The Trinity

[Randy]

Randy (I'm a "Randy too), the context is different in which the Psalmist says that "we are all gods." It is a reference to those divinely-endowed with leadership gifts, eg priests. We carry the authority of God when we lead in the Spirit of God.

The Psalmist appears to be acting sarcastic because he declares "we are gods, but we will die" (paraphrased). So this has nothing to do with angels.

God can appear in the form of an angel when understood as a theophany. God can appear in Person in human form or in angelic form. I'm not sure I know the difference, but it is what it is.

As to the Son's preexistence, you're right that he preexisted from eternity just as Deity is eternal in whatever temporal form He may appear. The Son appeared in the temporal form of a man, and yet His person is from eternity "with God."

It just means, in my view, that the temporal manifestation of God in human form issued from God in a form that truly depicted God. It is from God as Source, and it issues forth as God in whatever form God wishes to present Himself as a Person.

But this is so theoretical that it's really just my own self-indulgence in speculation. The Creeds are pretty clear that the Son is the eternal God as he appeared in human flesh.

Whether he can be called "the Son" before his incarnation is more or less a kind of language problem. He, the Son," previously existed with God from eternity. But he was not known as "the Son" until he came to be called that in his Incarnation.

Just my thoughts....

When you state Son then you believe He is a child of His God and Father?

Or you believe the Logos ceased to exist and became the Son and remained the Son?


"begotten, not made;" would state He was the Son before He became the Son of Man. Though how one is stated from any other person as a Son but has no beginning is a foundation of Mystery. How is a coeternal person from any other in any sense of the meaning of the word "from"? True God "from" true God. Jesus Himself calls His Father and God the only "true" God.

Do you state the Son of Man had the Spirit of a man? Though how one has a human body and a human spirit but is fully God has a foundation of Mystery. What part of Him was God? What part of Him descended from above and was in that body if not His own spirit? "Father into your hands I commit "MY" spirit". I know from above the Son who was, His spirit, was in the Body prepared for Him. I sought understanding from Him since a foundation of mystery didn't cut it and He answered. James 1:5

I have my Lords judgment on this, as I asked Him, and it's not what you believe to be true.
"The Firstborn of all creation" -He is Gods Firstborn and has always been Gods SON. And likewise, God has always been His Father and His God. From the will of another Col 1:19

There is a difference from Him being Deity and the Deity living "IN" Him. The Father is living in Him and they are one in that Deity. The Deity is the first and last. They are ONE and Jesus is ALL that the Father is in that oneness. (God) He is the image of the invisible God not the invisible God. One God and One Lord as Paul wrote. From the Father and through the Son as Paul wrote. The Deity of the Father in Him doing His work as Jesus stated. God spoke to us by His Son and God created by His Son. The throne of God and of the lamb forever.
Ref: "IN" Him. Col 1:19; Col 2:9

Is Jesus God?
The answer given to me from above to me
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

I have no need to convince anyone on who Jesus was and is but my answers, even though they are not liked, will never change.

 

[JLB]

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father begat the human Jesus the Son of God.

The Father beget the Son before the foundation of the world.

The Son created all things according to the will of the Father and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Son became flesh.

God (the Son; the Word) became flesh.

• the Word was God
• the Word became flesh

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-3,14

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB,

The Father beget the Son before the foundation of the world.

Are you suggesting that the Son did not exist until a certain point of time and then the Father begat him? Was this a direct creation of God the Son? How do you define the word "beget", and what was achieved?

The Son became flesh.
God (the Son; the Word) became flesh.

the Word became flesh

What does this actually mean from a Trinitarian perspective? Did God the Son cease from his Divinity and become flesh? or did he retain his Divinity and add flesh to his Divinity. A number of modern translations have "became flesh", while the KJV has "was made flesh". This KJV rendition seems closer to an act of creation, while these modern translations seem to indicate a swapping of natures, from a Deity to a human. Have you considered the meaning of the two words, "became" and "made"?
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Are you suggesting that the Son did not exist until a certain point of time and then the Father begat him?

Again you are equating begotten in earthly natural terms, which is ok because that is how we learn about these things.

However, when you try make the eternal and unimaginable things of eternity coequal with that which is finite and explainable and temporary then we are trying to fit the proverbial ocean in a bottle.

There will always be something left over that doesn’t fit.


Again as I said before God the Father is eternal.

What proceeds forth from Him is eternal, meaning it has no beginning or end.

That which proceeds forth from the Father has always “existed” and is therefore Himself the Beginning and the End.

 

[JLB]

What does this actually mean from a Trinitarian perspective?

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a Trinitarian.

 

[RandyK]

When you state Son then you believe He is a child of His God and Father?

Yes, Jesus is Son of God, ie child of his Father. And he is Son of Man, ie child of a human parent. But this is not incompatible with him also being from eternity, or being Divine.

Or you believe the Logos ceased to exist and became the Son and remained the Son?

No, the Word of God is God's eternal Word--the very means of Divine expression. That's how God created the world, and that's how He created the image of His Son in the form of a man.

God's Word is myseriously able to produce His own Personality in the form of temporal beings, whether human or angels. These are either theophanies or the Incarnation, or our human conception of the Trinity.

"begotten, not made;" would state He was the Son before He became the Son of Man. Though how one is stated from any other person as a Son but has no beginning is a foundation of Mystery. How is a coeternal person from any other in any sense of the meaning of the word "from"? True God "from" true God. Jesus Himself calls His Father and God the only "true" God.

The Son, who became known as such in time, is the eternally-generated Word of God assuming a temporal personal form of God's infinite Person. The finite, temporal form is not incompatible with God's infiinite Being.

The infinite absorbs the finite forms not as a contradiction, but as an expression of the same Being. They are conceived by us, therefore, as "additions" to Deity, being finite expressions of the same infinite Being. But they are not a different or "added" God.

Do you state the Son of Man had the Spirit of a man?

Of course! A man cannot be a "man" and not have a human spirit. A "man" is a human spirit that normally inhabits a human body. When a person dies he can be just the human spirit. But God intends to restore to him a new human body.

Though how one has a human body and a human spirit but is fully God has a foundation of Mystery. What part of Him was God?

The expression of God in human form--the entire expression, namely his physical and spiritual being as a man, as well as his verbalizations and activities, were the expression of the eternal God. And so, the Word of God is expressing the eternal Deity in a temporal way, defining Himself as a man together with all of his behaviors and speech.

I have my Lords judgment on this, as I asked Him, and it's not what you believe to be true.
"The Firstborn of all creation" -He is Gods Firstborn and has always been Gods SON. And likewise, God has always been His Father and His God. From the will of another Col 1:19

The "Firstborn" is related to how the term is used in the Law. There, it expresses the relationship of one dominant person among many.

But here, "Firstborn" expresses preeminence of Jesus among all people and all created things. As God he is preeminent, and as the Son of God he is Divine.

It relates to Jesus' Deity, rather than to his "pecking order" among men. It is expressing the "pecking order" between a temporal expression of God's Person and all of the things God created.

There is a difference from Him being Deity and the Deity living "IN" Him. The Father is living in Him and they are one in that Deity.

The sense of the habitation of Deity in man can easily be misconstrued. Sure, God lived "in Jesus." But that does not define the Deity of Jesus as a conjunctive unity, as if Jesus was just a mechanical expression of God's Being.

Any human being could on that basis claim to "be God" simply by stating that he was moved by God, or that God lives "in him."

The Deity is the first and last. They are ONE and Jesus is ALL that the Father is in that oneness. (God) He is the image of the invisible God not the invisible God.

You have a language problem here. If Jesus is the expressison of the infinite God in human flesh, then he *is* in fact that invisible God by identification, despite the fact that they can be distinguished as distinct Persons.

He is identified as such by his being an eternally generated expression of God's infinite Person. And so, Jesus is indeed that "invisible God" by way of identification, even if they are distinguished as separate Persons.

One God and One Lord as Paul wrote. From the Father and through the Son as Paul wrote. The Deity of the Father in Him doing His work as Jesus stated. God spoke to us by His Son and God created by His Son. The throne of God and of the lamb forever.
Ref: "IN" Him. Col 1:19; Col 2:9

Is Jesus God?
The answer given to me from above to me
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

If you're just stating that the Father and Son share "similar* attributes, or strictly identical attributes, then you're creating confusion. They share the same Divine attribute of being God's infinite Being. They differ in their attributes in the way the Source of a revelation differs from the expression He reveals.

I have no need to convince anyone on who Jesus was and is but my answers, even though they are not liked, will never change.

That's the very definition of "unteachable." I can see being inflexible on clear-cut matters. But this is the opposite of "clear-cut!" Would you be so dogmatic on how many angels you think can dance on the head of a pin?

But thanks for trying to explain. There are going to be language issues no matter how we express the Trinity. We just need to try to avoid the historic heretical language that leads us off the cliff?

 

[Free]

I understand that "it" is a valid translation and is rendered that way by a few translations:
John 1:3 (Tyndale): All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.

"It" isn't a valid translation because the context dictates that it cannot be. John has already told us in 1:1b that the Word was in close, interpersonal relationship with God, which is impossible for an "it." Persons are in relationship with other persons, not things.

Additionally, in verse 10, John says, "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him." That can only be speaking of Jesus, or rather the Son, yet, it says "the world was made through him." That can only refer to verses 1-3, which are the context. The Word cannot be both an "it" and a "he."

And this to some extent corresponds to the partial personification in the following:
Psalm 33:6,9 (KJV): 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

But in general, I am content with "him" as long as The Word is considered as a personification in John 1:1, similar as "her" for the Wise Woman WISDOM in Proverbs 8:
John 1:3 (KJV): All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Proverbs 8:1 (KJV): Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

Except that the Word cannot be a personification, given the context, and given that Jesus has the name "The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13).

I question if many Trinitarians really consider the meaning of the word "Word" in John 1:1. They simply in their mind substitute Jesus, or God the Son for the Word. In English we usually consider the word "word" as the spoken or written word. There appears to be a greater meaning to the word Logos, as we also derive the English word "logic" from this. This can then speak of the thoughts behind the spoken word, and also the plan and purpose of God.

"Logos in the Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration. The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are mot pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking" (Vern S. Poythress, Logic, p. 70).

"So logic or reason is an aspect of God's speaking. We can see this is true when God created the world in Genesis 1:1. His speech includes logical self-consistency and rationality. The same truth holds supremely for the eternal Word of God who is God. The eternal Word is the eternal speech of God. He is therefore also the eternal logic or reason of God, as an aspect of God's speech.

Logic, we said, is personal. Now it becomes more evident why it is personal. It is not only personal, but a person, namely, the Word of God. But we should be careful to underline the fact that this person, the second person of the Trinity, is much richer than our human conceptions, either of logic or of reason or of language as a whole. He is infinite, an infinite person with all the richness of God himself: 'for in him [Christ] the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily' (Col. 2:9)" (Logic, p. 71).

There is much more that can be added to the discussion of just what John means by Word and how it is that the Word is an actual person. It is worth noting that, according to Poythress, the "Jewish Targums, the Aramaic renderings of the Old Testament, sometimes use 'Word' to render the Tetragrammaton, the proper name of God" (Logic, p. 69). That would be significant for John's usage of Logos.

All of this is part of the wisdom and character of God, and all of this converges in Jesus, the child born to Mary and begotten by God the Father.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus is full of grace and truth, revealing the full character of God, his Father. All of God's word and purpose also converged in Jesus.

Again, "begotten," monogenes, does not refer to begetting as such, but to the uniqueness of Christ compared to all creation and those who are sons and daughters of God through adoption. Since John has already told us that the Word has always existed (1:1a), existed in close, interpersonal relationship with God (1:1b), and is therefore God in nature (1:1:c), he is placing the begotten Son in "eternity past," not in the incarnation, not in his physical birth in the person of Jesus.

"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" (Word Studies in the New Testament, M. R. Vincent).

"Monogenēs (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in Joh_1:18) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (tekna) of God" (Word Pictures in the New Testament, A. T. Robertson).

In my teenage years we were taught that there is only One God the Father and that Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, representing conception not incarnation.

Then you were taught incorrectly, apart from there being only one God.

The church teaching of the Trinity, seemed to me an obscure and confused teaching.

How would that mean it isn't true?

Possibly later I also became aware of another major important difference, that the Atonement is by means of Jesus as our representative, not as a substitute.

He is both. That Jesus died as our substitute is without question; that is the entire basis of our salvation.

 

[Free]

Greetings JLB,

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father begat the human Jesus the Son of God. He was a human and was mortal. He was crucified and died, but God raised him from the tomb and gave him eternal life and immortality. One God cannot create another God except in mythology.

You're assuming a certain meaning of monogenes. The doctrine of the Trinity refutes any idea that God created another God.

What does this actually mean from a Trinitarian perspective? Did God the Son cease from his Divinity and become flesh? or did he retain his Divinity and add flesh to his Divinity. A number of modern translations have "became flesh", while the KJV has "was made flesh". This KJV rendition seems closer to an act of creation, while these modern translations seem to indicate a swapping of natures, from a Deity to a human. Have you considered the meaning of the two words, "became" and "made"?
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

As I have pointed out several times, Phil. 2:6-8 is key. I have posted the following before, but you have left it largely unaddressed:

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)

This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1c--" 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 (the Son), 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.

He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends. And this fits the context. 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.

Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" (v. 3) and looked "not only to his own interests" (v. 4). It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he emptied "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbled "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."

You will never get the full picture until you start putting all these things together. A proper understanding of God and who Christ is must be able to account for all these passages, and more.

 

[RandyK]

"It" isn't a valid translation because the context dictates that it cannot be. John has already told us in 1:1b that the Word was in close, interpersonal relationship with God, which is impossible for an "it." Persons are in relationship with other persons, not things.

I would qualify your statement here, though it may not be worth taking the time because basically, the gist of what you're saying I'm in agreement with. Just to avoid confusion with those who've heard me describe things a little differently, I have to say this.

I think the "Word of God" is both an "It" and a "Him." It has to be both only out of language concerns, but not to deny that the "Word" is a "Him."

Language-wise, we would normally describe a "word" as a thing, and not a person. But in this unusual case, the context does explain that this "thing," this "It," is indeed a Person, the Divine Person we call "God."

We more specifically assign this "Word" the Personhood of the Son, because it is in the language of the "Word" that we understand the "Son" came into existence as a Man. That is, the Eternal Word of God assumed the form of a temporal (meaning appearing in time) human being, who is Jesus.

As a temporal human being, he did not stop being the Eternal Word of God because in assuming a human form he was being eternally generated from eternity, from the Eternal Word of God. God was revealing Himself in the form of a man, essentially expressing the Divine Personality as a distinct human person.

This is so difficult that language fails me. Leave it to say, I strongly agree with your claim that the Word of God is a "Him." If we disagree on it being an "It," is is only because you view this as an incompatibility whereas I do not view it as such. But your point was well made, in its context, and I subscribe to it as such.

John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking" (Vern S. Poythress, Logic, p. 70).

Yes, God's speech is organically linked to God as the Source of His Speech. I like how this is described as an "organic union." It is an eternity-based unity. We cannot understand the connection between the Unmoveable God before time and His Movements, or Speech in time. Clearly, God existed before time, and now exists in time!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB and Free,

However, when you try make the eternal and unimaginable things of eternity coequal with that which is finite and explainable and temporary then we are trying to fit the proverbial ocean in a bottle.

That is one way of trying to describe what is confused and contradictory.

"It" isn't a valid translation because the context dictates that it cannot be. ....The Word cannot be both an "it" and a "he."

I disagree. I have a great respect for Tyndale's sincere and honest translation both here and in other portions. I am happy with either "it" or "he" as explained earlier.

How would that mean it isn't true?

My perception that the Trinity is erroneous has not altered in the next 60 years.

He is both. That Jesus died as our substitute is without question; that is the entire basis of our salvation.

I cannot accept the substitution concept, but this is off topic.

As I have pointed out several times, Phil. 2:6-8 is key.

I accept that Philippians 2 is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus in his youth, and during the period before his ministry and during his ministry. This is our example.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Randy]

Yes, Jesus is Son of God, ie child of his Father. And he is Son of Man, ie child of a human parent. But this is not incompatible with him also being from eternity, or being Divine.

No, the Word of God is God's eternal Word--the very means of Divine expression. That's how God created the world, and that's how He created the image of His Son in the form of a man.

God's Word is myseriously able to produce His own Personality in the form of temporal beings, whether human or angels. These are either theophanies or the Incarnation, or our human conception of the Trinity.

The Son, who became known as such in time, is the eternally-generated Word of God assuming a temporal personal form of God's infinite Person. The finite, temporal form is not incompatible with God's infiinite Being.

The infinite absorbs the finite forms not as a contradiction, but as an expression of the same Being. They are conceived by us, therefore, as "additions" to Deity, being finite expressions of the same infinite Being. But they are not a different or "added" God.

Of course! A man cannot be a "man" and not have a human spirit. A "man" is a human spirit that normally inhabits a human body. When a person dies he can be just the human spirit. But God intends to restore to him a new human body.

The expression of God in human form--the entire expression, namely his physical and spiritual being as a man, as well as his verbalizations and activities, were the expression of the eternal God. And so, the Word of God is expressing the eternal Deity in a temporal way, defining Himself as a man together with all of his behaviors and speech.

The "Firstborn" is related to how the term is used in the Law. There, it expresses the relationship of one dominant person among many.

But here, "Firstborn" expresses preeminence of Jesus among all people and all created things. As God he is preeminent, and as the Son of God he is Divine.

It relates to Jesus' Deity, rather than to his "pecking order" among men. It is expressing the "pecking order" between a temporal expression of God's Person and all of the things God created.

The sense of the habitation of Deity in man can easily be misconstrued. Sure, God lived "in Jesus." But that does not define the Deity of Jesus as a conjunctive unity, as if Jesus was just a mechanical expression of God's Being.

Any human being could on that basis claim to "be God" simply by stating that he was moved by God, or that God lives "in him."

You have a language problem here. If Jesus is the expressison of the infinite God in human flesh, then he *is* in fact that invisible God by identification, despite the fact that they can be distinguished as distinct Persons.

He is identified as such by his being an eternally generated expression of God's infinite Person. And so, Jesus is indeed that "invisible God" by way of identification, even if they are distinguished as separate Persons.

If you're just stating that the Father and Son share "similar* attributes, or strictly identical attributes, then you're creating confusion. They share the same Divine attribute of being God's infinite Being. They differ in their attributes in the way the Source of a revelation differs from the expression He reveals.

That's the very definition of "unteachable." I can see being inflexible on clear-cut matters. But this is the opposite of "clear-cut!" Would you be so dogmatic on how many angels you think can dance on the head of a pin?

But thanks for trying to explain. There are going to be language issues no matter how we express the Trinity. We just need to try to avoid the historic heretical language that leads us off the cliff?

What part of Jesus that descended from above was in that body if not His own spirit?

Lots of words but either you are mistaken or He is. I going with you are the one mistaken.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

A being that has no beginning cannot be from any other person. The Father alone is unbegotten as He is the true God. It is His Deity without limit that lives in His Son.

A being that has no beginning can't be a Son of a Father nor should not have another are their God. Jesus is a Son and has a God and Father as He states in the gospels and in REV.

Things that are just stated so. He can't be from the Father if He always was nor would God be His Father,
Begotten, but not made
True God FROM True God.

Human body and human spirit but all of Him was God. Really?
Descended from above but the Spirit of the Son who was wasn't in that body as it's stated He had the spirit of a man. Then none of Jesus who was from above was in that body.

This is all that He committed into the Fathers hands on His way back.
"Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

 

[RandyK]

What part of Jesus that descended from above was in that body if not His own spirit?

Here's the thing. You're trying to impose material concepts on something that is clearly transcendent. Jesus descended from above, ie from some transcendent place that God inhabits--we cannot comprehend this because we're not God!

So what emerged from above was the generation from eternity of God's Word into a form that depicts who God from eternity looks like in a finite, created form. This obviously does not mean the finite, created form is not God. It just means that God's transcendent Being has the capacity to reveal Himself and extend Himself into our finite, created space, being expressed by God in a way we can only understand in our realm conceptually.

What we can understand is that God can draw a picture of Himself in our realm so that we can understand, in a sense, what He looks like. He can make Jesus to represent His Divine Person or Being, so that in another Person, a human Person, he can be understood as both man and God, the Son of God.

A being that has no beginning can't be a Son of a Father nor should not have another are their God. Jesus is a Son and has a God and Father as He states in the gospels and in REV.

The "Son of God" is the identification we use of Jesus as a representation from eternity of God. He emerges from eternity and as such is not just a successor of God in the form of a man, but much more, co-existent with God from eternity. The Son is therefore co-eternal with his Father, who sent him to us.

This is as much a formulation as an understanding. If you don't understand how to identify who Jesus is, then you will be unable to use the necessary Trinitarian terminology to express his eternal Deity along with his finite, human expression.

The term to express this is "Son of God." If you don't believe this suggests he is the eternal God, then you are not identifying Jesus properly for who he is. As much as "Son of God" seems to us to refer to a successive stage in time, he is actually generated from eternity, meaning that he is co-eternal with Deity.

Things that are just stated so. He can't be from the Father if He always was nor would God be His Father,

As I said, both Father and Son are co-eternal. The Father is eternal, and the Son is eternally generated from Deity. If you fail to identify Jesus as from eternity then you are either an Arian or some kind of humanist or Ebionite.

Human body and human spirit but all of Him was God. Really?

Yes, as I said, the human body, spirit, and activity of Jesus is a picture drawn by the Word of God, which is easily capable of expressing God in this way. He is being expressed as such from eternity. He is being expressed from eternity and into time.

The Word of God can draw pictures indicating Creation or the picture of His Son in human form. But the pictures God draws are realities, and not just abstract references.

Jesus is truly God, even though his appearance is in time with created flesh. That created flesh emerged from eternity by the Word of God who drew that picture to indicate this.

That is, God created something that emerges from eternity as a picture of God in time. We just can't fully comprehend this. It's a concept, and either believed or not.

 

[Free]

I disagree. I have a great respect for Tyndale's sincere and honest translation both here and in other portions. I am happy with either "it" or "he" as explained earlier.

But, you have no grounds for disagreeing; that is the issue. You continue to believe in whatever you want to believe, even when it has been shown to you that your beliefs are not biblical. The context of John 1:3 shows that the Word is a person and is rightly "he."

Once again, you don't actually address the arguments and biblical support I have given.

My perception that the Trinity is erroneous has not altered in the next 60 years.

Okay, but your argument was that you find it "obscure and confused." But, just because you do doesn't mean that it is false. It could simply be that you haven't studied it well enough, which seems to be the case.

I accept that Philippians 2 is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus in his youth, and during the period before his ministry and during his ministry. This is our example.

Yes, Jesus is our example in humility, but you're ignoring the actual words and claims made in Phil. 2 to show exactly why he is our example. You continually leave unaddressed the hardest things for your position to take into account. You will never come to a correct understanding of what the Bible states about God if you ignore that which your current understanding cannot account for.

 

[Randy]

Here's the thing. You're trying to impose material concepts on something that is clearly transcendent. Jesus descended from above, ie from some transcendent place that God inhabits--we cannot comprehend this because we're not God!

If the spirit of the Son who was wasn't in the body prepared for Him then none of Him descended. If the spirit of the Son who was was in the body prepared for Him then all of Him descended. What I'm trying to do is show things are just stated so without any reasonable explanation. God is Spirit. If Jesus had a human body and a human spirit what part of Him was God?
It was His spirit -"Father into your hands I commit MY spirit"
Jesus calls the Father the only true God. If He always was and always was God how does this believe in one God for He stated, "Father into your hands I commit My spirit"?

So what emerged from above was the generation from eternity of God's Word into a form that depicts who God from eternity looks like in a finite, created form. This obviously does not mean the finite, created form is not God. It just means that God's transcendent Being has the capacity to reveal Himself and extend Himself into our finite, created space, being expressed by God in a way we can only understand in our realm conceptually.

What we can understand is that God can draw a picture of Himself in our realm so that we can understand, in a sense, what He looks like. He can make Jesus to represent His Divine Person or Being, so that in another Person, a human Person, he can be understood as both man and God, the Son of God.

The "Son of God" is the identification we use of Jesus as a representation from eternity of God. He emerges from eternity and as such is not just a successor of God in the form of a man, but much more, co-existent with God from eternity. The Son is therefore co-eternal with his Father, who sent him to us.

What I can understand is Jesus, (His spirit), is God's first begotten and in Him was pleased to dwell all the fullness of the Deity from the will of another. His spirit is not that Deity. The true God is the Father. The Son is the only begotten of His God and Father.
Coeternal persons can not be from any other person. Nor would they have a Father. They have no beginning.
What is stated so, "true God FROM true God".
Begotten 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;

This is as much a formulation as an understanding. If you don't understand how to identify who Jesus is, then you will be unable to use the necessary Trinitarian terminology to express his eternal Deity along with his finite, human expression.

I understand Jesus calls the Father the only true God and His God and Father.

The term to express this is "Son of God." If you don't believe this suggests he is the eternal God, then you are not identifying Jesus properly for who he is. As much as "Son of God" seems to us to refer to a successive stage in time, he is actually generated from eternity, meaning that he is co-eternal with Deity.

Hebrews 1 It's about the Son not the Christ and its stated God created the creation through Him.
The church -the eternally begotten Son. If He was not the Fathers Son then whose Son was He? He is the Firstborn. God brought Him into the world. Hebrews 1:6 And then commands all His angels to bow to Him.
Interesting the writer of Hebrews didn't state the Church of God or the Church of Christ. He stated the church of the Firstborn. Why? Because Jesus is Gods firstborn.
Nicene creed -"through him all things were made."
Paul-All things are from the Father and through the Son.

As I said, both Father and Son are co-eternal. The Father is eternal, and the Son is eternally generated from Deity. If you fail to identify Jesus as from eternity then you are either an Arian or some kind of humanist or Ebionite.

I state the Father alone is unbegotten. Jesus, His spirit, is the Fathers first begotten and the Deity that lives in Him was gifted not formed. Col 1:19

Yes, as I said, the human body, spirit, and activity of Jesus is a picture drawn by the Word of God, which is easily capable of expressing God in this way. He is being expressed as such from eternity. He is being expressed from eternity and into time.

It's just stating something is so without any explanation other than mystery. If He had a human body and soul what part of Him was God?
Actually, Jesus stated it was the Father living in Him doing His work as in these last days God has spoken to us by His Son.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

Clearly then God is also capable of living in another without Limit and being one in Deity with that other and Jesus is the only begotten God.

The Word of God can draw pictures indicating Creation or the picture of His Son in human form. But the pictures God draws are realities, and not just abstract references.

Jesus is truly God, even though his appearance is in time with created flesh. That created flesh emerged from eternity by the Word of God who drew that picture to indicate this.

Jesus calls the Father the only true God. The Father alone is unbegotten.

That is, God created something that emerges from eternity as a picture of God in time. We just can't fully comprehend this. It's a concept, and either believed or not.

I can and do understand Jesus has a God and Father and is Gods first begotten. Your foundation is just things stated so with a foundation of mystery. I suppose one could state anything with the reasoning of MYSTERY.

 

[RandyK]

If the spirit of the Son who was wasn't in the body prepared for Him then none of Him descended. If the spirit of the Son who was was in the body prepared for Him then all of Him descended. What I'm trying to do is show things are just stated so without any reasonable explanation. God is Spirit. If Jesus had a human body and a human spirit what part of Him was God?

Jesus did have a human body and a human spirit, and all of him was God, body and spirit. The Word of God from eternity created a revelation in time of God's own infinite Person.

The Son of God was a self-expression of God who became revealed as a man, body and spirit, in time. The transcendent God condensed His expression down into a human revelation of God that we could experience. We simply cannot understand how--just that He did.

Deity isn't poured in the man Jesus to make him Divine. If that was true, anybody receiving the Holy Spirit would become Divine.

Rather, Deity became, through revelation, a condensed form of Deity in the man Jesus. Deity does not make us, through revelation, people with a Divine Personality. Only the man Jesus was created, as a revelation from eternity, to exhibit God's uniquely Divine Personality.

You may not be able to understand these things. I don't think any of us has the language and understanding down. But I think it's important to see both Father and Son as Divine by virtue of their being co-eternal. The Son sprang from eternity. And the Father, in eternity, sent forth the revelation of His Son.