Understanding the GodHead. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

[Free]

Free, did you see my post about the video link?

Sorry, not yet. I'm behind on my replies. I'll get to it. Keep pestering me in case I forget.

 

[Free]

I do not believe Yeshua is the Creator God or God Almighty.

You should, at least as the preexistent Son; that is what the NT makes very clear:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

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)

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)

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.
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says . . .
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Was He aware of it?....

He certainly was and he certainly was aware that he preexisted, as the Son. In addition to verses I've given already:

Joh 8:23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
...
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (ESV)

It is not insignificant that in the same discussion Jesus first says that he was "from above" and "not of this world," then states "before Abraham was, I am."

Ya I explained this and Christ explained this and I am not going to repeat myself.

Can you link to the post(s)? I must have missed it.

You might give the passage you want to talk about.

I previously laid it out, in the last portion of post #130.

 

[Grailhunter]

God’s name once appeared in the scriptures as YHWH, very singular around 6,800 times then they removed all 6,800 names and replaced them with the words God or Lord or both and restructured the sentences to make it fit. This has allowed people to manipulate the true meaning and deceive people.

Between removing the words and inserting the words and making changes to the sentence structure it makes for a total of around 24,000 modifications to the scriptures and I hope they go to Hell for it, because it has caused a lot of confusion and allows for false beliefs.

One of the reasons that God’s name was specifically used was because the Hebrew is one case, no capitals or lower case, just Hebrew letters and the word God is used to refer to other gods. There is no difference in the word God used for YHWH or false gods.

The Truth is that there is one God in the Old Testament and there is no other....by His own words He says this.

You shall have no other Gods before me. Exodus 20:3

To you it was shown, that you might know that the YHWH is God; there is no other besides him. Deuteronomy 4:35
(This is how it appeared in the scriptures….God’s name appeared in the scriptures around 6,800 times until they took it out and replaced it with the words God or Lord.)

Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the YHWH is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. Deuteronomy 4:39

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, YHWH is one. Deuteronomy 6:4

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Deuteronomy 32:39

I am the YHWH; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols. Isaiah 42:8

“You are my witnesses,” declares the YHWH , “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. Isaiah 43:10

Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
Isaiah 44:8

I am the YHWH and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, Isaiah 45:5

For thus says YHWH, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am YHWH, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:18

Remember the former things of old; for I am YHWH, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, Isaiah 46:9

That all the peoples of the earth may know that YHWH is God; there is no other. 1st Kings 8:60

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? Malachi 2:10

 

[Grailhunter]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

I will have to take the hit on that. I do not believing that Yeshua was a functioning God in the Old Testament….One God in the Old Testament See post 263

And a few other things I do not believe…..

Yeshua is a Great God, but I do not believe He is Almighty God or the Creator God.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit, is just the spirit of Yahweh or Yeshua.
I believe the Holy Spirit is a God.

I do not believe you have to hate your father and mother to be a Christian.

I do not believe if you are wealth you are going to Hell unless you can squeeze through an eye of a needle.

I do not believe the world is flat.

I believe meteorites can fall to the earth, but not stars.

 

[Grailhunter]

Can you link to the post(s)? I must have missed it.

Posts 78 - 82

 

[Grailhunter]

I am? You don't believe Gen 1:1?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (ESV)

Do you disagree that it clearly shows that God is a necessary being, that he has absolute existence, which is one of those main things that makes him God?

Quote scripture you want to talk about and we will talk about.
If you are only talking about Genesis....God said I Am.

 

[Grailhunter]

I'm looking for the biblical definition of that particular Greek word. Webster's often just doesn't cut it when it comes to ancient languages used in specific contexts. I take it that you did not know....

Ya know that would have been something that would have really helped, if the Bible came with a dictionary.

How about the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance...
Strong's Greek: 1080. γεννάω (gennaó) -- to beget, to bring forth. ... , produce offspring; (passive) be born, "begotten." NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from genna ( ... . fol. 19, 2 "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Scripture reckons this ...

You do not have a Strong's

 

[Grailhunter]

Now you're just begging the question.

You stated: "Yeshua was begotten, conceived, and born….not created."

I responded: "if the Son did not exist prior to all creation, if he did not have absolute existence, as the Father did, then it necessarily follows that he was created."

You stated: "If He pre-existed He could have just appeared on a mountain top."

To which I responded: "But, then he wouldn't have been truly human, which would completely undermine the gospel."

Being conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit says nothing of whether or not the Son preexisted.

I have already answered this....Post 264

 

[Fish153]

You have no other option. You stated: "Yeshua was begotten, conceived, and born….not created." However, if the Son did not exist prior to all creation, if he did not have absolute existence, as the Father did, then it necessarily follows that he was created. Again, there is no other option. There is God, who is necessary being, and all others are contingent beings.


How can it not? In multiple places in the NT it states that the Son was the agent of creation. I also quoted just one of several instances of Jesus saying he preexisted with the Father, sharing his glory before creation, and then John saying that Isaiah saw the glory of the Son when Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh.

Is there a reason why you and every other anti-Trinitarian here hasn't even attempted to address that? Is there a reason why no anti-Trinitarian can show how two logical arguments I have given regarding 1 Cor 8:6 might be wrong?

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)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from also being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from also being Lord. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. Yet, we know that the Father is also Lord.

Second, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.

If you disagree, then please show me where my reasoning is wrong.

Also, John 1:1-18, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:2, and Heb 1:10-12 all state that the Son was the agent of creation.

Third, then, if all things were created by or through the Son, then it necessarily follows that the Son cannot be a created thing and is necessary being, just as the Father is.

Again, if you disagree, then show me where my reasoning is wrong.


No. Your speculation is not biblical. Merely having an awareness can in no way make the Son God. If the Father simply taught or somehow just gave the Son awareness of past, present, and future, then you have to show just how it follows that that can make him God.


No, that isn't Gnostic; it's biblical. The Gnostic belief here is that there is more than one God. The biblical revelation is that there was, is, and ever will be only one God.


You missed my point entirely. If Christ can somehow create enough bread and fish to feed thousands, how cannot it not also be the case that the Holy Spirit also somehow created the embryo into which the nature of the Son went into? Could that not have also been a single thought?


You stated: "Now just for the fun of it would you like to explain how a pre-existing God became sperm and fertilized Miriam’s egg so she would conceive?"

Hence, you implied that the Son couldn't have preexisted because he would have to have become sperm and fertilize the egg. Of course, this is why I brought up the feeding of the thousands--because God is the creator of DNA, is he not? Do you really think that if the Son preexisted as deity he would have to become sperm?


And, like I keep repeating, you gave one example of a unitarian view of God, and in so doing, misrepresented Pentecostal beliefs. Again, United Pentecostals or "Jesus Only" do not believe in Trinitarianism:

"Oneness writers strongly deny the doctrine of the Trinity. In the words of David K. Bernard,

“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the trinity, and trinitarianism actually contradicts the Bible. It does not add any positive benefit to the Christian message….the doctrine of the trinity does detract from the important biblical themes of the oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.”

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/onenes...definition-of-chalcedon-and-oneness-theology/


The OT is monotheistic, not monolithic. The NT is also monotheistic. If not, then you have made God out to be either a liar or ignorant (certainly not omniscient). Either way, he cannot be the God of the Bible.

"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5). This was before the MAN Jesus was born on the earth. Many say Jesus became the SON when he was born--that He did not exist before that. This verse clearly shows he did. John 17:5 is CLEARLY showing (2) persons: the FATHER AND THE SON---BEFORE the world began. "Jesus Only" people try to say God is ONE GOD expressed in three manifestations. No---not true. This verse clearly refutes that. God has eternally been (3) persons in one God: THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. This is Biblical and true without a doubt.

 

[Fish153]

That's correct, pending any scriptural backing of Jesus doing something before Abraham.

Runningman----
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5)
This is WAY before Abraham!

 

[Free]

I will have to take the hit on that. I do not believing that Yeshua was a functioning God in the Old Testament….One God in the Old Testament See post 263

And a few other things I do not believe…..

Yeshua is a Great God, but I do not believe He is Almighty God or the Creator God.

But, again, Yahweh says there was no god before him and there will be none after him. From start to finish the Bible teaches monotheism, that there is only one God. If the Bible teaches that the Son is deity, then he is the same deity as the Father, being of the same substance. There simply can be no other explanation. We absolutely cannot believe in three separate Gods.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit, is just the spirit of Yahweh or Yeshua.

It shows the intimacy and interpenetration of the three persons. The Holy Spirit is a distinct "person" from the Father and the Son, yet can also be said to be the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ.

I believe the Holy Spirit is a God.

In contradiction to Scripture's clear and plain teaching from start to finish that there is only one God. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, distinct from both the Father and the Son, but cannot be said to be a third God.

I do not believe you have to hate your father and mother to be a Christian.

I do not believe if you are wealth you are going to Hell unless you can squeeze through an eye of a needle.

I do not believe the world is flat.

I believe meteorites can fall to the earth, but not stars.

Those things are obvious, but none explain why you don't address the obvious in John 1:1-3, 10, and 14.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

We should also consider verses 2, 3, 10, and 14:

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

Again, we see that "the world was made through him," that is, through the Son, who became Jesus. This can only mean that he was in existence when the creation began and is, therefore, eternal. Otherwise, it's a false claim on the part of John.

John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is precisely what Paul is speaking of and expands on in Phil 2:5-8.

 

[Grailhunter]

But, again, Yahweh says there was no god before him and there will be none after him. From start to finish the Bible teaches monotheism, that there is only one God. If the Bible teaches that the Son is deity, then he is the same deity as the Father, being of the same substance. There simply can be no other explanation. We absolutely cannot believe in three separate Gods.

I have already answered this.
Come up with some thing new.
Yahwah had a Son and His Son is a God.
He did not begot Himself.

 

[Grailhunter]

It shows the intimacy and interpenetration of the three persons. The Holy Spirit is a distinct "person" from the Father and the Son, yet can also be said to be the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of Christ.

I have already went over this.
The was the problem with naming the third member spirit or ghost.

 

[Grailhunter]

Those things are obvious, but none explain why you don't address the obvious in John 1:1-3, 10, and 14.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are one and the same, which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

We should also consider verses 2, 3, 10, and 14:

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

Again, we see that "the world was made through him," that is, through the Son, who became Jesus. This can only mean that he was in existence when the creation began and is, therefore, eternal. Otherwise, it's a false claim on the part of John.

John then makes it clear in verse 14 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That is, the Word entered into time--Greek for "become" is egeneto (same as "made" in verse 3)--and took on human flesh. This is precisely what Paul is speaking of and expands on in Phil 2:5-8.

LOL Are you thinking I do not know these scriptures.
And I have addressed this too.

Whatever they are talking about, Yeshua does not show up as an apparent, functioning, active God in the Old Testament. And Yahweh denys the existance of any other God.
Like said show me where it say….and Yeshua said….or Yeshua did this or that….or Yahweh said to Yeshua.
As far as Yeshua’s awareness of that time period that is possible.
I am not going to keep repeating myself.

 

[Runningman]

It's in Genesis 19. When He's calling down fire and brimstone on Sodom

Can't find it in Genesis 19. Which verse please?

 

[Runningman]

He's making the case that Christ was in the same form as God. However, He humble Hself and became man. He's not telling the Philippians to think they're equal with God. He's saying look at Christ. He was equal (in form) with God and yet He didn't say, no I'm not going to be a lowly man. Instead He humbled Himself and took the lower position. It's the same thing Jesus said, He said when you're invited to a feast don't take the upper seats. He said take the lower one and let the host move you up to a higher seat.

The word "form" there in Philippians 2:6 means the form, shape, outward appearance. Are you saying God is a human?

What you said contains a bit of theology, but at face value it means Jesus isn't God. It just plainly called Jesus a human who is a servant.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman----
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5)
This is WAY before Abraham!

Not good enough because being known and blessed by God before the world began is something that applies to normal Christians. If it applies to me and yet I didn't pre-exist then why do you say it applies to Jesus differently? There should be something in the Old Testament demonstrating what Jesus was saying and doing.

 

[NoahK]

So how do you see Isaiah 9:6...

A description of Christ

 

[LeviR]

Not good enough because being known and blessed by God before the world began is something that applies to normal Christians. If it applies to me and yet I didn't pre-exist then why do you say it applies to Jesus differently? There should be something in the Old Testament demonstrating what Jesus was saying and doing.

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". (John 17:5)

Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. John 17:24

Obviously, the glory Jesus receives is GIVEN to him by his God and Father.

Trinitarians will say the Son is God because he has the same glory eternally with the Father.
If that’s true then why is he GIVEN it in both passages?
It’s because the Trinity is not a Biblical doctrine.

 

[Free]

aPosts 78 - 82

Much of that is against Modalism, not Trinitarianism, particularly when it comes to the Incarnation and the resulting "economic Trinity"--the functions and relationships of the three divine persons for the purpose of salvation.

Not to mention that in none of those posts did you address what I was initially pointing out--that you haven't addressed the two logical arguments I have given from 1 Cor 8:6, namely:

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)

First, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from also being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from also being Lord. That is basic logic and sound reasoning. Yet, we know that the Father is also Lord.

Second, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence. Again, basic logic and sound reasoning.

If you disagree, then please show me where my reasoning is wrong.

Quote scripture you want to talk about and we will talk about.
If you are only talking about Genesis....God said I Am.

I did. You quoted it: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." And, in John 8:58 (and 8:24) Jesus also claimed to be I Am.

Ya know that would have been something that would have really helped, if the Bible came with a dictionary.

How about the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance...
Strong's Greek: 1080. γεννάω (gennaó) -- to beget, to bring forth. ... , produce offspring; (passive) be born, "begotten." NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from genna ( ... . fol. 19, 2 "If one teaches the son of his neighbor the law, the Scripture reckons this ...

You do not have a Strong's

I have Strong's and then some. The clear problem here is that the only word translated as "only begotten" when used of Christ, is not gennao, but monogenes.

First, monogenes is used only nine times in the NT; five of those times it is used in reference to Christ and only translated as "only begotten" (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). It means "unique," "only one," or something very similar. The other four times, the KJV translates it as “an [the] only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). None of the times it is translated as “conceived” or merely "begotten."

Second, each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to the their children, not their conception. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:14 and 18. However, because we already know that the Son “was with God and was God,” it 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 is, monogenes simply does not speak of conception, especially in regards to Christ; that does not at all fit the context nor the usage.

Third, there are at least five words—gennao, sullambano, apokyeo, koite, and katabole—that are translated by the KJV as “conceive[d]" or “begat," but never monogenes. Gennao is used 97 times and often translated as "begat" (Matt 1:2-16, for instance), but the only time it is used directly of Jesus is in regards to his conception and birth (Matt 1:16, 20; 2:1, 4; Luke 1:35; John 18:37), and in three quotes of the same verse from Psalms where it is translated as “begotten” (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). It is also worth noting that John, and only John, uses monogenes of the Son, but not of others. When referring to others, he uses gennao (and perhaps other words), as seen in John 1:13 no less:

Joh 1:13 Which were born [gennao], not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten [monogenes] of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (ESV)

So, yes, gennao is properly used of Christ's physical conception and birth, but monogenes tells us something different--that he is unique and God's one and only Son, without reference to his conception. You can have all the Bible dictionaries you want, but if you don't even know which word is being used, they won't help one iota.