The Trinity

[JLB]

I might ask you the same thing. Hebrews 1:8 is about a man. Hebrews 1:10 is about YHWH, a name Jesus is never called. Rightly divide the Scripture and dig into the language because the Bible has been fiddled with by people with an agenda.

Jesus as the LORD God; God the Son created the heavens and the earth.

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10

The Son is referred to as God, and LORD; YHWH the LORD GOD.

Jesus is God the Son.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus as the LORD God; God the Son created the heavens and the earth.

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10

The Son is referred to as God, and LORD; YHWH the LORD GOD.

Jesus is God the Son.

Not according to Scripture.

I see Hebrews 1:8 is quoted in Psalm 45:6 where the original context is about a man called "God" in most translations, but the chapter doesn't describe God. Among other things, it says this man has a queen, but God doesn't have a queen. He's called "elohim" in Psalm 45:6 which would be a judge or ruler in this context, but not God Almighty. The Trinitarian version is simply dogmatic, but it gives the wrong idea and only causes confusion.

When Psalm 45:6 was transferred to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8, it doesn't follow that Jesus is being called God Almighty.

There are more clues from the passage. For example, God Almighty never had companions to be anointed more than (or above) since God is already above all.

This is the issue with proof texting. One can quote a single sound bite from the Bible and misrepresent it to mean something that the context doesn't support.

 

[Free]

You're imposing Trinitarian theology onto the miscellaneous contexts.

No, I'm letting those texts speak for themselves while taking into account the greater context of Scripture. It is you that is imposing unitarian theology onto Scripture. A unitarian view of God (that he is one person) is utterly deficient and makes God less than he is.

For example, Jesus isn't stated to have pre-existed as either Lord or Messiah, but rather was chosen/anointed/empower/turned into both Lord and Christ after he was already a man. See Acts 2:36, Acts 10:37,38

But he is clearly stated to have pre-existed. He said so himself several times.

Furthermore, John the Baptist didn't state that Jesus was before him chronologically speaking. The word "before" in John 1:30 refers to Jesus having surpassed John in importance.

Speaking of imposing one's views on the text . . . Your claim now makes John say this:

Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who [has surpassed me in importance], because he [has surpassed me in importance].’ At best. It is more problematic than that if we leave all the text in there.

Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ (ESV)

John is saying that Jesus surpassed him in importance because he existed before him. That is the clear meaning of this verse. More than that, we have the context of John 1:1-18:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
...
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

Notice that in verse 15 is where John first mentions John the Baptist's claim. This is in the context of creation through Jesus, or rather, the Son, whom John refers to as the Word. Not one thing came into existence apart from the Word, which means the Word is eternal and God in nature. John then clearly links the Word to Jesus in verse 10.

John the Baptist is clearly and unequivocally stating that Jesus is superior to him because is existed prior to him, which John the Apostle shows to be the case because the Son is the pre-existent Word.

I am not sure what your point is with Philippians 2:5-8. It explicitly tells the Philippians to have the same mind as Jesus who did not consider equality with God, but I will note you're still imposing theology onto the passage. Emptied himself of what? Your conclusion seems to be that Jesus pre-existed as someone or something else before being a human, but no one ever said that in the Bible.

Again, you're completely ignoring context. You're actually completely ignoring the content itself. It's like you read verse 5 and then skip to verse 9. I choose to let the text speak for itself.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself. (cf. 2 Cor 8:9)
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?
6. He "humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).
7. He is given “the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is language used of God:

Isa 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ (ESV)

This is why Christians rightly worship Christ as God. The only logical conclusion is that he did pre-exist, in the form of God, in the nature of God. This is completely consistent with what John says, which is based directly on what Jesus said.

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

Whoever said Jesus was incarnated anywhere in the Bible?

You do realize that "incarnate" means "invested with bodily and especially human nature and form" and "to give bodily form and substance to" (HERE), yes?

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (ESV)

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (ESV)

Was Jesus in bodily form, with human nature?

 

[Free]

The Jews misunderstood Jesus since there are many sons of God who are not themselves God. They having amnesia or scriptural illiteracy isn't a good reason to try to kill someone. All they needed to do is read Psalm 82:6 that claiming to be God's son is not blasphemy nor a claim to being equal with God.

And you don't find it important that we are never told that the Jews misunderstood Jesus? It is only your assumption that they misunderstood. You are once again reading your beliefs into the texts rather than letting them speak for themselves. That the Jews correctly understood Jesus's claim is implied by the silence of both John and Jesus, and is fully consistent with John's gospel and his portrayal of just who the Son of God is.

Jesus never corrects his disciples when they worship him, which happened on several occasions, nor does he correct Thomas when he exclaims that Jesus is the Lord of him and the God of him.

Jesus explicitly stated God is greater than himself which would be a denial of being equal with God in John 14:28.

How so, exactly? You need to show how that is the case. You make a lot of claims but don't provide much in way of good reasoning and evidence. Again, Phil. 2:5-8 is key (as are John 1:1-3, 10, 14; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10-12). Doesn't Paul clearly state that the Son willingly put himself in subjection to the Father for the purposes of redemption?

You're falsely equating function with nature.

Yes Jesus is called "a Son" many times in the Bible. Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 3:6, Hebrews 5:8, Hebrews 7:28, etc.

And? Is that supposed to do away with the numerous times that Jesus is clearly stated to be the Son of God, the one and only, unique (meaning of monogenes) Son of God. That some instances allow for the understanding of "a Son" in no way whatsoever contradicts or undermines that.

Joh 20:31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (ESV)

If you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, if he is just another son of God, you have no life in his name.

Yes. All of the sons of God have God's nature and their nature didn't make them become God or equal with God.

No. Did the sons of God that you appealed to in Psalm 82:6 have God's nature? How many are said to be "begotten," the "unique" or "one and only," of the Father? How are believers said to be children of God?

 

[JLB]

I see Hebrews 1:8 is quoted in Psalm 45:6 where the original context is about a man called "God" in most translations, but the chapter doesn't describe God.

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
Psalm 45:6

Nothing here about a man called God.

 

[Free]

I might ask you the same thing. Hebrews 1:8 is about a man. Hebrews 1:10 is about YHWH, a name Jesus is never called. Rightly divide the Scripture and dig into the language because the Bible has been fiddled with by people with an agenda.

Speaking of rightly dividing the Scripture, you're ignoring the very clear statements made in Heb. 1.

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
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. (ESV)

First, that God created the world through the Son is logically impossible if the Son didn't exist prior to the world being created. Your position makes this statement false.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says,
...
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.” (ESV)

Second, we know that in verse 8, it is the Father speaking "of the Son." We know from basic grammar that it is also the Father speaking "of the Son" in verses 10-12. There, the Father is saying the Son "laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." Etc. That is, it is completely consistent with verse 2--"his Son . . . through whom also he created the world."

More than that, in doing so, the Father also says, "You, Lord." We know that the Father is said to be quoting from Psalm 102:25-27, which is speaking of of God, Yahweh. The only conclusion from this is that the Father is saying the Son is also Yahweh. It can mean nothing else. This is very basic biblical interpretation based on basic grammar.

 

[Randy]

I guess I should have read this post prior to previous response. For you, then, "begotten" means "to come into being," which is no different than "created" or "made." It also means that the Son was the first thing to come into being, the beginning of creation, and that contradicts John 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17.

I believe it means bringing a child into existence. There is no historical use of that word to show a child born of parents that has no beginning. John would not carry that alternate meaning. That is begotten but not made.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

Greek Concordance: μονογενὴς (monogenēs) -- 4 Occurrences

Yes, one in essence.


How does your conclusion follow? You need to show how, logically, his being coeternal precludes him from being a Son. And, as I have pointed out at least twice, you continually conflate "Jesus the God-man," born of Mary, with "the Son" who existed prior to creation. Get that sorted out and you'll easily see how Jesus could claim the Father was his God.

My logic? How does a coeternal being have a Father and God? How's a coeternal true God being "from" any other?
Jesus is Gods first begotten child. In Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell. Through Him, by Him and "for" Him God our Father brought all things into existance.

Can a Father be a Father without a Son? What was the Father then (supposedly) before he begat the Son? Who did he love so that John could say that love is intrinsic to his nature?

God became a Father with the birth of His Firstborn by His own Spirit. He is Jesus's God and Father.

Jesus is the Son, is he not? Did not the Jews also recognize that his being the Son of God was an implicit claim to equality with God and wanted to kill him for it (John 5:18; 10:33)? Was that not the reason given for his crucifixion, as blasphemy (Matt. 26:63-65; Luke 22:70-71)?

A like to like begotten Son. In Christ all the fullness of the Deity was pleased to dwell. God our Father is the only true Deity in Himself. Like gives birth to like so that's why they concluded He was calling Himself equal to God. But we agree He is Gods Son like no other. The only begotten God. You just add not made.

What word?


Of course there isn't. Why would there be when Jesus was the first?


Of course it doesn't mean "coeternal," but it necessarily implies it. The Greek monogenes actually means "unique" or "one and only." It is used to refer to the "only child" in the NT, not the act of begetting.

First, monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” and does not refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time. Monogenes really just means "unique," "only," "one and only."

Second, there are at least five words—gennao, sullambano, tithemi, koite, and katabole—that are translated (by the KJV) as “conceive” or “conceived,” but never monogenes.

Third, each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18. We already know from John 1:1-3 that the preincarnate Son “was with God and was God,” which completely rules out the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist. So, verse 18 can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.” That being so, it simply cannot be speaking of conception; that does not at all fit the context nor the usage of monogenes.

Here is M. R. Vincent on John 1:14's use of monogenes:

"Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation."


But, you cannot have "a God" or "a god" even from the true God. There is only one God and ever will be only one, according to God himself. That is just one of the significant issues with your position--it leads to unbiblical polytheism.

The deiy in the Son doesn't change. It's the Deity of the Source true God our Father who Jesus calls the only true God. This is not a possible answer : True God "FROM" True God. The Father has not received from any other being. He alone is unbegotten and the Father and God of all beings including His own Son. If Jesus wasn't His own Son in the beginning whose Son was He? How is the true God begotten as a Son from any other?

According to the doctrine of the Trinity, yes, but not according to your position.

The trinity is from man and introduced error not found in the NT.
Jesus calls the Father the only true God.
Jesus states the source of the truth He testified to is God our/His Father.
Yet you have difficulty accepting the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of the only true God or Father.
They shall all be taught by God. Those who listen and learn from the FATHER go to His Son.

Everyone uses reasoning; it depends on whether it is good or poor reasoning. How can the Son be all that the Father is if he isn't eternal? How can the Son be of a different nature than his Father? How can God be love since love requires an object, if the Son didn't always exist?

Already explained several times but you can not accept it. The Deity of the Father in fullness dwells/lives in the Son and they are one. How can the Father and Jesus be one in that manner yet Jesus is not all that His Father is?They are ONE in that joining of that one Deity which is from, as are all things, God our Father who is the only true Deity/God.

Exactly, which means that the Son necessarily must have always existed. However, according to your position, he came into being, which means that God did not create all things by the Son, because the Son himself was created. Calling his creation "begetting" doesn't change that.

He's the beginning of the creation of God and the Firstborn of all creation. Gods Firstborn

I don't understand the question. The Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, which is said to be both the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God.

You don't understand that the source of truth Jesus testified to is God our Father? The Spirit of truth, the Spirit of the only true God is the Fathers. The Fathers own Spirit would have the Fathers nature.

Again, if "firstborn" means he came into existence, then John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:8-12 are false. One of the main points in those passages is that not a single thing came into existence without the Son. But, you are saying something did come into existence without the Son, namely, the Son himself. That makes those verses false.

There is no history of the usage of the word firstborn or first begotten to show a child of a parent brought into existence with NO beginning. Sorry I disagree with the stated begotten but not made.
As I have stated I agree in part.
Begotten of the Father alone before all things but not made.

I don't see how this addresses what I posted. The point is, Israel was not the first "people" on the earth, but God appointed them to be his firstborn.

God's firstborn would be a being not a people. And such a being would make such a statement, "before Abraham was BORN I am" You don't understand that Gods literal firstborn, no matter who you believe that to be would be a BEING? Or maybe you just can't accept Jesus as that being? He is Gods Son from the beginning isn't HE? Who would be a Son of the Father before Him?

Again, you missed the point. It is the use of "firstborn" that we are concerned with. And, again, David was not the first person ever born nor even the first Israelite, but was appointed the firstborn, a position of preeminence,"the highest of the kings of the earth."

The most exalted is the Christ not David.
And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

God didn't make Davis His firstborn but appoints HIS firstborn to Davids line, the Christ.
The Christ is forever and God fulfills His promise to David in Jesus.
I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure.

 

[JLB]

I believe it means bringing a child into existence. There is no historical use of that word to show a child born of parents that has no beginning. John would not carry that alternate meaning. That is begotten but not made.

If the child was begotten from that which is eternal, having no beginning or end, then that which is begotten has no beginning or end.

 

[Free]

I believe it means bringing a child into existence. There is no historical use of that word to show a child born of parents that has no beginning. John would not carry that alternate meaning. That is begotten but not made.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

Greek Concordance: μονογενὴς (monogenēs) -- 4 Occurrences

It doesn't mean "bringing a child into existence." I provided much on this already. Did you even look at what the link to monogenes shows? Did you note the repeated word, "only"? It has to do with the relationship of an only child, who already exists, with the parent(s) and doesn't speak to the actual begetting or bringing of a child into existence.

As I stated previously, monogenes means "only," "one and only," and "unique." And that is the sense John is using it.

My logic? How does a coeternal being have a Father and God? How's a coeternal true God being "from" any other?

There is no coeternal "being." The language used of the Trinity is very important. There is only one Being that is God and he exists as three coequal, coeternal Persons.

Jesus is Gods first begotten child.

Which we know doesn't mean that he came into being. Indeed it cannot without contradicting numerous passages.

In Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

Again, you're conflating the incarnate Son as Jesus the God-man, with the pre-existent Son. You must stop doing this.

Through Him, by Him and "for" Him God our Father brought all things into existance.

Exactly. And the only logical conclusion is that the Son cannot have come into existence. If the Son came into existence, as you claim, then he is one thing that came into existence apart from himself. That makes the claims that "all things came into existence through the Son" completely false. They cannot be true. This is basic logic.

God became a Father with the birth of His Firstborn by His own Spirit. He is Jesus's God and Father.

The Father has always been the Father because he has always had the Son. If the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and he is, then it necessarily follows that he has always existed, because the Father's nature is absolute, self-existence.

A like to like begotten Son. In Christ all the fullness of the Deity was pleased to dwell. God our Father is the only true Deity in Himself. Like gives birth to like so that's why they concluded He was calling Himself equal to God. But we agree He is Gods Son like no other. The only begotten God. You just add not made.

The deiy in the Son doesn't change.

I agree. He has always been God in nature.

It's the Deity of the Source true God our Father who Jesus calls the only true God. This is not a possible answer : True God "FROM" True God.

And, as I've pointed out, "God from true God" is not a possible answer.

The Father has not received from any other being. He alone is unbegotten

Of course.

and the Father and God of all beings including His own Son.

The Son is not a separate being.

If Jesus wasn't His own Son in the beginning whose Son was He? How is the true God begotten as a Son from any other?

This has nothing to do with the Trinity.

The trinity is from man and introduced error not found in the NT.

It is the best explanation of what God has revealed of himself in the Bible, being based fully on what the Bible states.

Jesus calls the Father the only true God.

And also claimed to be the I Am.

Jesus states the source of the truth He testified to is God our/His Father.

Once again, you're conflating the incarnate Son as Jesus, who submitted himself to the Father, with the eternally preexistent Son. Again, Phil. 2:5-8 is key.

Yet you have difficulty accepting the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of the only true God or Father.
They shall all be taught by God. Those who listen and learn from the FATHER go to His Son.

No, there is no difficulty on my part.

Already explained several times but you can not accept it. The Deity of the Father in fullness dwells/lives in the Son and they are one. How can the Father and Jesus be one in that manner yet Jesus is not all that His Father is?They are ONE in that joining of that one Deity which is from, as are all things, God our Father who is the only true Deity/God.

I have not denied anything. The issue, again, is that you're continually conflating the incarnate Son as Jesus the God-man with the pre-existent Son. This really muddles things up.

He's the beginning of the creation of God and the Firstborn of all creation. Gods Firstborn

We've been over this. The Bible uses "firstborn" in different ways that have nothing to do with being born. It can speak of simply the position and role of one who is as a firstborn son, even though they're not actually so. It speaks of preeminence

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

We can see very clearly here that if "firstborn of all creation" literally means that the Son was "born," that he came into being," then verses 16 and 17 are completely false. All things could not have been created "by him" and "through him" if he is one of those things. He cannot be "before all things" if he is one of those things. Your position continually leads to such irreconcilable contradictions.

You don't understand that the source of truth Jesus testified to is God our Father? The Spirit of truth, the Spirit of the only true God is the Fathers. The Fathers own Spirit would have the Fathers nature.

As I have pointed out many times before, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, is also called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of his Son, and the Spirit of Jesus Christ, all while the Holy Spirit remains a distinct person from both the Father and the Son. Such is the intimate, interpersonal relationship of the three persons.

There is no history of the usage of the word firstborn or first begotten to show a child of a parent brought into existence with NO beginning.

Which, as I have shown, is not relevant.

Sorry I disagree with the stated begotten but not made.
As I have stated I agree in part.
Begotten of the Father alone before all things but not made.

Again, basic logic is your enemy here. Maybe that is why you are avoiding actually addressing the argument and simply stating your disagreement with it. You know the logic is sound and so have no counter-argument that can be made.

God's firstborn would be a being not a people.

Which is not relevant to how the word "firstborn" is used. This is basic biblical interpretation.

And such a being would make such a statement, "before Abraham was BORN I am" You don't understand that Gods literal firstborn, no matter who you believe that to be would be a BEING? Or maybe you just can't accept Jesus as that being?

I have no idea what you're asking with these questions.

He is Gods Son from the beginning isn't HE?

According to John 1:1-2, and supported by many other verses in the NT, when the beginning began, the Word (the Son) was already in existence. That is precisely why in verse 3 John can say that "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV). That is completely consistent with the Son already being in existence when the beginning began. If the Son came into being, then he would have been the beginning and so could not have had all things made through him.

Who would be a Son of the Father before Him?

What does this have to do with anything?

The most exalted is the Christ not David.
And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.

God didn't make Davis His firstborn but appoints HIS firstborn to Davids line, the Christ.
The Christ is forever and God fulfills His promise to David in Jesus.
I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure.

Again, you missed the point. It is the use of "firstborn" that we are concerned with. And, again, David was not the first person ever born nor even the first Israelite, but was appointed the firstborn, a position of preeminence,"the highest of the kings of the earth."

 

[Randy]

It doesn't mean "bringing a child into existence." I provided much on this already. Did you even look at what the link to monogenes shows? Did you note the repeated word, "only"? It has to do with the relationship of an only child, who already exists, with the parent(s) and doesn't speak to the actual begetting or bringing of a child into existence.

As I stated previously, monogenes means "only," "one and only," and "unique." And that is the sense John is using it.


There is no coeternal "being." The language used of the Trinity is very important. There is only one Being that is God and he exists as three coequal, coeternal Persons.


Which we know doesn't mean that he came into being. Indeed it cannot without contradicting numerous passages.


Again, you're conflating the incarnate Son as Jesus the God-man, with the pre-existent Son. You must stop doing this.


Exactly. And the only logical conclusion is that the Son cannot have come into existence. If the Son came into existence, as you claim, then he is one thing that came into existence apart from himself. That makes the claims that "all things came into existence through the Son" completely false. They cannot be true. This is basic logic.


The Father has always been the Father because he has always had the Son. If the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and he is, then it necessarily follows that he has always existed, because the Father's nature is absolute, self-existence.


I agree. He has always been God in nature.


And, as I've pointed out, "God from true God" is not a possible answer.


Of course.


The Son is not a separate being.


This has nothing to do with the Trinity.


It is the best explanation of what God has revealed of himself in the Bible, being based fully on what the Bible states.


And also claimed to be the I Am.


Once again, you're conflating the incarnate Son as Jesus, who submitted himself to the Father, with the eternally preexistent Son. Again, Phil. 2:5-8 is key.


No, there is no difficulty on my part.


I have not denied anything. The issue, again, is that you're continually conflating the incarnate Son as Jesus the God-man with the pre-existent Son. This really muddles things up.


We've been over this. The Bible uses "firstborn" in different ways that have nothing to do with being born. It can speak of simply the position and role of one who is as a firstborn son, even though they're not actually so. It speaks of preeminence

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

We can see very clearly here that if "firstborn of all creation" literally means that the Son was "born," that he came into being," then verses 16 and 17 are completely false. All things could not have been created "by him" and "through him" if he is one of those things. He cannot be "before all things" if he is one of those things. Your position continually leads to such irreconcilable contradictions.


As I have pointed out many times before, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of God, is also called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of his Son, and the Spirit of Jesus Christ, all while the Holy Spirit remains a distinct person from both the Father and the Son. Such is the intimate, interpersonal relationship of the three persons.


Which, as I have shown, is not relevant.


Again, basic logic is your enemy here. Maybe that is why you are avoiding actually addressing the argument and simply stating your disagreement with it. You know the logic is sound and so have no counter-argument that can be made.


Which is not relevant to how the word "firstborn" is used. This is basic biblical interpretation.


I have no idea what you're asking with these questions.


According to John 1:1-2, and supported by many other verses in the NT, when the beginning began, the Word (the Son) was already in existence. That is precisely why in verse 3 John can say that "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV). That is completely consistent with the Son already being in existence when the beginning began. If the Son came into being, then he would have been the beginning and so could not have had all things made through him.


What does this have to do with anything?


Again, you missed the point. It is the use of "firstborn" that we are concerned with. And, again, David was not the first person ever born nor even the first Israelite, but was appointed the firstborn, a position of preeminence,"the highest of the kings of the earth."

We are never going to agree.