jonathanbrickman0000
Member
- Jan 14, 2025
- 196
- 89
They who are One, who are God. But do not forget, that anyone who saw the Son, saw the Father.
The Trinity
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,144
- 8,202
Not one person here has said that or insinuated that.
Please address the scriptures I gave you.
Jesus is returning with the saints on the Day of the LORD.
so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints. 1 Thessalonians 3:13
Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,
And your spoil will be divided in your midst…
Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:1,5
- Thus the LORD my God will come, and all the saints with You
The LORD YHWH is returning with the saints at His coming.
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, Jude 14
Jesus is YHWH, the LORD God of the Old Testament who became flesh.
He is not God the Father. He is God’s Son; His only Begotten Son.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8
The book of Revelation is the book revealing who Jesus is.
“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Revelation 22:12-13
“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6
“Listen to Me, O Jacob,
And Israel, My called:
I am He, I am the First,
I am also the Last.
Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth,
And My right hand has stretched out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:12-13
- My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens;
But to the Son He says:
- You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands
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
Please compare what Isaiah says with Hebrews.
The work of creation in the beginning of laying the foundation of the earth and stretching out the heavens is attributed to the Son.
JLB
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,035
- 6,249
What does the text actually say?
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (ESV)
We would do well to just leave it at what the text says--it is knowing both the Father and the Son.
I don't understand what your point is.
If this is a verse, you must provide the book, chapter, and verse, and preferably the version.
Yes, I know, I already agreed and have never said otherwise. It was a work of the Trinity. But, that has nothing to do with my point, which was:
That if everything was created through the Son, if everything that ever came into existence had its beginning through the Son, then the Son must always have existed. There is no other logical conclusion.
No. If he is all that the Father is, then he is also self-existent, having always existed. If "he can and is called Mighty God," then it can only be because he actually is the Mighty God. And, again, you're conflating the Son's preexistence with his physical existence as Jesus. You really need to sort that out as it completely muddles your theology.
Okay, so your position is almost identical to the heresy of Adoptionism. The only logical conclusion, based on passages I have given, and many others, is that the Son is deity in and of himself. That is exactly what John 1:1-18 show us; that is John's entire point, as it carries throughout his gospel to the very end. "The Word was God."
Please stop repeating this as you're not actually making a counter argument and I have stated a few times now that I agree. Yes, the Father created by his Son, but the Son had to already be in existence in order for everything that ever came into existence through or by him.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)
If the Son, the Word, was not already in existence prior to even just one thing being made (coming into existence), then what John says here is false. So, if the Son didn't exist and came into existence, then it is absolutely not true that "All things were made through him." It is illogical to say that he was made through himself.
Your position is self-contradictory, since you believe that "all things" excludes the Son. But, if even one thing is excluded, such as the Son, then "all things" doesn't mean "all things." Even the JWs recognize the problem, at least in Col. 1:16-17, and so falsely insert "other" into the English text of the NWT four times to say "all other things."
Similarly, it would be false to say "without him was not any thing made that was made," since he could not have been made without already having been in existence.
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
Again, the issue is that you're denying the obvious, logical conclusion: if "From God our Father ALL things come," points to is absolute existence, then "through whom are all things" points to the Son's absolute existence. Again, the conclusion is inescapable as the argument is sound.
And, again, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord, in contradiction to numerous passages.
Just like every other anti-Trinitarian, you have not been able to provide a solution to these two logical problems.
Again, because there is only one true God and every other god is a false god, there is no such thing as the Father being true God and the Son is God in a lesser sense. Besides, as I pointed out, God says there would be no other god. Full stop. This means that the Son absolutely cannot be God without being the true God just as the Father is.
You prefer your understanding of his truth, which stands in contradiction to his truth. If the one true God came and took on human flesh, how else should he have acted and spoken while upholding biblical monotheism?
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,035
- 6,249
Then, according to your position, the Son came into existence only at the birth of Jesus, and did not exist prior to that as John and numerous other passages attest to; indeed, as Jesus himself states. Now your position is almost identical to the heresy of Adoptionism.
If he is not coeternal, then by definition he cannot be God and cannot be all that the Father is. External preexistence (absolute existence; self-existence) is an attribute of God alone.
I have asked you before but you haven't answered: what does "begotten" mean?
If there was a time when the Son did not exist, then by definition he cannot be God. The only conclusion of John 1:1-18 is that the Son is coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father.
But that is not what the text is saying.
But, there is no such thing as another or lesser God, so it can only mean the Son is the true God, yet not the Father who is also God.
Reasoning is very much needed, otherwise you're in disobedience to Christ (Matt. 22:37), not following Paul's example (Acts 18:4), and not following Peter's command (1 Pet. 3:15).
It also necessarily speaks of himself, otherwise the statement "all things were created through him and for him" is false, since he would then not be included in "all things."
What is this supposed to prove? Again, if "firstborn" means he came into existence, then Heb. 1:8-12 are false, and Col. 1:16-17 are false.
How do we then understand "firstborn" as it relates to the Son? We look to its other uses in Scripture.
Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, (ESV)
Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)
Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)
We see then that "firstborn" has meanings which are not literal. We know from reading the Bible that the firstborn had certain rights and privileges but we also see in the verses above that it seemed those whom God loved he called his firstborn, even though they were not in any literal sense his firstborn.
The use of firstborn can mean preeminence without the referent having actually been born. Looking at the significance of Psalms 89:27, it is a messianic Psalm where God says of David, "I will make him the firstborn." Here, firstborn clearly means that God will put him in a position of preeminence, "the highest of the kings of the earth." David is here the prototype of the coming Messiah, the "firstborn," and has nothing to do with David's being born or coming into being. This is almost certainly what Paul had in mind, and we see something similar in Romans:
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)
Here it means the same--that Jesus would be the head of all believers.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (ESV)
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)
Again, the idea of preeminence--the rights and position as of a firstborn son.
Which necessarily means the Son has always existed, otherwise the Father didn't created all things through him, since it is nonsense to say that he created the Son through the Son.
Being one with the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit in him.
Again, logic proves difficult for your position.
We do, but you haven't proven my points to be wrong.
- Sep 21, 2023
- 1,692
- 180
God isn't a Trinity. God is explicitly stated to be only the Father in more than a few places. The clearest and most direct verse about this is John 17:1-3.
John 17 NKJV
1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
John 17 NKJV
1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
- Sep 21, 2023
- 1,692
- 180
I agree with this. The way the language of the Bible reads to me is that Jesus prayed to God, worshipped God, etc. He spoke of God as his Father in heaven while Jesus had not yet ascended to his Father. He called his Father his God, called Him Lord, etc. It really looks like the presence of Jesus is not the same thing as the presence of God even though they are one in the same way he prayed his disciples would be one with God in John 17.
Christ_empowered
Member
- Oct 23, 2010
- 14,359
- 10,847
I read somewhere that some early Christians believed that Jesus Christ was a man who became divine….sort of like apotheosis I suppose. The trinity has always been in my mind as the understanding of God but…
I do find it interesting that Jesus Christ was one of many wandering Jewish cult leaders at the time…teaching a mystery cult at a time when mystery cults were popular…
But the vast majority of those other wandering mystics are long forgotten and the mystery cults are fascinating from an historical perspective and that’s it…
And then there’s Jesus Christ and the cult He left behind that grew into Christianity
.
Rambling…so I think the trinity is probably the best explanation I can think of for the Godhead but…
I will say that one can look at certain sections of scripture…Jesus Christ at Gethsemane awaiting execution…
And see how people could see a man made divine by God…
And killed by the very people He came to save from Satans power.
I dunno
That’s another thing…
Scripture seems pretty clear that Jesus Christ has overcome the world and put the serpent underfoot for His sheep
….
But most churches
️ seem to focus more on personal sin and Jesus Christ as the way to right relationship with God?
Sorry to ramble. Thanks
I do find it interesting that Jesus Christ was one of many wandering Jewish cult leaders at the time…teaching a mystery cult at a time when mystery cults were popular…
But the vast majority of those other wandering mystics are long forgotten and the mystery cults are fascinating from an historical perspective and that’s it…
And then there’s Jesus Christ and the cult He left behind that grew into Christianity
.Rambling…so I think the trinity is probably the best explanation I can think of for the Godhead but…
I will say that one can look at certain sections of scripture…Jesus Christ at Gethsemane awaiting execution…
And see how people could see a man made divine by God…
And killed by the very people He came to save from Satans power.
I dunno
That’s another thing…
Scripture seems pretty clear that Jesus Christ has overcome the world and put the serpent underfoot for His sheep
….But most churches
️ seem to focus more on personal sin and Jesus Christ as the way to right relationship with God?Sorry to ramble. Thanks
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,035
- 6,249
Except that the sum of the biblical evidence is best accounted for by the doctrine of the Trinity.
And the Son is also said to be God in many places.
First, we notice that eternal life is based on knowing both the Father and the Son. Second, we need to look at verse 5:
Jhn 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)
Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)
Not to mention what is stated in the rest of John from beginning to end.
And he also claimed to be God, which is why John, Paul, and Peter do as well. If Jesus is God in human flesh, how else should he speak of the Father while upholding monotheism?
And yet he claimed several times to have descended from the Father.
Again, how else should we expect God the Son in human flesh to speak and act, especially in regards to the Father, while upholding monotheism? There is significantly more context than what you have given.
The testimony of the Father that He is Jesus's God and yet Jesus is God. I agree with both. Yet Jesus is not coeternal with His God.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
One God as defined as the person of the Father. One Lord defined as the person of His Son, the first begotten.
The testimony of the Lord that His God, the Father is the only true God. Jesus Himself did not include His person in that testimony.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
All the fullness of the Deity of the only true God the Father Dwells in Him. In that context He is mighty GOD.
I agree that He is ALL that the Father is. I disagree in that He is coeternal. He is the first begotten of His God, the Father.
Oh you see that point but not the other that He calls the Father alone the only "true" God. Jesus is begotten.
Yes, GOD created by Jesus, through Jesus and FOR Jesus all things. Jesus therefore shares in that glory as one who received from the Father.
The Father is still on His throne and declared by the Host of Heaven as "their God". He has not given His glory away. Rather Jesus sat down with Him on His throne per Gods will.
Yes the begotten one with the Father. The Father alone is unbegotten. God, our Father and Jesus's Father.
Paul - distinctions were made that are not captured by orthodox trinity statements.
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.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
If He had the spirit of a Man what part of Him descended into that body if NOT His own spirit?
The Son who was, the first begotten, His spirit, was in that body. The Deity of God His Father lives in Him forever.
The Father living in Him was doing HIS work just as Jesus testified. They are ONE.
I think we are at a stopping point as we will not agree.
Jesus is God's Firstborn and has a beginning, His spirit, at some point in history before the world began. The fullness gifted from the will of another who defined His being was gifted not formed as was His spirit. Col 1:19
He and the Father are one.
If He is coeternal, He could not be a son nor have a Father or a God. Hello?
And I asked you to contrast the meaning of that word with unbegotten.
There is no historical usage of that word to show the offspring of a parent that has no beginning. It doesn't mean coeternal. You can't have a child from another without a beginning. "FROM" is not coeternal.
You can't have a true God that's from any other. The Father has not received from any other being.
Jesus is ALL that the Father is.
I use reasoning. How is one from any other if they are coeternal.
God created all things by Him and for Him. God spoke to us in these last days by Him. What did Jesus state? The Father living in Him doing His work. The source of the truth Jesus spoke is the Father. Yet you can't reason that the Spirit of truth is the Fathers?
No it doesn't
Gods Firstborn would be a being not a people and such a being would state, "before Abraham was born I am"
The greatest or most exalted is the Christ not David. God appointed His firstborn to Davids Line.
In this God fulfills His promise to David, "I will establish his line forever,"
Gods firstborn is a being not a people. Yet none of your usage of first begotten has a coeternal meaning.
The firstborn of all creation.
The church of the firstborn
About the SON
when God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to HIM.
Why does a coeternal God need to receive from any other?
Ditto
Jesus -The person of the Father alone is the only true God. You are mistaken if you think otherwise.
As the Son of Man He had to learn to rely on His God and Father and in these trials and tribulations was made a perfect mediator between God and man understanding humanity by experience.
It is "GOD", singular, "our Father"
Jesus our Lord.
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Jesus was before the world began. Before all things. Firstborn of all things. A Child of the Father. Gods Firstborn and in that has always been the Son. At that point in history God became a Father as well. In His Firstborn God was pleased that all His fullness should dwell. In that unity with the Deity of the only true God our Father the Son is the image of the Father and the imprint of the Fathers very being. Mighty God.
And when God brought the firstborn into the world He commanded all His angels to bow to Him.
All the fullness of the Deity dwells in Him and He can and is the imprint of the Fathers very being Son though He is.
The usage of the word shows a child born of a parent. Not someone that has no beginning.
A true God cannot be from any other let alone a Son of another.
Don't you state true God from true God?
Besides Jesus stated the Father was the only true God and did not include His person in that declaration.
He did not state this is eternal life knowing us the only true God.
The Father is greater. Doesn't Jesus call God, singular, His God and Father? Where is your sound reasoning? A persons God has to be the greater.
I have given you reasoning.
You state Jesus had the spirit of a man.
I state the Son who was, His spirit, was in that body.
What part of Jesus that from above was in that human body if not His own spirit?
Yet it clearly states GOD created by Him, through Him and for Him.
God, our Father FROM whom all things come including His firstborn.
So then when it states all things were made through Him it doesn't mean His own spirit just as when it states all things were put under Him doesn't mean the one who put everything under Him.
Since I already explained the context of the oneness of Jesus and the Father and how He is all that the Father is and you can't accept it then I'll just state the scripture you give doesn't state He has no beginning.
Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
The eternal life found in the Son is the Father. The Father is living in Him.
I stated before that atheists and unbelievers live in the flesh. Meaning the context given in John 6:57 is life with no end.
John 6:57
New International Version
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
Jesus tells them, “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I
To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Jesus uses truth. As the Son of Man and as the risen Lord. If the Father, His stated God, is not greater than Him then one believes what Jesus stated is not always truth.
He is not coeternal. He is all that the Father is for IN Him dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. They are one just as He taught which is also truth.
Gifted from the will of another. Col 1:19 A other who defined the being of the Firstborn of all creation. The only other at that point in history was God our Father. Col 1:20 Who reconciled all whether in heaven or earth to "Himself alone" through the blood of Jesus on the cross.
because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him,
Now, God our Father, has placed all things into Jesus's hands so that only in respect to His own throne is His authority greater than His Son's. Jesus our Lord and Lord of all with the exception of His God and Father.
As it was from the beginning:
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.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just two
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Jesus uses truth. As the Son of Man and as the risen Lord. If the Father, His stated God, is not greater than Him then one believes what Jesus stated is not always truth.
He is not coeternal. He is all that the Father is for IN Him dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. They are one just as He taught which is also truth.
Gifted from the will of another. Col 1:19 A other who defined the being of the Firstborn of all creation. The only other at that point in history was God our Father. Col 1:20 Who reconciled all whether in heaven or earth to "Himself alone" through the blood of Jesus on the cross.
because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him,
Now, God our Father, has placed all things into Jesus's hands so that only in respect to His own throne is His authority greater than His Son's. Jesus our Lord and Lord of all with the exception of His God and Father.
As it was from the beginning:
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.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Just two
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,035
- 6,249
He must be, when the totality of the biblical evidence is taken into consideration.
Okay, so you admit then that, against all the biblical evidence, the Father cannot be Lord.
Do you agree that the Son preexisted prior to all creation?
Do believers have the fullness of the Deity, given that we have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us?
No, you cannot say that the Son is all that the Father is. Absolutely cannot. If he is all that the Father is, then it necessarily follows that he has always existed just as the Father has existed. But, since you deny that the Son has always existed, he cannot be all that the Father is.
I have asked you at least twice but you have yet to answer: If, as you say, the Son did not always exist, then what is the difference between being begotten and being created or made? What does "begotten" mean?
So, again, if all things were created through the Son, then it necessarily follows that the Son must have always existed.
But, Jesus clearly states that he shared in the glory of the Father prior to the creation of the world, which is to say prior to creation. That is something your position cannot account for.
John begins by telling us that when the beginning began, that is creation, the Word was already in existence in an interpersonal relationship with God, and was in nature God. He then tells us that not one thing came into being apart from the Word, which logically can only mean that Word never came into existence. From that, it necessarily follows that the Word is eternal, just as God is. This repeats throughout John's gospel, culminating in Thomas's exclamation that Jesus was his Lord and his God.
We can also look at John's first epistle and see that twice he states God is love, that is, that love is intrinsic to God's nature. But, if the Son (or Holy Spirit) did not exist for as long as the Father has existed, then that is an impossibility.
On the contrary, your position simply cannot take what Paul says here into account. I have given you two significant logical problems with this that you have yet to address. Perhaps you care to answer those, since nearly every anti-Trinitarian avoids them and none has given a remotely satisfactory answer.
This is simply proof-texting as there are numerous verses and passages that need to be taken into account.
Did he have "the spirit of a Man"? I don't really understand your question.
Again, you need to define "begotten."
They are one, but it is unity of essence. That is why Jesus could also claim to be the I Am in John 8:58.
Well, I believe the Trinitarian position takes the full revelation of Scripture into account and your position does not. You have too many things unanswered.
- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,035
- 6,249
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.
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.
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?
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)?
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.
According to the doctrine of the Trinity, yes, but not according to your position.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
But what does that have to do with the actual usage of "firstborn" which shows it doesn't always apply to "being begotten"?
Yet, it cannot mean that he came into being, as that contradicts numerous passages.
Now, why would the Father have the angels worship the Son, if all creation is to worship the Father only? Regardless, this goes back to how "firstborn" is used in the Bible, the significance of which you seem to have missed.
As I have stated many times, Phil. 2:5-8 is key, as is properly understanding the difference between Jesus the God-man, born of Mary, and the Son who preexisted all creation. You continually fail to make that distinction and it really muddles up your theology.
No, no ditto. You have left too much unaddressed. I have shown the logical problems with your position, you have not done likewise.
You have not proven that to be the case. Your position leads to 1) polytheism, 2) a lack of meaning of what a father and son are (for you they are a different nature), 3) God not actually being love, and 4) passages such as John 1:1-3, 8:58, 20:28, 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12 being false. These are irreconcilable contradictions with your position.
Similar threads
