The Trinity

[JLB]

The division is caused when believers fail to acknowledge known issues with the manuscripts, which is largely on the part of those who, for all intents and purposes, worship the KJV. But, that too, is based on poor reasoning.

Here’s a great example of your unwillingness to even attempt to find reasonable common ground.

when believers fail to acknowledge known issues with the manuscripts

What “known issues” with manuscripts?

Who decided your preferred manuscript is right?


Now the insults…

when believers fail to acknowledge known issues with the manuscripts

Now you insult people who use the KJV.

Were you the one promoting the traditionally beliefs and language of the doctrine of the Trinity?

What version of the bible did those who founded these beliefs use?


You have no desire whatsoever to find common ground but to insult and belittle others and attack with derogatory names.

 

[JLB]

If you're going to believe in the Trinity and want to talk about and teach the Trinity, then use Trinitarian language, not that of Modalism/Oneness/Jesus Only.

I have no desire to teach the Trinity, or use man made language to teach a man made doctrine.

Godhead is the biblical term.

Elohim is another biblical term for Godhead.

If a person decides to use the word Trinity then that’s up to them.

I have found many who do, don’t understand who Jesus is.

You know that I don’t believe Modalism, Oneness, or Jesus only.

You like to try and label me as such because I have the baptism with the Spirit and you don’t believe in that and you believe all people who do, are Oneness; Jesus only.

You have continually misrepresented me about this issue.

You perpetuate this divisive rhetoric with derogatory terms and phrases continually showing you have no desire to find common ground.


I do desire to teach people who Jesus Christ is from the scriptures, and from the scriptures find some common ground.

Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH

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

 

[Free]

Here’s a great example of your arrogance

There is no arrogance, just facts based on my discussions with some people.

and unwillingness to even attempt to find reasonable common ground.

I have tried, but you either ignore it or dispute it.

What “known issues” with manuscripts?

Who decided your preferred manuscript is right?

The issues are many with the TR. It isn't necessarily a matter of right and wrong, but most likely and least likely.

Now the insults…

There was nothing insulting there. But, we could go back and look at your insults. They are many.

Now you insult people who use the KJV.

Not at all. My point is that those who fail to acknowledge the difficulties and stick to verses which likely weren’t in the originals, create issues. That's the real arrogance. I have no problem if people prefer the KJV, although there are better translations now, but one should at least be honest about the issues with it.

Were you the one promoting the traditionally beliefs and language of the doctrine of the Trinity?

What version of the bible did those who founded these beliefs use?

I don’t know what it (they) was (were) called, but it was more than a thousand years before the KJV. It (they) wasn’t (weren't) even in English.

You have no desire whatsoever to find common ground but to insult and belittle others and attack with derogatory names.

As for insulting and belittling others, be careful lest you be found to be a hypocrite. Show me where I have attacked “others with derogatory names.”

Your a disgrace as a Christian and a leader in this Forum.

If you say so. And it’s “you’re,” as in “you are.” Using the right language is important, as I have been saying, even when you're insulting someone.

I have no desire to teach the Trinity, or use man made language to teach a man made doctrine.

Of course you don't, because you are unable or unwilling to use sound reasoning.

Godhead is the biblical term.

Well, it's an English word in the KJV that translates at least two different Greek words. They are better translated as "divine being" and "divinity" or "deity."

Elohim is another biblical term for Godhead.

It's never translated as such, so that is your opinion.

If a person decides to use the word Trinity then that’s up to them.

Of course.

I have found many who do, don’t understand who Jesus is.

Just as many do who don't use the word Trinity.

You know that I don’t believe Modalism, Oneness, or Jesus only.

Of course.

You like to try and label me as such because I have the baptism with the Spirit and you don’t believe in that and you believe all people who do, are Oneness; Jesus only.

False on all three counts. Please try and actually understand what I write, and stop with the false assumptions.

You have continually misrepresented me about this issue.

Not at all. I've pointed errors in how you word things that support Modalism/Oneness, which you seem to don't want to fix.

You perpetuate this divisive rhetoric with derogatory terms terms and arrogant phrases continually showing you have no find common ground.

Point out exactly what "divisive rhetoric" I've used that consists of "derogatory terms and arrogant phrases." You keep making these claims but provide no evidence.

I do desire to teach people who Jesus Christ is from the scriptures, and from the scriptures find some common ground.

That's fine, but do so from the Scriptures then, since there is far more that they say than what you give below.

Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH

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

Again, you have to be more careful than that, as I have pointed out numerous times. Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh. The Son is YHWH, but YHWH isn't the Son. YHWH is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If all you say is "Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH," then that is fully in line with Oneness/Jesus Only. Never leave it at just that, unless the common ground you want is Oneness. That is the point I have been continually trying to get you to see. Always make it clear that Yahweh is all three divine persons, not just Jesus (the Son).

 

[Free]

Just pointed out your belief of a begotten Son of a Father yet no beginning. How then is He a Son?
The only begotten.

That is simply what the Bible shows us. It's in all those verses I keep posting that you keep leaving unaddressed. That is why the Nicene Creed says "God from God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." The Son is both truly God, being of the same substance as the Father, and from the Father.

That is what the Bible states and what we must try and make sense of.

Col 1:19 -From the will of another at a point in history. Not coeternal

So, once again, you want to ignore the plain meaning of the verses preceding that one:

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)

That is the context; that is why Jesus is the firstborn (which speaks of his sovereignty). Again, these verses absolutely preclude the idea that the Son came into being. If he did, these verses are false.

God brought all things through existence through Him.

Exactly my point! If the Son came into being, then God did not bring all things into existence through the Son.

Note "He made" because its His Deity in the Son.
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Please properly cite the Bible. This also supports what I said. The writer of Hebrews is saying the very same thing. By saying "through whom also he made the universe," is the same as saying "all things," it is everything that came into existence.

God spoke to us by His Son. The deity in Christ is the Father.

The Father is in the Son, but the Son is in the Father because he is also truly God.

For Him speaks of another.

What do you mean? "By him and for him" both refer to the Son.

Jesus as Firstborn of all creation and the Firstborn from the dead does note preeminence in the creation and resurrection. "First"

Yes, and that pre-eminence is based on the fact that the Son was involved in the creation of everything that ever was created. The precludes any idea that he himself was created because he couldn't have created himself.

He was given authority. He was chosen before the world began. God His Father glorified Him.

As the God-man, yes.

The Son lives forever by the Deity of the Father in Him. We live by Him. He never dies so in Him we never die.
The context is not life in the flesh but life with no end.
John 6:57
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.

How does that address what I said, which was: "The context of which is that eternal life is found in knowing both the Father and the Son"?

Yes, He is the beginning of the creation of God and predates the world which was brought into existence through Him.

He's the beginning of the creation of God and the firstborn of all creation.
He's the beginning of the resurrection and the firstborn from the dead.

No, he was in existence when the beginning began (John 1:1a), so he could not be the beginning of creation. It's logically absurd to claim both that he was existing when the beginning began and that he is the beginning of creation. Those are two mutually exclusive claims.

God did not give His glory away. He glorified His Son. Jesus's God and Father still sits on His throne. Jesus sat down with the Father on His Fathers throne.
The Deity in Christ is the First and Last. There is other. It is the Fathers Deity the only true God.
48:13 would have to be read as both the Father and Son in all things. From the Father through the Son.

Once again, you're conflating Jesus after his death, resurrection, and ascension, with his existence as the Son prior to the creation of all things, which is what Jesus was referring to in John 17:5.

Already addressed. Jesus and the Father are one.

No, that is not at all addressing it. That's dismissing it by pitting Scripture against itself.

Jesus is not coeternal.

Once again, I never said he was; I have clearly and consistently stated that the Son is. He is two natures in one person, both truly God and truly man.

He does have all the fullness of the Deity of the First and Last in Him. He is before all things except His God and Fathe. I state it's the Fathers Deity gifted.

He does have all the fullness of deity:

Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, (ESV)

But it does not follow that that fullness is "the Fathers Deity gifted." That ignores much context, which I have provided, that clearly shows the Son is also true deity.

Yes, God created by His Son. God Spoke to us by His Son.

Again, this is to ignore the context:

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)

It is the Father saying that it was the Son who was the YHWH that created everything.

The one on the throne created. (His Deity)
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

In Him all things were created by Him and for Him. That is the Son created by the Deity in Him not on His own. Its the Fathers Deity.

That is begging the question. There is nothing at all there to suggest that it "is the Son created by the Deity in Him not on His own. Its the Fathers Deity." You're continually dismissing basic logic, which tells us that if all things were created through the Son, then it is logically impossible that the Son was created. The Son is, therefore, just as eternal as the Father is, or else every passage that says all things were created by or through the Son is false.

I can and did.

No, you didn't. You have either ignored or dismissed it all.

All things are from the Father who created by His Son.

Exactly. That means that the Son cannot have been created, or else "all things" is false.

There is only one Deity no matter how many persons you wish to assign to that Deity

I have never, ever stated that there is more than one God. Monotheism is foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity, has I have stated numerous times.

and the Father is the only true God.

Along with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

He alone is unbegotten. The Fathers Son is the only begotten.

Of course.

The Firstborn of all creation. He is not coeternal.

And, as I pointed out and you ignored, the context of "the firstborn of all creation" absolutely cannot mean that he was created, that he came into being, otherwise Col. 1:16-17 are false.

He is the only begotten God or only like to like begotten Son of the Father. Eternally begotten is not found in the NT. Begotten is found in the NT. There is no historical use of the only begotten Son of a Father to state no beginning. It does not exist.

It's in the Bible. We have to put all the revelation together to get a fuller picture.

It's made-up doctrine. A coeternal being can't be from any other person in any meaning of the word "from".

That's thinking in human terms. If the Son is of the same nature as the Father, and he is, because every son is of the same nature as his father (and we are the analogues of God), then it necessary follows that the Son is also true deity. If he is true deity, it necessarily follows that he has always existed, because that is one of the attributes of true deity.

You shouldn't need all this anyway. Its clear to me

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

You didn't read this
Now this is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

I certainly did and you know it, so please don't state falsehoods. I gave the additional context of John 17:5.

 

[Free]

A coeternal being from another person. A created Son of Man. The Father as the only true God.
What part of Jesus descended into the body prepared for Him if not His own Spirit?

I've addressed this more than once by pointing out that this is the wrong question. I will not address this again.

Repetitive

Yes, because you continually ignore the implications of what these passages clearly state. Until you actually address them, or at least address them showing some understanding of what is said, I will continually post them.

Thats because the Deity of the First and Last in Him is God the Father.

No, it's because the Son shares in the very same substance--that which makes God God--as the Father.

He is all that the Father is.

I can say that; you can't. You admit that he is not coeternal. That alone means he cannot be all that the Father is. Your own position contradicts itself, but that is of no surprise.

You state descended, but you believe created. The Spirit of a man did not descend.
This is an example of things stated so without any reasonable explanation.
What part of Him descended if not His own spirit?
If He had a human body and the spirit of a man what part of Him was God?


God forms our spirit. You believe in a created Son of Man. The spirit of a man did not descend from above.

You're clearly not understanding anything I'm saying about this. Whether deliberate nor not, I don't know. I'm not addressing this again.

The Spirit of the Firstborn of God is not Deity and He was the Son of Man. The Deity of the First and Last is the Fathers. The one living in the Son speaking to us by His Son.

Yahweh is the first and the last:

Isa 44:6 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. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

But Jesus also claims to be the first and the last:

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
Rev 1:18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (ESV)

Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (ESV)

Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (ESV)

Notice that he doesn't say that the Father in him is the first and the last, he clearly and unequivocally states the he, himself is the first and the last.

Jesus has always been the Son.

Of course. I have never said otherwise.

It means the person of the Father is the only true God. It's like you state just because Jesus stated such doesn't have to mean that. I believe it means exactly that. After all His God and Father.

Only if you ignore the context, as I have repeatedly shown.

To us there is only one true God the Father as Jesus stated but there was no trinity than. It couldn't envision 2000 years later it was a subject of debate or perhaps in some things they would have added more depth.
God is called our Father as well
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, you're ignoring the basic logic of 1 Cor. 8:6, which is Paul's restatement of the Shema.

It states the Father is the source of all things and He choose to bring those things into existence by His Son. Jesus was before the world began, before the heavens were created, before the angels of God. He just not coeternal.
The Father is also the source of truth Jesus testified to. Jesus was clear the message is from the one who sent Him.

Again, if all things were created through the Son, and they clearly were, that precludes the Son from having been created. If the Son was created, as you have repeatedly claimed, then it cannot be true that all things were created through the Son, since he wasn't created through himself. He was already in existence when the beginning of creation started, as per John 1:1-2. It necessarily follows that he is coeternal with the Father (and the Holy Spirit).

Thats false. None of that states He is coeternal, and I believe all the fullness of the Deity of the First and Last dwells in Him.

Incorrect. The only logical conclusion of those passages (and many others), is that the Son is coeternal with the Father (and the Holy Spirit). You have never been able to refute that logic; well, you haven't even tried, you just dismiss it.

Jesus the Lord is not our Father. God is. (logic)

I am not saying Jesus is the Father; I never have and never will. But he is God, as numerous passages show. So, to say that "God is," is fallaciously begging the question.

Jesus calls the person of the Father the only true God. Take it up with Him.

And he also claims eternal pre-existence, accepts worship from his disciples, and accepts Thomas's claim that he is Thomas's Lord and God.

Jesus and the Father are one as He taught.

Yes, one in nature.

The Fathers works He performed testify to that truth yet He is not coeternal.

No, they prove nothing of the sort.

I don't think we are ever going to agree.

Even that statement was used to avoid addressing a much lengthier portion of my post. If you continue to ignore basic reasoning based on Scripture and what many passages plainly teach, then yes.

 

[Randy]

I've addressed this more than once by pointing out that this is the wrong question. I will not address this again.

The driving force behind your belief is not the NT but the doctrine of the Trinity. (coeternal)

Yes, because you continually ignore the implications of what these passages clearly state. Until you actually address them, or at least address them showing some understanding of what is said, I will continually post them.


No, it's because the Son shares in the very same substance--that which makes God God--as the Father.

That because the Deity in the Son is in fact God, His Father who is the source of all things and is in fact unbegotten. A term not found in the NT of the Son who is the First begotten or only begotten Son of God His Father.

Let me ask you when you state that Jesus has always been the Son does that me to you God's offspring or a child of the Father as the word son implies?

I can say that; you can't. You admit that he is not coeternal. That alone means he cannot be all that the Father is. Your own position contradicts itself, but that is of no surprise.

I don't use coeternal it's not needed nor applicable. God our Father is unbegotten and is the Deity of the First and Last. There is no other Deity no matter how many persons you assign to that Deity. His Deity created all things and by His will they were created and have their being. It's His Deity in the Son that created by His will and command. His Deity is the source of truth that Jesus testified to. God created by His Son just as God spoke to us on these last days by His Son. From God our Father all things come. Through Jesus our Lord all things come. The eternal life in the Son is the Father's Deity.

You're clearly not understanding anything I'm saying about this. Whether deliberate nor not, I don't know. I'm not addressing this again.


Yahweh is the first and the last:

And He is Deity. IN the Son the fullness of that Deity dwells. Jesus testified as to the one who lives in Him.

Isa 44:6 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. (ESV)

The one who sent His Son and anointed His Son by His Spirit. God so loved the world...

Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

But Jesus also claims to be the first and the last:

The Deity in Him. Jesus also states He's the beginning of the creation of God. That He has a God and Father.
The First and Last does NOT have a God nor Father. The Son is not our Father God is. He is our Lord.

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
Rev 1:18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (ESV)

Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (ESV)

Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (ESV)

Notice that he doesn't say that the Father in him is the first and the last, he clearly and unequivocally states the he, himself is the first and the last.

He does state the person of the Father is the only true God and His God and our God, His Father and our Father. The Son is Not our Father God is.

Of course. I have never said otherwise.


Only if you ignore the context, as I have repeatedly shown.

Again, you're ignoring the basic logic of 1 Cor. 8:6, which is Paul's restatement of the Shema.

Again, its the doctrine of the trinity that causes you to look elsewhere from what should be clear.

Is this the Shema?
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Gods Deity would be stated as the source of all things. Its not from and through that Deity. Its from God our Father and through Jesus our Lord.

Again, if all things were created through the Son, and they clearly were, that precludes the Son from having been created. If the Son was created, as you have repeatedly claimed, then it cannot be true that all things were created through the Son, since he wasn't created through himself. He was already in existence when the beginning of creation started, as per John 1:1-2. It necessarily follows that he is coeternal with the Father (and the Holy Spirit).

Its God created through/by His Son just as God spoke to us by His Son. The Deity in the Son doing His work is the person of the Father the only true God.

Incorrect. The only logical conclusion of those passages (and many others), is that the Son is coeternal with the Father (and the Holy Spirit). You have never been able to refute that logic; well, you haven't even tried, you just dismiss it.

God our Father. Jesus is not our Father. From one through the other. Just because I dispute your logic which actually is not yours, but the doctrine of the trinity doesn't mean I haven't addressed the issue. We disagree.

I am not saying Jesus is the Father; I never have and never will. But he is God, as numerous passages show. So, to say that "God is," is fallaciously begging the question.

In this context.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

And he also claims eternal pre-existence, accepts worship from his disciples, and accepts Thomas's claim that he is Thomas's Lord and God.

Thomas did state such and it is a truthful accounting of what took place, but it is not a doctrine defined. I believe Jesus is before all things except God His Father.

Yes, one in nature.

One Deity. It's the Fathers always and by His will it lives in His Firstborn.

No, they prove nothing of the sort.


Even that statement was used to avoid addressing a much lengthier portion of my post. If you continue to ignore basic reasoning based on Scripture and what many passages plainly teach, then yes.

Your driven by the trinity.

 

[JLB]

I don't use coeternal it's not needed nor applicable. God our Father is unbegotten and is the Deity of the First and Last. There is no other Deity no matter how many persons you assign to that Deity. His Deity created all things and by His will they were created and have their being. It's His Deity in the Son that created by His will and command. His Deity is the source of truth that Jesus testified to. God created by His Son just as God spoke to us on these last days by His Son. From God our Father all things come. Through Jesus our Lord all things come. The eternal life in the Son is the Father's Deity.

What do you believe the Father begot when He beget His Son?

God
Human
Angel
Other

Your post seems to indicate you believe the Son is something other than God, but has the divine nature within Him.

This is what we are as sons of God.

We are human beings with a divine nature.

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:2-4


The Father calls the Son God: YHWH

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


If scripture calls the Son, God, and YHWH, then shouldn’t we ?

 

[RandyK]

Anti-Trinitarians should recognize that the Church has long ago determined an acceptable formula for explaining the eternal Deity of Christ. He pre-existed as the eternal Son--otherwise it could not be said that Jesus had existed "with God" from eternity, nor could it have been said that he was the eternal God.

I tend to identify the Son from eternity as "the Word" because that's also what Scripture says. But Scripture also identifies him as "the Son" who is from eternity and created the universe.

We call him "the Son" because he was the eternal Person with God who became, in time, Jesus. Jesus, the man, did not exist from all eternity as a man. But he did exist as the Son of God, ie the one who came to be revealed as Jesus, having been "with God" from eternity.

I am just stating the facts--not that I'm able to easily explain how the Son could've been "with God" from eternity. How can we know him as Jesus before he had been revealed as a man? We could not. But he was the same Person, who had been "with God" from eternity, well before he came to be revealed as a man.

Again, I find it better able to be understood to view the Son's eternal existence as a Person by describing His form at that time not as a man but as the Word. We see the eternal Word as becoming a man in time.

But there are limits to what we can say. If we wish to properly identify Jesus as Divine and as a distinct Person within the Trinity, we must see him as the eternal Son. That's how I've come out in all this.

My view that God is viewed as a single Person I've found to be confusing to others, because it is not seen that One Person can equal Three Persons. However, God is a composite unity expressed in the three Persons, and as such we pray to Him as if He is the singular composite unity, without trying to separate, in our prayers, the fact we are speaking with three instead of just one.

My own view has been that the composite unity of God can be expressed as a single composite Person. But as I said, this tends to confuse the fact that God is a plurality of Persons from eternity. The formulas established in the Creeds do best in describing these things in such a way as to maintain the eternity Deity of Jesus, without confusing him with the eternal Father.

 

[JLB]

The Son is YHWH, but YHWH isn't the Son.

Please explain what you mean, YHWH isn’t the Son, but the Son is YHWH.

Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH

YHWH the Son spoke out of the mouth of the Old Testament prophets.

YHWH the Son created the heavens and the earth.

YHWH God the Son will return with His saints on the Day of the LORD.

Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the LORD my God will come,
And all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:5


Do you disagree with any of the statements I made?

If you do, please explain why.

 

[RandyK]

Jesus is the Son before He became flesh; the only begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world.

Yes, the Son created the world, and as such identifies with Deity, who is a composite Deity existing as a plurality of Persons. Perhaps the Son can be said to have been "begotten" before He became a man, because he was begotten as a man from eternity? But I think of the Son existing in the form of the eternal Word, who generates any form of God's existence both in eternity and in time.

Here I have to be careful, as our brother pointed out. The distinctions of the Persons of God in time do not obliviate their distinctions in some sense in eternity. I just think that the forms we understand them in time is different than their existence before time, though they are essentially the same Persons as they were in eternity. How they are the same Persons is a matter of identifying each of them as Divine as their starting point in eternity.

For example, the Son is inextricably connected to his appearance in time as Jesus. And yet, since he previously existed as God, we can say that the Son preexisted his human form. I don't think we can talk about the Son in eternity except as His preexistence as God, creating the world.

When I say that God generates forms of Himself from eternity, what I mean is that all of the Persons being generated for us in time are preexistent and distinctly originating in eternity. All three Persons that we now know in time as Father, Son, and Spirit previously existed as distinct Persons because that is how we now know them, and understand that each one of them previously existed as God the Creator.

What I'm *not* saying is that the Persons of the Trinity only exist in time. I'm saying that we only understand them as such in time, and see them as preexistent primarily because each of the Persons of the Trinity previously existed as God. As such, it may be, as far as I know, that the plurality of the one God is a convention of language enabling us to understand from our own vantage point in time that each Person of the Trinity previously existed as God.

One may also wish to say that God is a composite unity, encompassing all three Persons of the Trinity in eternity. It is, as far as I'm concrened, saying the same thing that I am.

I'm in no way interested in challenging the orthodox definitions of the Trinity and of the Christological natures. I only wish to understand things for myself, and honestly present in my own words how I understand them.

I cannot, however, think of the Father, Son, and Spirit existing in any Personal form in eternity apart from how I see them now. They existed as distinct Persons in an unknowable way. Each of them were God and are God.

Please explain what you mean, YHWH isn’t the Son, but the Son is YHWH.

I should think that the statement is true, because if we say that the Son is God we are simply identifying Jesus as Divine. But if we say that God is the one and only Person of the Son, then we've made the infinite God into a God-Man, ie into Jesus. And if we do that, God becomes identified with a human being, and not with His existence in eternity as Creator of the universe.

Jesus, as a God-Man, can relate back into eternity as God, the Creator of the universe. But we understand the Son as Deity being generated in the form of Jesus.

That is, Jesus is both from God in eternity and appearing as the God-Man in time. In being generated as such, there is the necessary distinction of God the Father who has *not* been generated in time as the Son except via His Word.

 

[Randy]

What do you believe the Father begot when He beget His Son?

God
Human
Angel
Other

You keep asking the same thing which I have answered over and over.
Jesus is the ONLY like to like begotten SON of the Father or the ONLY BEGOTTEN God.
He is NOT identified as an angel but is the SON, In Him dwells ALL the fullness of the DEITY.
Jesus makes this distinction.
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Hebrews 1 is not about God but about the SON. The writer of Hebrews took pain to show the superiority of Jesus's Sonship over the angels of God.

Your post seems to indicate you believe the Son is something other than God, but has the divine nature within Him.

The spirit of Gods firstborn is His Son not His Deity. Gods Deity without limit dwells in His firstborn by His will.
Hence Jesus states God, My Father as well.

This is what we are as sons of God.

Gods own Spirit is the only Spirit that forms Spirit or gives birth to spirit. Hence, we as well as Jesus state God, OUR FATHER.

We are human beings with a divine nature.

We have been given fullness in Christ. Jesus was gifted the fullness of the Fathers Deity.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:2-4


The Father calls the Son God: YHWH

Yes, the Father calls His Son God for in Him all His Deity was pleased to dwell. He defined His Son's being. Col 1:19
God=>"This is My Son"
I call Him Lord. I know that He is all that the Father is. God in that context.

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

Jesus sat down with His Father on His Fathers throne. Note the word "Father"
The throne of God and of the Lamb forever.

If scripture calls the Son, God, and YHWH, then shouldn’t we ?

Haven't you read God is our Father not Jesus?
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

It's lawful to call Him God but I call Him Lord. Yet, He is not coeternal. The Father alone is unbegotten, and His Son is the only begotten. Only in the sense that Gods Deity without limit dwells in Him as God has many Sons. Hence the only begotten God who came down from the Fathers presence as the only eyewitness of God that has appeared in flesh.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

 

[JLB]

But if we say that God is the one and only Person of the Son,

I never said this, nor do I believe this.

This is what Oneness teaches.

Some here my imply this is what I believe and promote but it isn’t.

Just for the record.

 

[JLB]

Jesus, as a God-Man, can relate back into eternity as God, the Creator of the universe.

I don’t see Jesus as the God-Man before He became flesh.

I see Jesus as God, YHWH, before He became a flesh and blood Man
(born of a woman).

He appeared to Abraham as God Almighty.

He appeared to Moses as the Angel of the LORD.

I see Angel here as:

The Spirit of the LORD
The Son of God
The Word (Message;Messenger) of God


He also appeared to Abraham as a Man*, along with the two angels.

 

[JLB]

You keep asking the same thing which I have answered over and over.
Jesus is the ONLY like to like begotten SON of the Father or the ONLY BEGOTTEN God.
He is NOT identified as an angel but is the SON, In Him dwells ALL the fullness of the DEITY.
Jesus makes this distinction.
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Hebrews 1 is not about God but about the SON. The writer of Hebrews took pain to show the superiority of Jesus's Sonship over the angels of God.

You say you answered my question over and over but again I don’t see your answer here.

Please pick one of these answers so I understand what you mean:

Do you believe the only begotten Son is:

God
Angel
Human
Other

 

[JLB]

I call Him Lord. I know that He is all that the Father is. God in that context.

Ok here you said Jesus is God.

Could clarify what you mean by saying “God in that context”?

Do you believe Jesus was God sometimes, but others He was not?

 

[JLB]

It's lawful to call Him God but I call Him Lord. Yet, He is not coeternal. The Father alone is unbegotten, and His Son is the only begotten. Only in the sense that Gods Deity without limit dwells in Him as God has many Sons. Hence the only begotten God who came down from the Fathers presence as the only eyewitness of God that has appeared in flesh.
John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me.

 

[RandyK]

I never said this, nor do I believe this.

This is what Oneness teaches.

Some here my imply this is what I believe and promote but it isn’t.

Just for the record.

No, I wasn't attributing this to you at all! Sorry that you thought so.

My beliefs, it was pointed out, sounded very similar to Modalism. And I think there was some legitimacy to that accusation.

It's certainly not what I meant to imply, but language is important. I was just trying to straighten out what I should've said more clearly and more properly.

I want to stay as close to the orthodox language as I can while still explaining things in my own words.

 

[RandyK]

I don’t see Jesus as the God-Man before He became flesh.

Of coure not! ;) How can he have been a man before he became a man?

The point is, his origin is from eternity, from Deity. As such, the one we've come to know as the God-Man was the same Divine Person who preexisted his Incarnation. And knowing him for who he came to be we cannot see him as anything but the same Divine Person from eternity.

As such, the Son had to have originated in eternity as God, but not as a man. And knowing that he came to become a man he had to have been "with God" as His Word before he became a man.

I see Jesus as God, YHWH, before He became a flesh and blood Man
(born of a woman).

Well yes, Jesus was God before he became a man. He was, technically, a distinct Person with God, as His Word, who would be revealed as a man. Since he became a man, we have to see him from eternity as a distinct Person in the Divine Being.

 

[JLB]

No, I wasn't attributing this to you at all! Sorry that you thought so.

I didn’t think you were.

However there are those who try and label as such even though I continually deny oneness as unbiblical.

 

[JLB]

Of coure not! ;) How can he have been a man before he became a man?

He couldn’t. But He did appear as a man to Abraham.

However, becoming flesh refers to being born of a woman.