Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Cooper]

The doctrine of mutual intratrinitarian communion or circumincession is a joint concurrence of all three persons. In other words the external or outward works of the Trinity are undivided: that is, all three persons agree and cooperate in the works done by any of them. The works of each member of the Trinity is common and undivided. As they have but one Being, one Essence, so they have but one work. However, because they have distinct subsistences the person have several manner of working. Thus the father is said to raise Christ (Roman 4:24; Colossians 2:12-13), it is also true that Christ raised Himself (John 2:19; 10:17-18), and the Spirit raised Christ (Romans 8:11). Because all Three Persons concur in every work, the Father, Son (the divine nature of the Son) and Holy Spirit are said to have raised Christ from the Dead. The Father as the fountain of the other two subsistences, begins the work, the Son carries on the motion, and the Spirit, proceeding from both, perfects, consummates and executes the work (1 Corinthians 8:6). Author Unknown

All the expert trinitarians in the end say it's a mystery.

What is the practical implications of saying Christ is not God?
John 8:24
NASB "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
NET Thus I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
Jesus' hearers needed to believe that He was "I am." In context, this phrase has heavy theological connotations (cf. vv. 28, 58; 13:19). It appeared puzzling at first, but later Jesus' hearers realized that He was claiming to be God (cf. v. 59). The NIV's "the one I claim to be" is an interpretation of Jesus' meaning that is perhaps more misleading than helpful. Jesus was alluding to the title that God gave Himself in the Old Testament (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:39; Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12). Essentially "I am" means the eternally self-existent being.[620] Unless a person believes that Jesus is God, in contrast with less than God, he or she will die in his or her sins. Tom Constable

If Father and Son are known by different names, it is a mystery no longer.
.

 

[Free]

I'm not contradicting nothing you just don't want people to go by all that Jesus says at John 10:30. You want people to ignore what Jesus said at John 10:31-36. You just want people to read John 10:30. You just want to pick and choose what scripture to read and reason on but ignore the other verses that Jesus said right there at John 10:30-36. Because right in the context after John 10:30 Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, I am God's son?" So when Jesus said what he said at John 10:30 he wasn't claiming to be God, but instead he was claiming to be the Son of God, and he and his Father who was and is the True God were united(one) in thought and purpose.

If Jesus was merely saying he and the Father were "united in thought and purpose," why would they accuse him of blasphemy? Wasn't that the highest Jewish way? Couldn't that be said of all the forefathers and the prophets?

This is what M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

"The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power."

And that seems to be precisely how the Jews understood it.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (ESV)

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Notice the similarities in the two passages. In John 10:36, Jesus understands the Jews accusing him of blasphemy because he said, "I am the Son of God." That is the same reason given in John 5:18. There is no misunderstanding of the part of the Jews; they understood him perfectly.

This bring up two relevant points I have made throughout this thread:

1. No father is ever his own son nor is a son his own father.
2. A son is always of the same nature as his father.

If either or both of these are not actually the case in regards to the Father and the Son, then God's revelation of himself using that relationship is utterly pointless; it communicates nothing to us because we cannot know what he is saying.

However, it is meaningful for the precise reason that we know what that relationship conveys, as our human relationships are the metaphor for the Father and the Son.

 

[Deidr]

So you're saying those who raised the dead and healed the sick and cast out demons like Jesus, meaning Jesus apostles, each one of those apostles is God too.
Sorry I'm not going to agree with your statement that Jesus is both God and man. I agree that because Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who is the promised seed of Genesis 3:15 that means God is with us. That doesn't mean Jesus who is the promised seed is God himself though.

If I have parents that are both man then I'm man too. Righhhhht?

But if a being has one parent that is human and one that is God that would make that person both God and man.

 

[BB1956]

I could very easily put a list of about 50 Scriptures from Isaiah right here for you to "outright disregard", but I won't waste my time.

They can be found strewn throughout this thread for pages and pages.

The Bible very clearly declares that Christ is God. Those who deny that fact do so at great dismissal of massive quantities of Scripture.

You desperately need Christ not to be God while those who know that He is only need for the Bible to tell them what the Truth is and to accept that in whatever form it comes in.

Those who believe Christ is not God have a very, very limited grasp of the Bible as a whole.

I know what you believe I've heard it like forever and I disagree with what people have said regarding certain scripture when they say they prove Jesus to be God when they didn't.

If Jesus was merely saying he and the Father were "united in thought and purpose," why would they accuse him of blasphemy? Wasn't that the highest Jewish way? Couldn't that be said of all the forefathers and the prophets?

This is what M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

"The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power."

And that seems to be precisely how the Jews understood it.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (ESV)

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Notice the similarities in the two passages. In John 10:36, Jesus understands the Jews accusing him of blasphemy because he said, "I am the Son of God." That is the same reason given in John 5:18. There is no misunderstanding of the part of the Jews; they understood him perfectly.

This bring up two relevant points I have made throughout this thread:

1. No father is ever his own son nor is a son his own father.
2. A son is always of the same nature as his father.

If either or both of these are not actually the case in regards to the Father and the Son, then God's revelation of himself using that relationship is utterly pointless; it communicates nothing to us because we cannot know what he is saying.

However, it is meaningful for the precise reason that we know what that relationship conveys, as our human relationships are the metaphor for the Father and the Son.

Yes I understand what the Jews were saying about Jesus. They were making assumptions about what he said when he said, "I and the Father are one." Jesus wasn't saying he and his Father were the same person or in the same essence either. When Jesus used the word one in the neuter as it's used here at John10:30 it doesn't mean Jesus and his Father were the same person because as you said and I agree, the word one is in the neuter not the masuline. John Calvin who was a Trinitarian disagrees with M.R. Vincent. John Calvin said in the book, Commentary on the Gospel According to John: “The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father.” What John Calvin said is in agreement with the context of the verses after John 10:30, because Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: “Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, ‘I am God’s son’?” (John 10:31-36) No, Jesus didn't claim he was God, but instead Jesus claimed he was the Son of God.

 

[BB1956]

If Jesus was merely saying he and the Father were "united in thought and purpose," why would they accuse him of blasphemy? Wasn't that the highest Jewish way? Couldn't that be said of all the forefathers and the prophets?

This is what M. R. Vincent says in his Word Studies in the New Testament:

"The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power."

And that seems to be precisely how the Jews understood it.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (ESV)

Joh 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Notice the similarities in the two passages. In John 10:36, Jesus understands the Jews accusing him of blasphemy because he said, "I am the Son of God." That is the same reason given in John 5:18. There is no misunderstanding of the part of the Jews; they understood him perfectly.

This bring up two relevant points I have made throughout this thread:

1. No father is ever his own son nor is a son his own father.
2. A son is always of the same nature as his father.

If either or both of these are not actually the case in regards to the Father and the Son, then God's revelation of himself using that relationship is utterly pointless; it communicates nothing to us because we cannot know what he is saying.

However, it is meaningful for the precise reason that we know what that relationship conveys, as our human relationships are the metaphor for the Father and the Son.

I think you don't go by the metaphor of the Father and son relationship as accurately as you should. We humans understand that in the Father son relationship we(the sons) are not the same person as our Father, we(the sons) also understand that our Father was in existence (was born) before we were, so is older, wiser, and has more authority than us(the sons). Isn't this the exact Father and Son relationship that Jesus is conveying to us. That Jesus says he has a Father isn't he saying his Father is older, wiser, has more authority than him. Jesus Father is never shown to be in subjection to Jesus, never does Jesus Father who is God call Jesus his Father or God as Jesus does at John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

 

[gordon777]

I will point this out for those who consider they are a Christian here.

To avoid contention, there are no divisions in Christ, that is seen in the gospels of Pharisees, Seduces etc, divisions.


Your divisions ( your separate denominational beliefs) and your discussions on Christ being divided from the Father in any way whatsoever( not simply accepting that the Father and the Son are one Lord) is not theology, because theology should not be directly against Jesus Christ. ( a thread made up and given into theology area that is titled subtily, when it means DIVISIONS)


Here again, is how no contentions would exist ( if anyone did as commanded by God)

I wont tell you guys again, because you have made sure it is discarded and not accepted. ( I recommend this thread be moved to a controversial area, unless the forum intends purposefully to make discussions on Jesus Christ into perverse disputes of men.)



1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

 

[Cooper]

I think you don't go by the metaphor of the Father and son relationship as accurately as you should. We humans understand that in the Father son relationship we(the sons) are not the same person as our Father, we(the sons) also understand that our Father was in existence (was born) before we were, so is older, wiser, and has more authority than us(the sons). Isn't this the exact Father and Son relationship that Jesus is conveying to us. That Jesus says he has a Father isn't he saying his Father is older, wiser, has more authority than him. Jesus Father is never shown to be in subjection to Jesus, never does Jesus Father who is God call Jesus his Father or God as Jesus does at John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Jesus was only the Son 2,000 years ago when he took on human flesh. Prior to that he was the Word (John chapter one and elsewhere the Mighty God) who created the heavens and the earth billions of years ago. Best not to be too vociferous about it imo.
.

 

[theWind]

theWind
I take exception to what you said about Free. I've found him to be articulate, reasonable, logical, well versed (pun intended), interesting and enjoyable to read. Keep up the good work Free.

Of course you do.

You're one of his many alternate User Names.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Trinity

The purpose of New Testament is to identify the Lord Jesus as the Son of God (because that’s His primary administration for salvation). Though the Three are equal in Deity, power and essence, They are in an order of authority (Father, Son, Spirit - Jhn 10:29; 14:28; 1Co 11:3; 15:24); as the One...

christianforums.net

 

[theWind]

I know what you believe I've heard it like forever and I disagree with what people have said regarding certain scripture when they say they prove Jesus to be God when they didn't.

Lol.

The entire Bible proves Jesus to be God.

You just refuse to accept plain Scripture and hold fast to any verse that you claim states otherwise. Deaf-earing God's Word doesn't allow it to be twisted and forced into the shape that you prefer. It just allows you to be twisted and shaped as the enemy prefers.

The Bible states what the Bible states. Stubbornly claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

 

[Cooper]

I think you don't go by the metaphor of the Father and son relationship as accurately as you should. We humans understand that in the Father son relationship we(the sons) are not the same person as our Father, we(the sons) also understand that our Father was in existence (was born) before we were, so is older, wiser, and has more authority than us(the sons). Isn't this the exact Father and Son relationship that Jesus is conveying to us. That Jesus says he has a Father isn't he saying his Father is older, wiser, has more authority than him. Jesus Father is never shown to be in subjection to Jesus, never does Jesus Father who is God call Jesus his Father or God as Jesus does at John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: “I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one.” Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Seeing as Jesus is the Saviour, and as only God can forgive sins, perhaps you need to think in a new way.

.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Of course you do.

You're one of his many alternate User Names.

That would explain why I think Free is usually correct and very intelligent; because we are the same person.

 

[theWind]

The Trinity

The purpose of New Testament is to identify the Lord Jesus as the Son of God (because that’s His primary administration for salvation). Though the Three are equal in Deity, power and essence, They are in an order of authority (Father, Son, Spirit - Jhn 10:29; 14:28; 1Co 11:3; 15:24); as the One...

christianforums.net

^^^This is what is referred to as an extra-biblical source.^^^

This is what is referred to as a Biblical source:

About Jesus Christ:
"He that cometh from above is above all: ... He that cometh from heaven is above all."
John 3:31

About God Almighty:
"There is ... one spirit, (not two, not three) ...
One Lord, ... (not two, not three) ...
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, ..."
Eph. 4:4-6

About God Almighty:
"... ye are in the Spirit ... if ... the Spirit of God dwell in you. ... the Spirit of Christ, ...(not two spirits, not three) ... if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you."
Romans 8:9-11

And who raised up Christ from the dead?

Jesus did:
Destroy this temple and I will raise it up.
John 2:19
"No man taketh (My life) from Me, ... I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again. ..."
John 10:18

Who has the power to raise Himself up from the dead?

Jesus Christ.

One individual person IS the Spirit, IS God and gives eternal life to those whom He chooses.

 

[theWind]

That would explain why I think Free is usually correct and very intelligent; because we are the same person.

Exactly

 

[BB1956]

Seeing as Jesus is the Saviour, and as only God can forgive sins, perhaps you need to think in a new way.

.

This here is your problem. Your lack of faith. You can't exercise faith that God has given his only begotten Son the authority to forgive sins. That's the problem with trinitarians they lack such faith.

 

[BB1956]

Lol.

The entire Bible proves Jesus to be God.

You just refuse to accept plain Scripture and hold fast to any verse that you claim states otherwise. Deaf-earing God's Word doesn't allow it to be twisted and forced into the shape that you prefer. It just allows you to be twisted and shaped as the enemy prefers.

The Bible states what the Bible states. Stubbornly claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.

I understand what you believe but it's you who refuse to believe so many scriptures that prove that Jesus is the Christ the son f the living God.

 

[BB1956]

Jesus was only the Son 2,000 years ago when he took on human flesh. Prior to that he was the Word (John chapter one and elsewhere the Mighty God) who created the heavens and the earth billions of years ago. Best not to be too vociferous about it imo.
.

The Word is the only begotten Son of God. As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” the latter work of Translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1969, Vol. IV, p. 738-741
says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 John. 4:9; [John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In John. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in John 1:14. In John. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.”
So at scriptures such as 1John 4:9 which says, "By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him."
Here at such scriptures as 1John 4:9 this is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) so at that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”(1John 4:9)
The God and Father of Jesus has exalted his only begotten Son to a superior position yet Jesus is still the only begotten Son of God his Father.

 

[Cooper]

The Word is the only begotten Son of God. As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” the latter work of Translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1969, Vol. IV, p. 738-741
says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 John. 4:9; [John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In John. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in John 1:14. In John. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.”
So at scriptures such as 1John 4:9 which says, "By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him."
Here at such scriptures as 1John 4:9 this is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) so at that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”(1John 4:9)
The God and Father of Jesus has exalted his only begotten Son to a superior position yet Jesus is still the only begotten Son of God his Father.

The Word created the heavens and the earth. Millions of years later the Word created for himself a body of flesh and they called his name Jesus, while he remained the Word in Spirit. Father and Son are literally the One God, with us in the flesh.
.

 

[Free]

The Word is the only begotten Son of God. As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” the latter work of Translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1969, Vol. IV, p. 738-741
says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 John. 4:9; [John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In John. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in John 1:14. In John. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.”
So at scriptures such as 1John 4:9 which says, "By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him."
Here at such scriptures as 1John 4:9 this is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Logos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (John 1:1, 2; 17:5, 24) so at that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”(1John 4:9)
The God and Father of Jesus has exalted his only begotten Son to a superior position yet Jesus is still the only begotten Son of God his Father.

You are fond of pointing out that Jesus is the "only begotten Son of God," which is fine of course, except that it seems that you think it means something it doesn't. Monogenes really just means "unique," "only," "one and only." What it does not mean is that Jesus was literally begotten or that there was a time when he did not exist. It is worth noting that monogenes is used only 9 times in the NT; 5 of those times in reference to Jesus and each of those are by John. This is important because John 1:1-3 completely rules out the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist.

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."

 

[theWind]

You said: "That same God declares to be ALL that Christ is in Isaiah chapters 40-48."

But I don't know which verses you think mention Christ.


Certainly wasn't me. If you mean the ones where God says he is the only God, I don't see what your comment has to do with that.


I have been nothing but honest and reasonable. Please read the ToS again as there are consequences for such violations.


Again, please read the ToS.


Challenged is one thing. I said it has stood the test of time.


Oneness is a combination of the Trinity and Modalism. For some reason it needs to appear Trinitarian although it denies it. I wonder why that is?


You seem to "forget" that I have rebutted each attempt of yours but you have always ignored my rebuttal. Repeating something doesn't make it actually true, although it tends to make one believe it is.


Not once.


Again, read the ToS.


I know what it says. Even an atheist can quote Scripture but that doesn't mean he has understood it. And it usually is, although not always, rather pointless without commentary as to what the person thinks it says or how it relates to a discussion.


Without your commentary I didn't know what your point was and I'm not going to presume, so I asked. That's what honest and reasonable people do. This proof-text in no way whatsoever proves the Trinity false. I'm not sure why you think it would. God fills the heaven and earth. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the "Godhead."


Again, read the ToS.


For the last time, read the ToS. There are several violations in two posts.

It's cracked me up every time you say "the trinity has stood the test of time", but it didn't dawn on me as to why til now.

Nobody is given a choice. Almost every single church in the world teaches the trinity. Nobody is taught anything else, and all references, to any other opposing doctrine to the trinity, are mocked and ridiculed.

Give people the True teaching of Oneness (not your fraudulent Modalism nonsense) and let them decide for themselves between that and the completely unbiblical doctrine of the trinity and you will see people leaving trinitarianism in droves within just a few years.

Within a decade, the trinity will be a laughingstock among Christendom throughout the world and nobody will ever return to such nonsense.

Give the people a choice and let's see just how the trinity "stands the test of time."

It won't last a single year.

Please.