The Trinity

[Randy]

You are showing again what I first interpreted about your belief. Even the Father is not the primary notion of God for you. You believe in a Monad that you call Spirit, whose mind split into Father and Son. Some believe as you do, but add a third split. In fact, those like you believe in one Person as God, who plays many persons.

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.

I would think the Spirit in me intercedes from the mind of Christ as it was sent in His name. Feel free to disagree.

Clearly the Father has a Spirit He calls His own.
Matt 10:20
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
...those who listen and learn from the FATHER come to me.
Spoken of by Jesus as the Fathers Promise. In the last days I will pour out MY Spirit. Acts 1;Acts 2

How do you distingish the one Spirit of God as the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of the Father is up to you but to me the differences are found in whose will is being conveyed from the mind of the Spirit. I hope you believe Jesus has His own mind not the Fathers and the Father has His own mind not the Son's. As the Father is able to keep things from the Son.Matthew 24:36

My Spirit knows my thoughts but is me not another person with their own mind.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

Is the conclusion that you believe in One Spirit as God, who has the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son, although the will and divinity are primarily the Father's, not the Son's?

 

[Randy]

Randy

Is the conclusion that you believe in One Spirit as God, who has the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son, although the will and divinity are primarily the Father's, not the Son's?

I believe in one God the Father from whom all things come. The Spirit is His always. His Spirit was gifted to dwell in the Son without limit (fullness). I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ who has His own spirit that the Spirit of the Father dwells with.

The Father is on His throne in heaven. He sends His Spirit into the world. His Spirit bears witness from the mind of the Spirit not as a 3rd person. (Only what He hears) They shall all be taught by God. Those who listen and learn from the Father.....

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

But you said earlier that the Spirit has the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son, and now that he has only the mind of the Father, while the Son is another spirit who, like the creation, only receives the Spirit. Although you have already said that the Son is not true God. According to you, can we not imagine the Son without creation?

 

[Randy]

Randy

But you said earlier that the Spirit has the mind of the Father and the mind of the Son, and now that he has only the mind of the Father, while the Son is another spirit who, like the creation, only receives the Spirit. Although you have already said that the Son is not true God. According to you, can we not imagine the Son without creation?

The Spirit of the Father lives in the Son without limit and the Spirit was sent in Jesus's name. Jesus as a Son has His own spirit as well. They are one as we are one. The Father in Him and He in us. Jesus was gifted the fullness of the Deity and we have fullness in Him. The Holy Spirit and there is only one, conveys the will and presence of Christ in us that has to be from the mind of Christ. So in this context the person of the Son. Yet it is the Fathers Spirit always as in the person of the Father. The Father and Son make their home with us.
The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
We have the Spirit of Christ in us.

I can agree to state this.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I can agree to state this about the Son.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,sustaining all things by his powerful word.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

The problem is that you consider „we are one” by considering yourself, by the very fact that Christ is in us „we are one”. According to you, not even two people can be equal like the Father and the Son, let alone three.

I asked you, can we imagine the Son without creation? If I continue to question you as if you are hiding something, then there is no point. Because you started and continued the discussion with me.

 

[for_his_glory]

This is we are as being one body in Christ.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

 

[JLB]

I posted the Net translation "He" was manifested in the flesh. The commentary was the reasoning for He.

We will agree to disagree

While I believe all the fullness of God dwells in the Son its the Fathers Deity.

Here’s a screenshot directly from the Strong’s Concordance for you to reference.



God - G2316 - Theos

This is where the word Theology comes from. It’s used contextually in the previous verse 15 twice and rendered as God both times. As we see God is the correct rendering.

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,(G2316) which is the church of the living God,(G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16


Randy, all you seem to be standing on is denial; denial of what the scriptures say over and over.


Who do you believe Jesus is ?

God
An angel
Man

 

[7thMoon]

Here’s a screenshot directly from the Strong’s Concordance for you to reference.

View attachment 17617

God - G2316 - Theos

This is where the word Theology comes from. It’s used contextually in the previous verse 15 twice and rendered as God both times. As we see God is the correct rendering.

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,(G2316) which is the church of the living God,(G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16


Randy, all you seem to be standing on is denial; denial of what the scriptures say over and over.


Who do you believe Jesus is ?

God
An angel
Man

Was a man after he was not, and when he died, he became like an angel.

 

[Randy]

Here’s a screenshot directly from the Strong’s Concordance for you to reference.

View attachment 17617

God - G2316 - Theos

This is where the word Theology comes from. It’s used contextually in the previous verse 15 twice and rendered as God both times. As we see God is the correct rendering.

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,(G2316) which is the church of the living God,(G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16


Randy, all you seem to be standing on is denial; denial of what the scriptures say over and over.


Who do you believe Jesus is ?

God
An angel
Man

Dr Daniel Wallace has the training you don't. He is a Trinitarian even so "He" was manifested in the flesh was his call. I posted the extensive notes for his reasoning. I emailed him and he agrees with the reasoning for "he" was manifested in the flesh. Many manuscripts were considered. The older sources were considered. It's all greek to me. Jesus did not receive His own Spirit from the Father. And there is only one. It's the Fathers Spirit without limit (fullness) that lives in Him. He stated the Father lived in Him.

It can't be "true" God FROM true God. It can be God from true God. But with only one Deity. The source Deity which has to be the Father as gifted to dwell in the Son. Col 1:19 The God and Father of Jesus as I read.

And I don't believe God shares your concept of a God such as Himself with no beginning.
"No God "was formed" before me." He's unbegotten so if He has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being yet HE, not me, stated in regard to a God such as Himself "was formed".

What do you mean who do I think Jesus is? I have stated it so many times.
He is Gods Firstborn and has always been the Son. Christ the Lord. One in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell and that from the will of another who defined His being. His GOD and FATHER.

I believe ALL that is written of Him not just a few select verses.

Who is in denial?
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

It's the Fathers Deity. Col 1:19 From HIM ALL THINGS COME. Didn't you read Jesus's words MY GOD and YOUR GOD. Does the Father have a God? We know He has a Son.

In the context of the nature found in the Son HE is God.

 

[Randy]

Randy

The problem is that you consider „we are one” by considering yourself, by the very fact that Christ is in us „we are one”. According to you, not even two people can be equal like the Father and the Son, let alone three.

I asked you, can we imagine the Son without creation? If I continue to question you as if you are hiding something, then there is no point. Because you started and continued the discussion with me.

Why would I imagine a creation without the Son? He was there and involved in every aspect of the creation as I read.
This has no bearing on the discussion.
Could there be a creation without the Son if the Father had been pleased to do so? YES
Could there be a creation without the Father. NO
Could there be a Jesus without the Father? NO

God created "through/by" His Son. The Deity in Christ is the Father. Only that Deity creates.

FROM HIM ALL THINGS COME. -One God the Father
THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS COME-One Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

Again, you have not answered the question „Is it possible to imagine the existence of the Son without creation?” You could have answered specifically. Let's do it again. In your opinion, does the Son of God have a purpose in existing without the existence of creation?

By the way, in Orthodox theology it is important to distinguish when we speak of God without the influence of creation or with creation. In your opinion, is it possible to speak of the Son without the influence of creation? I expect a short and clear answer, yes or no.

 

[LeviR]

Randy

Again, you have not answered the question „Is it possible to imagine the existence of the Son without creation?” You could have answered specifically. Let's do it again. In your opinion, does the Son of God have a purpose in existing without the existence of creation?

By the way, in Orthodox theology it is important to distinguish when we speak of God without the influence of creation or with creation. In your opinion, is it possible to speak of the Son without the influence of creation? I expect a short and clear answer, yes or no.

It’s impossible to think of the existence of a son without a father. A father comes before a son.
“Eternally begotten” is not only nonsensical absurdity, but unbiblical.
God doesn’t speak nonsense like the masses do.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

LeviR

But we are precisely criticizing the idea that the Father can exist without the Son. It is not absurd that there can be something eternal in eternity, just as there is duration in time.

 

[LeviR]

LeviR

But we are precisely criticizing the idea that the Father can exist without the Son. It is not absurd that there can be something eternal in eternity, just as there is duration in time.

The Father is called the Father for a reason. Just as His son is called the Son.
This language tells us that the Father is the Father of Jesus.
The language also tells us that the Father comes before His son in time.
All they do is bring confusion to the language when they speak the way they do.
They might just as well to have all of God’s son be “eternally begotten”
It’s nonsense.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

LeviR

In Christian theology, the person of the Son was not born of the Father „in time”.

 

[JLB]

Dr Daniel Wallace has the training you don't. He is a Trinitarian even so "He" was manifested in the flesh was his call. I posted the extensive notes for his reasoning. I emailed him and he agrees with the reasoning for "he" was manifested in the flesh. Many manuscripts were considered. The older sources were considered. It's all greek to me. Jesus did not receive His own Spirit from the Father. And there is only one. It's the Fathers Spirit without limit (fullness) that lives in Him. He stated the Father lived in Him.

It can't be "true" God FROM true God. It can be God from true God. But with only one Deity. The source Deity which has to be the Father as gifted to dwell in the Son. Col 1:19 The God and Father of Jesus as I read.

And I don't believe God shares your concept of a God such as Himself with no beginning.
"No God "was formed" before me." He's unbegotten so if He has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being yet HE, not me, stated in regard to a God such as Himself "was formed".

What do you mean who do I think Jesus is? I have stated it so many times.
He is Gods Firstborn and has always been the Son. Christ the Lord. One in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell and that from the will of another who defined His being. His GOD and FATHER.

I believe ALL that is written of Him not just a few select verses.

Who is in denial?
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

It's the Fathers Deity. Col 1:19 From HIM ALL THINGS COME. Didn't you read Jesus's words MY GOD and YOUR GOD. Does the Father have a God? We know He has a Son.

In the context of the nature found in the Son HE is God.

I asked a question. You gave a word salad.

Here’s a screenshot directly from the Strong’s Concordance for you to reference.




God - G2316 - Theos

This is where the word Theology comes from. It’s used contextually in the previous verse 15 twice and rendered as God both times. As we see God is the correct rendering.

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,(G2316) which is the church of the living God,(G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16


Randy, all you seem to be standing on is denial; denial of what the scriptures say over and over.


Who do you believe Jesus is ?

God
An angel
Man

 

[Randy]

I asked a question. You gave a word salad.

Here’s a screenshot directly from the Strong’s Concordance for you to reference.

View attachment 17619


God - G2316 - Theos

This is where the word Theology comes from. It’s used contextually in the previous verse 15 twice and rendered as God both times. As we see God is the correct rendering.

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,(G2316) which is the church of the living God,(G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16


Randy, all you seem to be standing on is denial; denial of what the scriptures say over and over.


Who do you believe Jesus is ?

God
An angel
Man

It's a lot more than that Bro.
Its all greek to me.

Dr Wallaces reasoning for "He" was manifested in the flesh.

1. 1 Timothy 3:16 tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ[88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅςintentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεόςwritten as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον(mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεόςhas to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός(Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tnGrk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic:an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

 

[JLB]

It's a lot more than that Bro.
Its all greek to me.

Dr Wallaces reasoning for "He" was manifested in the flesh.

1. 1 Timothy 3:16 tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ[88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅςintentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεόςwritten as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον(mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεόςhas to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός(Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tnGrk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic:an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

You keep posting the commentary of men in the face of scripture, while at the same time you ignore my question.

Please tells us who the only begotten Son of God is -

God - G2316 - Theos

This is where the word Theology comes from. It’s used contextually in the previous verse 15 twice and rendered as God both times. As we see God is the correct rendering.

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God,(G2316) which is the church of the living God,(G2316) the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God (2316) was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16


Randy, all you seem to be standing on is denial; denial of what the scriptures say over and over.


Who do you believe Jesus is ?

God
An angel
Man

 

[Randy]

Randy

Again, you have not answered the question „Is it possible to imagine the existence of the Son without creation?” You could have answered specifically. Let's do it again. In your opinion, does the Son of God have a purpose in existing without the existence of creation?

No as He is the beginning of the creation of God. A child of the Father. (His spirit) and the complete make up of His being. Col 1:19-From the will of another, gifted not formed

By the way, in Orthodox theology it is important to distinguish when we speak of God without the influence of creation or with creation. In your opinion, is it possible to speak of the Son without the influence of creation? I expect a short and clear answer, yes or no.

Again He's the beginning of the act of the creation and I'll add here the firstborn of all creation. Without the act of the creation there would be no Son.

The person of the Father is the only "true" God as Jesus stated.

Therefore this is not a possible answer
True God from True God

Jesus is the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. OR the only begotten God
God from true God It is the Fathers Deity that lives in Him hence Oneness Between The Father and Son. Not 2 Deities With the Father being the only true God or source God.
The Father is unbegotten and from Him all things come.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

I agree in part
Begotten of the Father alone before all things but not made

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;