Proof of Trinity

[teddy trueblood]

Free, reply #131 (in blue)

But, again, "firstborn" does not necessarily mean one who is born. Looking Scripture one can see that "firstborn" can, and does, mean that one is in a position as though they were the firstborn--they have the rights of a firstborn son. In this very same respect, Col. 1:15 is stating that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation, as one who has the rights of a firstborn son. It simply cannot mean that he was literally born or begotten in the sense that at one time he never existed, as this would completely contradict verses 16 and 17.

Indeed, my point is made by the use of firstborn in verse 18. Here "firstborn" cannot mean that he is the first to rise from the dead since we see in his ministry more than one time that he raised someone from the dead. Rather, he is pre-eminent among those who are raised. [bolding added.]

[I agree that verse 18 is the key. It is a parallel to verse 15 and ‘firstborn’ is used in the same way in both verses.

Col. 1:18 “… He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” - NASB.

“The firsborn from the dead” is the appositive to “beginning.” This means that “firstborn of the dead” is in some way equivalent to “beginning.” This certainly would not be equivalent to “pre-eminent one.”

And why would Paul, who tells us that Jesus will be over all (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22), make a silly statement like ‘Jesus will be pre-eminent of the dead’!

Instead it is far more reasonable that “firstborn” means the first one (‘the beginning’) to come into existence in a certain category.

We cannot seriously believe that Paul is telling us at Col. 1:18 that Jesus is the “pre-eminent one” over the dead as some trinitarians insist. Especially since the actual wording by Paul is “the beginning [arkhe], firstborn [prototokos] OUT OF [ek] the dead.” - see any interlinear New Testament (or as also confirmed by John “The firstborn of the dead.” - Rev. 1:5). There should be no honest doubt that Col. 1:18 does not mean “pre-eminent one from the dead”! It clearly means “the first one resurrected to eternal life in the ‘new creation’.”

We know how Paul intends this verse (“firstborn from the dead”) by reading his statement at 1 Cor. 15:20 - “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” - NASB. I doubt that anyone would say that the first fruits means “pre-eminent”!

Even a number of trinitarian scholars and translators admit this. John Gill’s Exposition; Adam Clarke Commentary; NIVSB footnote (1985 ed.) Beck’s NT; ERV; ETRV; God’s Word; NCV; NEB; NIRV; NLV; REB.

So, just as ‘firstborn out of the dead’ means the first one to be brought to eternal life in heaven, so the parallel “firstborn of all creation” means the first one to be brought forth of all creation. (This one is the master worker through whom God created everything else.)]

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free, reply #131 (in blue)

But, again, "firstborn" does not necessarily mean one who is born. Looking Scripture one can see that "firstborn" can, and does, mean that one is in a position as though they were the firstborn--they have the rights of a firstborn son. In this very same respect, Col. 1:15 is stating that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation, as one who has the rights of a firstborn son. It simply cannot mean that he was literally born or begotten in the sense that at one time he never existed, as this would completely contradict verses 16 and 17.

Indeed, my point is made by the use of firstborn in verse 18. Here "firstborn" cannot mean that he is the first to rise from the dead since we see in his ministry more than one time that he raised someone from the dead. Rather, he is pre-eminent among those who are raised. [bolding added.]

[I agree that verse 18 is the key. It is a parallel to verse 15 and ‘firstborn’ is used in the same way in both verses.

Col. 1:18 “… He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” - NASB.

“The firsborn from the dead” is the appositive to “beginning.” This means that “firstborn of the dead” is in some way equivalent to “beginning.” This certainly would not be equivalent to “pre-eminent one.”

And why would Paul, who tells us that Jesus will be over all (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22), make a silly statement like ‘Jesus will be pre-eminent of the dead’!

Instead it is far more reasonable that “firstborn” means the first one (‘the beginning’) to come into existence in a certain category.

We cannot seriously believe that Paul is telling us at Col. 1:18 that Jesus is the “pre-eminent one” over the dead as some trinitarians insist. Especially since the actual wording by Paul is “the beginning [arkhe], firstborn [prototokos] OUT OF [ek] the dead.” - see any interlinear New Testament (or as also confirmed by John “The firstborn of the dead.” - Rev. 1:5). There should be no honest doubt that Col. 1:18 does not mean “pre-eminent one from the dead”! It clearly means “the first one resurrected to eternal life in the ‘new creation’.” See Acts 26:23.

We know how Paul intends this verse (“firstborn from the dead”) by reading his statement at 1 Cor. 15:20 - “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” - NASB. I doubt that anyone would say that the first fruits means “pre-eminent”!

Even a number of trinitarian scholars and translators admit this. John Gill’s Exposition; Adam Clarke Commentary; NIVSB footnote (1985 ed.) Beck’s NT; ERV; ETRV; God’s Word; NCV; NEB; NIRV; NLV; REB.

So, just as ‘firstborn out of the dead’ means the first one to be brought to eternal life in heaven, so the parallel “firstborn of all creation” means the first one to be brought forth of all creation. (This one is the master worker through whom God created everything else.)]

 

[Randy]

But, again, "firstborn" does not necessarily mean one who is born. Looking Scripture one can see that "firstborn" can, and does, mean that one is in a position as though they were the firstborn--they have the rights of a firstborn son. In this very same respect, Col. 1:15 is stating that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation, as one who has the rights of a firstborn son. It simply cannot mean that he was literally born or begotten in the sense that at one time he never existed, as this would completely contradict verses 16 and 17.

Indeed, my point is made by the use of firstborn in verse 18. Here "firstborn" cannot mean that he is the first to rise from the dead since we see in his ministry more than one time that he raised someone from the dead. Rather, he is pre-eminent among those who are raised.

But, again..(smile)
I believe Jesus has always been the Son. The Firstborn of God (Father). The eldest, the first, a Son. A beginning as in the Firstborn of all creation.

A guess will we have to disagree on that point. Because we are now going in circles.

Randy

 

[eddif]

Symbols speak to / of a reality. Symbols are not the reality themselves (though many have been blinded and worshiped creation). Light moves outward into the past and future (hey I am but a feller from Mississippi). If creation is a shadow of the Godhead, then the future crucifiction of Jesus reached back to creation (light does cast a shadow). The most significant point for us was the "It is finished" on the cross. Our future existence depends on the spiritual reality completed on the cross. What our physical bodies look like even reflect the spiritual things Jesus finished.

eddif

 

[chessman]

no-one else in scripture is called Emmanuel. Someone is:
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. ...
This is a child who was going to be born in Isaiah's time who would be called Immanuel,...
Therefore the name is of no significance in proving that Jesus is God, simply that He would be the sign that God would deliver His people through Him

If this “sign” child was actually born in Isaiah's time why does Matthew say that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus' virgin birth?

Matt 1: 21 She [Mary] will bear a son [Jesus], and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us).
(ESV)
​

If this child (a virgin child) and his name (Immanuel) had already been fulfilled (just to some lesser extent), then why does Matthew say that Jesus fulfilled it? The Scripture doesn't just have Matthew quoting the Isaiah prophecy, it actually says that the Jesus' virgin birth and "all this" fulfilled it. In other words, the prophecy had been un-fulfilled for several hundred years until Jesus was born of a virgin and called Immanuel, not just fulfilled to some lesser extent. Matthew doesn't say to a greater extent.

Your statement and Biblical argument against the Trinity here:

Jesus is the greater fulfilment of that promise, as we all know from Matthew's gospel.

is out of sync with what Matthew says. Matthew doesn’t say Jesus is a “greater” fulfillment, Matt says “all this” about Jesus was the fulfillment.
Therefore your statement and Biblical argument against the Trinity here:

Therefore the name is of no significance in proving that Jesus is God, simply that He would be the sign that God would deliver His people through Him

falls short of Biblical proof.

Who do you think the child was that was born to a virgin and given the name Immanuel back in Isaiah’s time and what Scripture do you use for this?

 

[Free]

But, again..(smile)
I believe Jesus has always been the Son. The Firstborn of God (Father). The eldest, the first, a Son. A beginning as in the Firstborn of all creation.

A guess will we have to disagree on that point. Because we are now going in circles.

Randy

The difference being that you are ignoring evidence to the contrary and have yet to actually engage the arguments put forward, and instead prefer your opinion. The Son has always existed.

 

[Free]

Free, reply #131 (in blue)

But, again, "firstborn" does not necessarily mean one who is born. Looking Scripture one can see that "firstborn" can, and does, mean that one is in a position as though they were the firstborn--they have the rights of a firstborn son. In this very same respect, Col. 1:15 is stating that Jesus is pre-eminent over creation, as one who has the rights of a firstborn son. It simply cannot mean that he was literally born or begotten in the sense that at one time he never existed, as this would completely contradict verses 16 and 17.

Indeed, my point is made by the use of firstborn in verse 18. Here "firstborn" cannot mean that he is the first to rise from the dead since we see in his ministry more than one time that he raised someone from the dead. Rather, he is pre-eminent among those who are raised. [bolding added.]

[I agree that verse 18 is the key. It is a parallel to verse 15 and ‘firstborn’ is used in the same way in both verses.

Col. 1:18 “… He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” - NASB.

“The firsborn from the dead” is the appositive to “beginning.” This means that “firstborn of the dead” is in some way equivalent to “beginning.” This certainly would not be equivalent to “pre-eminent one.”

And why would Paul, who tells us that Jesus will be over all (1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:22), make a silly statement like ‘Jesus will be pre-eminent of the dead’!

Instead it is far more reasonable that “firstborn” means the first one (‘the beginning’) to come into existence in a certain category.

We cannot seriously believe that Paul is telling us at Col. 1:18 that Jesus is the “pre-eminent one” over the dead as some trinitarians insist. Especially since the actual wording by Paul is “the beginning [arkhe], firstborn [prototokos] OUT OF [ek] the dead.” - see any interlinear New Testament (or as also confirmed by John “The firstborn of the dead.” - Rev. 1:5). There should be no honest doubt that Col. 1:18 does not mean “pre-eminent one from the dead”! It clearly means “the first one resurrected to eternal life in the ‘new creation’.”

We know how Paul intends this verse (“firstborn from the dead”) by reading his statement at 1 Cor. 15:20 - “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.” - NASB. I doubt that anyone would say that the first fruits means “pre-eminent”!

Even a number of trinitarian scholars and translators admit this. John Gill’s Exposition; Adam Clarke Commentary; NIVSB footnote (1985 ed.) Beck’s NT; ERV; ETRV; God’s Word; NCV; NEB; NIRV; NLV; REB.

So, just as ‘firstborn out of the dead’ means the first one to be brought to eternal life in heaven, so the parallel “firstborn of all creation” means the first one to be brought forth of all creation. (This one is the master worker through whom God created everything else.)]

It simply cannot mean that without doing violence to the context:

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)

It is not at all reasonable that "firstborn" in verse 15 means "the first one ('the beginning')". That would be in direct contradiction of what follows in verses 16 and 17. You simply cannot ignore the context. The only logical conclusion of verses 16 and 17 is that the Son is not created, and that has a direct bearing on the meaning of firstborn in verse 15.

 

[Free]

So in fact, Col.1 does not carry any implication of the pre-existence of Christ: rather that He is worthy of being appointed the Firstborn of all creation.

As I have pointed out numerous times, and to which I have yet to receive any substantial engagement, the logic of Co.l 1:16-17 (also John 1:1-3; 1 Cor 8:6) is irrefutable. To say that there is no "implication of the pre-existence of Christ" is to ignore all logic and rational thought.

If, as Paul clearly states, "by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth...all things were created through him and for him," is true, then by simple logic, the Son could not be a thing that is created. If the Son was created, then that would be a direct contradiction.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free #148 (in blue below):

“If, as Paul clearly states, ‘by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth...all things were created through him and for him,’ is true, then by simple logic, the Son could not be a thing that is created. If the Son was created, then that would be a direct contradiction.”

The trouble with “all things” is that it frequently is not literally so. I’m sure you know of a number of scriptures which use “all” when it is not literal.

We also find, as in English, that the subject of a statement is often excepted from the statement. For example, “then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” -1 Cor. 15:24, NASB. Obviously “all” here does not include the authority and power of God nor of the Son.

And Ro. 8:32, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things [ta panta]?” - NASB. God and ‘His own Son’ are clearly excluded from “all things.”

And Heb. 2:8, “ ‘You [God] have put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’

For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”

Surely, we understand that God has not put himself under Jesus’ feet! But if anyone should dispute this, it is spelled out for us at 1 Cor. 15:27:

“For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.” - NASB.

Free uses 1 Cor. 8:6 to back up his interpretation of the context of Col. 1:16-17. But notice that it tells us,

“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from [ex, ‘out of’ - the source] whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [di’, ‘through’ - the intermediary] whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Thayer (actually trinitarian Prof. Grimm whom he is quoting in translation) says Jn 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6 are examples of the instrumental di’ where “the divine Logos” is “expressly distinguished from the first cause.” - p.133, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology also agrees that “in 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the source of creation (ex hou at panta) is distinguished from Christ’s role as mediator of creation (di’ hou at panta)” - p. 1182, Vol.3, Zondervan, 1986.

And the “Little Kittel” tells us that di’/dia is instrumental “with genitive of person ‘through the mediation of’” and includes in these “references such as Jn. 1:3; Acts 10:36; Col. 1:20, etc. in which Christ mediates God’s action in creation, miracles, judgment, etc.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

“In 1 Cor. 8:6, ἐξ οὗ -- δι’ οὗ, the first refers to God the Father as the source of all things and the second refers to Jesus as the mediate agent by whom all things come into existence. Cf. Col. 1:16.” - p. 583, A.T. Robertson, Grammar.

Also see p. 841, vol. 2, The Expositor’s Greek Testament.

The fact that di’/dia may occasionally be used for “one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause” does not affect its use here at 1 Cor. 8:6 where its use is clearly the mediatorial (‘through’).

 

[Free]

Free #148 (in blue below):

“If, as Paul clearly states, ‘by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth...all things were created through him and for him,’ is true, then by simple logic, the Son could not be a thing that is created. If the Son was created, then that would be a direct contradiction.”

The trouble with “all things” is that it frequently is not literally so. I’m sure you know of a number of scriptures which use “all” when it is not literal.

We also find, as in English, that the subject of a statement is often excepted from the statement. For example, “then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” -1 Cor. 15:24, NASB. Obviously “all” here does not include the authority and power of God nor of the Son.

And Ro. 8:32, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things [ta panta]?” - NASB. God and ‘His own Son’ are clearly excluded from “all things.”

And Heb. 2:8, “ ‘You [God] have put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.’

For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”

Surely, we understand that God has not put himself under Jesus’ feet! But if anyone should dispute this, it is spelled out for us at 1 Cor. 15:27:

“For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.” - NASB.

Free uses 1 Cor. 8:6 to back up his interpretation of the context of Col. 1:16-17. But notice that it tells us,

“yet for us there is one God, the Father, from [ex, ‘out of’ - the source] whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through [di’, ‘through’ - the intermediary] whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Thayer (actually trinitarian Prof. Grimm whom he is quoting in translation) says Jn 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6 are examples of the instrumental di’ where “the divine Logos” is “expressly distinguished from the first cause.” - p.133, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, 1977.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology also agrees that “in 1 Cor. 8:6 the function of God the Father as the source of creation (ex hou at panta) is distinguished from Christ’s role as mediator of creation (di’ hou at panta)” - p. 1182, Vol.3, Zondervan, 1986.

And the “Little Kittel” tells us that di’/dia is instrumental “with genitive of person ‘through the mediation of’” and includes in these “references such as Jn. 1:3; Acts 10:36; Col. 1:20, etc. in which Christ mediates God’s action in creation, miracles, judgment, etc.” - Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume, Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

“In 1 Cor. 8:6, ἐξ οὗ -- δι’ οὗ, the first refers to God the Father as the source of all things and the second refers to Jesus as the mediate agent by whom all things come into existence. Cf. Col. 1:16.” - p. 583, A.T. Robertson, Grammar.

Also see p. 841, vol. 2, The Expositor’s Greek Testament.

The fact that di’/dia may occasionally be used for “one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause” does not affect its use here at 1 Cor. 8:6 where its use is clearly the mediatorial (‘through’).

I'm not sure what you're intending to show. Nothing goes against what I've said and, in fact, most supports it.

 

[Randy]

The difference being that you are ignoring evidence to the contrary and have yet to actually engage the arguments put forward, and instead prefer your opinion. The Son has always existed.

Jesus called the Father the One true God. If 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"?

Jesus has always been the Son. The firstborn of all creation. Jesus is not the fullness. The fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him.

When I disagree with your opinion and give reasonable replies that better explain who Jesus is then you state I am ignoring your stance.

I believe Jesus is the Word of God. What however is the word of God? The word of the Father. I believe the Father is in the Son. As in the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. I believe that at the beginning of creation (Genesis) Jesus was and all that was created by the Fathers command and by the Fathers will was created THROUGH the Son. I believe Jesus was crucified and rose on the third day. I have the Spirit of Christ in me and know with certainty that Jesus lives. I believe Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The Son of the Living God. I believe in a bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming of the Lord. So I think we have much in common.

But I do not hold that Jesus is God in the context He always was and always was God. I believe the Father was pleased to have all HIS fullness dwell in His firstborn. At some point in History before the creation (Genesis) and in that context Jesus is God (The image of the invisible God and the exact representation of Gods being or simply all that the Father is)

I also believe we are going in circles. (smile)





Randy

 

[Asyncritus]

If this child (a virgin child) and his name (Immanuel) had already been fulfilled (just to some lesser extent), then why does Matthew say that Jesus fulfilled it? The Scripture doesn't just have Matthew quoting the Isaiah prophecy, it actually says that the Jesus' virgin birth and "all this" fulfilled it. In other words, the prophecy had been un-fulfilled for several hundred years until Jesus was born of a virgin and called Immanuel, not just fulfilled to some lesser extent. Matthew doesn't say to a greater extent.

Your statement and Biblical argument against the Trinity here:

is out of sync with what Matthew says. Matthew doesn’t say Jesus is a “greater” fulfillment, Matt says “all this” about Jesus was the fulfillment.
Therefore your statement and Biblical argument against the Trinity here: falls short of Biblical proof.

Who do you think the child was that was born to a virgin and given the name Immanuel back in Isaiah’s time and what Scripture do you use for this?

Hi CM

The reason for saying that it was fulfilled in Isaiah's time is the text itself: the age of the child is given when the land was to be desolated.

You may remember that prophecies have often got 2 fulfilments.

A very relevant one is 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' from Hosea 12 (I think).

It was first fulfilled at the time of the exodus, and found a greater fulfilment in the coming out of Egypt by Joseph and Mary and Jesus.

 

[chessman]

The reason for saying that it was fulfilled in Isaiah's time is the text itself: the age of the child is given when the land was to be desolated.

The timing (as verified by the age of Isaiah's child at the Assyrian conquest) was a fulfilled prophecy. Sure.

But the virgin child who was called Immanuel, was only fulfilled by Jesus.

The “son” born to Isaiah and his non-virgin wife, who's name was Maher-shalal-hash-baz, was the "signs" for that pre-Christ fulfillment. Isaiah’s wife was not a virgin as she had already had another child.
Yet Maher-shalal-hash-baz was indeed the sign for “that day” given to Isaiah as the text says;

8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are signs and portents [warnings] in Israel from the Lord of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.​

There’s really no way to deny the text here (v 18). The “sign child” who fulfilled the prophecy you mention (desolation) in Isaiah’s day (~733 B.C.) was a child born naturally to Isaiah and his wife and never named Immanuel.

The “sign child” born to Isaiah and his wife the natural way (via the text of 8:3,18) is out of sync with your statement that there was an 8th Century “sign child” called Immanuel.

That’s my point. This 8th Century B.C. “sign child” was NOT born of a virgin nor was his name Immanuel.

8:3 And I went to the prophetess [Isaiah’s wife] , and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the boy knows how to cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.”
​

Maher-shalal-hash-baz (name means; the spoil speeds, the prey hastens) is not a child called Immanuel.

This was the pre-Christ fulfilled prophecy (Isaiah's son born after the Lord prophesied of him yet he was not even of very old prior to the attack and desolation of the land). It's not the prophecy of a virgin born child called Immanuel, that was fulfilled back then.

Matthew obviously knew that there had never been another child born of a virgin called Immanuel prior to Jesus. Else, he would have said it was a second fulfillment or a "greater" fulfillment, not the fulfillment of Isaiah's virgin/Immanuel prophecy. But he didn't say that. You did, in place of his words.

Not to mention that having a virgin born child born way back in the 8th Century B.C. would have been big news and very likely recorded for us in the text. It's not until Jesus Christ that we have a record of a virgin born "sign" nor a child called Immanuel.

 

[Free]

Jesus called the Father the One true God. If 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"?

Jesus has always been the Son. The firstborn of all creation. Jesus is not the fullness. The fullness was pleased to dwell IN Him.

When I disagree with your opinion and give reasonable replies that better explain who Jesus is then you state I am ignoring your stance.

I believe Jesus is the Word of God. What however is the word of God? The word of the Father. I believe the Father is in the Son. As in the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. I believe that at the beginning of creation (Genesis) Jesus was and all that was created by the Fathers command and by the Fathers will was created THROUGH the Son. I believe Jesus was crucified and rose on the third day. I have the Spirit of Christ in me and know with certainty that Jesus lives. I believe Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The Son of the Living God. I believe in a bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming of the Lord. So I think we have much in common.

But I do not hold that Jesus is God in the context He always was and always was God. I believe the Father was pleased to have all HIS fullness dwell in His firstborn. At some point in History before the creation (Genesis) and in that context Jesus is God (The image of the invisible God and the exact representation of Gods being or simply all that the Father is)

But here is the problem. I have given several passages which lead to the only logical conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son/the Word, has always existed. Jesus could not have come into being prior to the creation events in Gen. 1 without contradicting those passages. It doesn't matter as to when you move the coming into being of the Son, the contradiction will remain if it is said he came into being, or that there was a time when he did not exist. Not to mention, then his coming into being would have been the beginning of creation, not the creation of the heavens and the earth. There simply is no biblical support for such a position.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Free #150 (in blue):

"I'm not sure what you're intending to show. Nothing goes against what I've said and, in fact, most supports it."

Another example of the mediatorial (instrumental) ‘through’ (di’/dia) is Moses and the Law. God ‘created’ the Law and transmitted it to angels who then had it given to Israel through (dia) Moses. Moses is sometimes called the Lawgiver, but it is clear that he merely was the mediator (John 7:19; 1:17; Gal. 3:19).

Gal. 3:19, “So what was the law for? It was given to show that the wrong things people do are against God’s will. And it continued until the special descendant, who had been promised, came. The law was given through angels who used Moses for a mediator to give the law to people.” - NCV.

This is the same understanding for the mediatorial (instrumental) “through” (‘di’/dia’) as John 1:3 and Col. 8:6 show for Jesus. God created “all things” through his mediator. This does not make the mediator God, nor does it mean he was not created. Review “all” as examined in reply #149 above.

 

[chessman]

Again, I underline the simple and very fundamental fact that Jesus NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD. He invariably claimed to be the Son of MAN, and the SON of GOD. Why didn’t He claim to be God, if it was really true?

That is a striking fact which sinks any and all trinitarian claims.

You're sure Jesus never claimed to be God? 100% sure?

 

[WIP]

6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
7 If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is.[c] From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”
9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.
11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do.

Whenever I read these verses from John 14 I can't help but think of the Warner Bros. cartoon rooster, Foghorn Leghorn, saying, "I"m a pitchin' but you ain't a catchin'."

 

[turnorburn]

I John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

tob

 

[Free]

Free #150 (in blue):

"I'm not sure what you're intending to show. Nothing goes against what I've said and, in fact, most supports it."

Another example of the mediatorial (instrumental) ‘through’ (di’/dia) is Moses and the Law. God ‘created’ the Law and transmitted it to angels who then had it given to Israel through (dia) Moses. Moses is sometimes called the Lawgiver, but it is clear that he merely was the mediator (John 7:19; 1:17; Gal. 3:19).

Gal. 3:19, “So what was the law for? It was given to show that the wrong things people do are against God’s will. And it continued until the special descendant, who had been promised, came. The law was given through angels who used Moses for a mediator to give the law to people.” - NCV.

This is the same understanding for the mediatorial (instrumental) “through” (‘di’/dia’) as John 1:3 and Col. 8:6 show for Jesus. God created “all things” through his mediator. This does not make the mediator God, nor does it mean he was not created. Review “all” as examined in reply #149 above.

It is not at all "the same understanding." There is a vast world of difference between the Law being given to men through a man whom the Bible clearly shows had a beginning, and the one whom the Bible shows had no beginning, upon whom salvation and the redemption of Creation rests.

You simply cannot continue dismissing the plain reading of the texts as you have been doing. The very plain and clear meaning seen in John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and 1 Cor 8:6 is that Jesus could not have been created, or the texts are false. It does not, and cannot, get any clearer than this:

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

Without question, this precludes the Word, the pre-incarnate Christ, from ever having been made. If Christ was made, the text is false and speaking a lie. Any argument otherwise would have to completely ignore grammar and all logic.

 

[Edward]

Jumping right in here, without reading any of the responses to the OP, I would say that the proof of the Trinity is revealed to our spiritual inner man over time, after we believe and receive the Lord into our life and heart as our saviour. And yet...there is a tangible proof. It would be the light that shines from us as we walk in the Lord. If we live for the Spirit, and Christ is in us, and we in Him...we will shine for the glory of the Lord is within us and can not be contained.

Now I see WIP's last post and agree with him. What is bolded seems to be the crux of it. Jesus said that He only does what He sees the Father do...and we are to be be (imitators, and) doing what we see that Jesus did (does). So in this light, I can understand if we have seen Jesus, we have seen the father.

Now of course we must take this in a spiritual way and not a natural way. So often people (and Christians) seek to understand in a natural way, when in fact, this is a spiritual blinder. There is a spiritual realm (that is more real than our natural) so we must understand this and see with our spiritual eyes (senses) This is scripture. For example:

Acts 2:25
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:/(KJV)

Now of course, David did not see the Lord with his natural eyes constantly. This is talking about his spiritual eyes. Yes/no? (of course.)

Need proof that we have spiritual senses? Let us go to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Luke 16: 19-30
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent./(KJV)

It says very plainly that they were dead. When one dies, their natural body and senses die with them. Yet we see that they could see, hear, speak, and be thirsty too, lol. So this had to be spiritual senses. What's a guy to do? Oh! Here it is!:

Hebrews 5:14
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil./(KJV)

We exercise our spiritual senses. There it is, so that we can discern good and evil. The Lord is good. This is how David did it. We must practice this. How to start...Use your imagination. We know that our thoughts and imaginations will be judged, for Jesus said that whosoever looketh after a woman to lust after her in his heart (with his imagination!) that they are guilty of adultery. So this is real stuff, and I notice that people do not speak of these things. I wonder why?
Starting to stray off topic slightly so I'll end this post now.