sam 7:14 a Prophecy given to Nathan ~1,000 B.C & then again in 1 Cor 17:13 written 1000 B.C. And by the way, what’s up with The Son eavesdropping in on Nathan’s Prophecy?]

This Son guy sure does get around for somebody that’s not even supposed to be born yet. That is, if He wasn’t around to hear The Father back then. Maybe He was.

[1:1] Long ago, at many times [like ___ B.C., ____ B.C. and ___ B.C.] and in many ways [visions, Psalm, and in person in Heaven with the Angles] , God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, [2] but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2 ESV)

Hmm, I thought the Son wasn't even around until Bethlehem? What’s up with God creating the world through a ‘fellow’ that wasn’t even around until Bethlehem? Could it be that He was around for The Father to speak these words “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son” AND , way before the creation of the World? I think so. It’s no wonder God told the Angels’:

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