Was the Trinity included in Jesus’ gospel?

[Drew]

Can you prove that without interpreting? Because if you can’t, that statement is just an interpretation.

I am not sure what your point is. I suggest the following is the case:

1. It is a fiction to suggest that any person can claim to hold an "objective" view, or to arrive at some belief without some act of interpretation;

2. Notwithstanding point 1, and therefore granted that all views are necessarily subjective, this does not mean that we cannot, to some degree at least, gain access to "truth".

 

[Drew]

Is that supposed to be an argument for the objectivity of these scientists, for their ability to come to the right conclusions through their educated ability to interpret facts properly? Most of those same scientists believe there’s no God to create the electron. They agree with Richard Dawkins who believes that anyone who believes in a religion is insane. I’m not even going to bring up the logical conclusion of that idea. They also agree with Dawkins that life on this planet is the result of evolution, and that the existence of God is unnecessary to that which is a fact to them. Aren’t you interpreting the Scientists as you are about to accuse me of doing? Do you pick and choose in your agreement with scientific interpretations? Do you agree with their idea of Evolutionism, thus nullifying the relevance of your own religion to anyone but yourself?

Whoa there.

First of all, I am not accusing you of anything.

Second, while the evolution question is interesting, I do not see how it is relevant.

My point was simply this: the scientist is faced with a challenge. That challenge is that reality behaves in ways that do not map to the concepts we use to describe the world in a tidy way. For example, the best we can do now is to describe the electron in terms of two conceptually incompatible constructs - the particle and the wave.

The relevant point is this: when we come to the matter of the Trinity, we should not allow the boundaries of our concepts to "muzzle" the data that is there in Scripture. If the scientist acted in this way, s/he would immediately assert "the electron cannot be both wave and particle because those concepts are mutually incompatible." Instead, the scientist wisely "let's nature speak for herself" and allows herself to think of the electron as both wave and particle, notwithstanding the conceptual challenges.

Likewise, for those of us who claim to respect the authority of scripture (as the scientist "respects" nature), we need to accept the divine nature of Jesus since it is clearly asserted in the Scriptures through narrative means, even if this creates some conceptual problems.

 

[Free]

I am not sure what your point is. I suggest the following is the case:

1. It is a fiction to suggest that any person can claim to hold an "objective" view, or to arrive at some belief without some act of interpretation;

2. Notwithstanding point 1, and therefore granted that all views are necessarily subjective, this does not mean that we cannot, to some degree at least, gain access to "truth".

I would also suggest that there are also some interpretations which are have more support behind them, so one could not argue that since all views are subjective that therefore they are all on equal footing.

And of course, with regards to point 2, there are some things that we can know with a high degree of certainty, such as Christ literally dying and being raised.

 

[Drew]

Drew

You have left language and reality far behind now, in pursuit of your support of your doctrine.

Nothing seems to mean anything any more.

The pronouns are meaningless, and now the father/ son relationship has no meaning.

Nothing I have posted is subject to this critique.

Quite the contrary, I believe I have been clear that the nature of the relation between Jesus and the Father indeed does honour the content of the concepts "son" and "father" for the most part.

All I have done is to suggest that these concepts may not work perfectly in respect to that relation. So, for example, the use of the "Father" and "Son" concepts in relation to Jesus and God dishonours these concepts in the sense that a father "creates" a son, whereas God does not "create" Jesus.

We need concepts to communicate with one another, and I am implicitly conceding that the Bible sometimes uses concepts where they do not "fit the facts" perfectly. I think that this is entirely reasonable.

However, I think you are treating concepts as "ultimate truth" - to the point where you cannot imagine the sense of using "Father" and "Son" language to describe the relation between Jesus and God, unless those two "persons" fit perfectly into the "father" and "son" concepts.

And I suggest that is to get the cart before the horse. The scriptural account is primary, the concepts are secondary and may, at times, not perfectly capture the reality that is there in the Bible.

 

[Drew]

...., so one could not argue that since all views are subjective that therefore they are all on equal footing.

I agree - all views are indeed subjective but they are not all on equal footing.

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

I’m getting way behind here. No time to keep up. Would you please answer my last email so I’ll know my email is working?

“I am left speechless sometimes by the sheer common sense and ruthless logic of your writings.”

I go by what is common sense to me. Other people have there own common sense apparently. As far as logic goes, it’s for Mr Spock. And it’s about as much a figment of the imagination as he is.


“The only thing I disagree with in your post is on the question of God sending Jesus into the world from a pre-existing state.
That concept falls foul of the 'surrogate mother' and non-Fatherhood of God as I have been trying to point out to the guys.”

Can’t help it. Don’t believe in either. I believe that God is the Divine Father of Jesus Christ and Mary is the human mother of Jesus Christ. And I believe that Jesus had a pre-existence.

Doesn’t necessarily mean that Jesus is the same as God. In fact, the New Testament teaches the exact opposite. The Father is one person and the Son is another. Jesus isn’t exactly like God who is Spirit, and Spirit only. God hasn’t physical or physical like form, even though he sometimes has to communicate in a way that makes it appear that he has in order to be understood. He has to send others in his stead that have form if it’s necessary.

Jesus, on the other hand, has a Divine nature and a human nature. He obviously is NOT the same as God in nature, not in that sense. He has a Spiritual nature and a physical nature. He has lost neither in his resurrection. He still was able to appear in physical form to the Apostles after his resurrection. And today he is seated at the right side of the Father, signifying he is in a position of authority just under the Father. And showing that he also is a Spiritual form. God isn’t like that at all. And to make God have physical form through some of the things said in the Old Testament is to agree with the Mormons. One day he will return and physically reign for a thousand years on the earth. That’s the way I see it.

“into the world” means just that to me. The pre-existence of Christ is all over the New Testament. Even the JW’s had to admit it and account for it. Don’t believe much of their explanation for it either. But the fact remains. I used a verse not generally used in the context of pre-existence.

God, the one who is definitely referred to as “the Father” in the New Testament, put his son into Mary through the Holy Spirit. Did Jesus have physical form prior to that? Don’t think so. Had no need for it. In spite of those who interpretively think so from some Old Testament references. Jesus is called the only begotten son. Means just that to me. The Father point blank calls Jesus his son. Can’t get around that without not believing what the Father said. We are sons of Adam as fallen sons, and through Christ by being in Christ we are redeemed sons of God. Two different creations. Two different situations. The one who is in Christ is a part of both worlds so long as we live and both worlds exist. One is perishing, the other will continue. The ones who are in Christ will continue. The rest? I’m not sure what will happen to them. Since it is said that there can be no corruption in the new situation, I tend to think that everything belonging to the old creation will eventually perish. Yet there is Rev 20:10 to consider where tormented means tormented.

Personally, I’m thankful that God loved humanity to the extent that he worked it out that way for our benefit. He could have just as easily started over, like the Gap theorists claim he did to a humanoid race created prior to the race in Adam. But the Bible says something else entirely. At least it does to me.

Francis brings up Phil 2. I’m sure you have an explanation for that one too. Consistence demands nothing else. But to me, “took upon him the form of a servant” refers to his taking human form in its context, and implies he was in some other form previous to that act, which in turn implies he had a previous existence before coming to earth in human form.

Jn 1.10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

You emphasize “and the world knew him not”. I emphasize “and the world was made by him”, which implies pre-existence to me.

You emphasize “Notice the parallelism of the two sentences. The world = his own ie the Jewish nation.” I emphasize that they are two different things. Even if they are the same, it would mean that the Jewish nation was made by him, which would still imply pre-existence.

“Given all that, I suggest you abandon the pre-existence concept. There are far too many and too serious problems in its path.
And the simple understanding, that God was His Father, Jesus His only-begotten Son, coming to birth and existence as we do stands unassailable on the certain rock of common experience, common sense and common use of language.
No contortions are necessary.”

No contortions necessary for what I believe either. At least not to me.

Please keep in mind that we all have reasons for what we believe. And as a Protestant, you have to include Francis in that assessment, a Catholic who believes that his own Church is the only true Church that has the only true doctrine and tends to think that anyone who disagrees with him is illogical. No Christian thinks he’s twisting Scripture for his own benefit. Non-Christians don’t think they’re twisting truth just to hide some preconceived lie of their own. And unlike the Calvinists, I don’t believe the situation is due to some preconceived plan of God that makes everyone little puppets in some kind of play that God is orchestrating. Or that everyone is so deceived that they can’t think anything else other than what they think. If true, it would have to include those who do believe in that assessment. To me, that is a God of human imagination and people really need to read their Bibles with an open mind and find out who God really is.

Tolerance for the beliefs of others is the key. Hard to get that across to Christians. They see Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And that’s the truth, pffft. Well, some people don’t see it that way. Paul understood that and said he became all things to all people in order to save some. Jesus sometimes appeared to be intolerant, but if you read the accounts closely, it can be seen that he was very very very tolerant under the circumstances. Jesus had an agenda and little time to do it in. He spoke point blank for the benefit of people who should have known and understood what he was talking about. But didn’t. Even the Apostle’s didn’t understand until the time chosen for them to do so. And that time was after he ascended into heaven.

The denominational nature of Christianity shows that Christians haven’t much understanding of what Jesus was talking about either. They obviously don’t understand what he was talking about in John 17. And taking into consideration that they call themselves Christians, but don’t follow him in what he said in John 17, an obvious question arises. The term “Christian” means “a follower of Christ”. If they don’t follow what Jesus said in John 17, are those who call themselves Christians really Christians, are they really followers of Christ?

Tolerance regarding the denominational thinking and doctrines of those who are in Christ is the key.



Incidentally, for those who question my belief on relativism, I offer this explanation.

A professional philosopher like William Lane Craig would say I’m misusing the term. But it’s the only term that fits the closest to what I believe. Until I can find or create another term that fits, it will have to do.

I’m a relativist in relation to the doctrinal beliefs of those who are in Christ. And that’s all. I’m not a cultural relativist, which is the usual meaning of the term. Because I’m a relativist, I’m tolerant of the beliefs of those who are in Christ. And those beliefs are diverse because they have chosen to be a part of and think like a denominational man-made religion. I’m also tolerant of the beliefs of non-believers because I believe they have as much right to believe what they think is true as I have. That doesn’t mean I have no beliefs. Anyone who reads my posts will see that I have a system of belief just like everyone else. According to what I believe, Christian denominational beliefs aren’t much in keeping with what the Bible actually says. I could be very intolerant about that. But I believe strongly in a very simple principle. Almost all religions state this principle in some way. Something that Jesus said:

Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
(NIV)

If I wasn’t a tolerant relativist, I would be a died in the wool fire and brimstone Baptist who believes that anyone who doesn’t agree with my Fundamentalist thinking is destined for the fires of hell. The Catholics and everyone who wasn’t a Baptist had only one assurance, they’re going to hell. I was a Calvinist who believed that once preached to, a man had to choose to follow Christ or forever burn in hell. I believed that the KJV was the only true Bible for English speaking people. I believed that when one went to Church, one dresses appropriately because one is coming into the presence of God. And one doesn’t come to a sovereign God dressed casually. Didn’t occur to me at the time that every time we pray we come into the presence of God, and sometimes we aren’t wearing any clothes at all. I was a mean Fundamentalist that judged everybody and every thing. Baptist or not.

That’s what I started out as, that’s what I’m NOT today. I became a believer and learned to be that way in the first Church I attended. Eventually Jesus taught me a different way. And in my opinion, Thank you Jesus.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

“I am not sure what your point is. I suggest the following is the case:

1. It is a fiction to suggest that any person can claim to hold an "objective" view, or to arrive at some belief without some act of interpretation;

2. Notwithstanding point 1, and therefore granted that all views are necessarily subjective, this does not mean that we cannot, to some degree at least, gain access to "truth".”

You’re right. We do believe more alike than not. The only thing I disagree with is “It is a fiction to suggest that any person can claim.... to arrive at some belief without some act of interpretation”. To me the act of interpretation only produces a product of that interpretation. And through the act of interpretation, your second point would be impossible. But there is your qualification of "some belief". Which means we can arrive at some belief through interpretation. But to me, it wouldn't be truth, just a personal belief.

I'm not going to bother to answer your next post. Too much misunderstanding.

FC

 

[Drew]

The only thing I disagree with is “It is a fiction to suggest that any person can claim.... to arrive at some belief without some act of interpretation”. To me the act of interpretation only produces a product of that interpretation. And through the act of interpretation, your second point would be impossible.

First of all, I suggest that it is pretty clear that there is no such thing as an "objective" viewpoint. I suggest this a fiction of enlightenment thinking. Think about it: no matter who you are, you "see" the data of the world through a set of "pre-conceived" assumptions. We have no choice about this - it is simply not possible for a human person to disentangle him or herself from at least a minimal set of pre-conceived assumptions.

Or look at this way: nature "forces" us to understand the world indirectly - all our models of the world are necessarily mediated by the infrastructure of our "mental" apparatus.

I see no possible way to rescue the concept of an "objective" viewpoint.

Second, the foregoing does not mean it is impossible (as I understand you as suggesting) to get at truth. We get at truth through a process of seeing which subjective viewpoints of the world "work", as I will try to explain followinng.

We are, as per the above, necessarily forced into subjectivity - nature deals us a hand of cards where our knowledge of the world is necessarily mediated by acts of interpretation. If you can tell us how it is possible to have knowledge of the world that bypasses the mechanisms of "interpreting" the sense data presented to our minds, please let us know.

So how do get knowledge of the world? We accept what nature has given us - that we cannot avoid subjectivity - and we proceed to "experiment": some models of the world are more "workable" than others, even though all are necessarily subjective. Some models, when applied to how we act in the world produce more predictability than others.

In short, while we are saddled with subjectivity, we have the ability to "experiment" with our addmittedly subjective views in the context of a "reality" that is truly out there and which will give us useful feedback about the degree to which our models, subjective though they are, actually describe that reality.

This is, of course, a difficult subject and I came up with the above "on the fly", but I hope it gives you a sense of what I am saying.

I suggest that in every age, there are dominant "myths" that need to be challenged. In the 21st century west, one myth is the myth of objectivity. It has arisen understandably in light of the success of the scientific method. But, I suggest, it is really an illusion.

 

[Drew]

Hello FC:

On a practical matter, can you please consider using the "quote" feature when you reply - this makes it easier to distinguish your words from our words.

 

[Asyncritus]

Nothing I have posted is subject to this critique.

Quite the contrary, I believe I have been clear that the nature of the relation between Jesus and the Father indeed does honour the content of the concepts "son" and "father" for the most part.

Question is, is your 'most part' inclusive of the essential feature of a father/son relationship: ie that the Father is indeed the father of the son?

The case in point here is quite simple. If a father is indeed a 'father', then he pre-dates and precedes the 'son' at every relevant point in the description of their relationship.

Is that how you see this one, or are you going to drag in some philosophical point which will relieve you of the necessity of thinking the decent thing?

All I have done is to suggest that these concepts may not work perfectly in respect to that relation. So, for example, the use of the "Father" and "Son" concepts in relation to Jesus and God dishonours these concepts in the sense that a father "creates" a son, whereas God does not "create" Jesus.

But that is exactly what scripture states quite flatly. Jesus is 'the beginning of the creation of God'. (Rev 3.14)

You are, if I may say so, begging the question quite noticeably by assuming the moot point.

We need concepts to communicate with one another, and I am implicitly conceding that the Bible sometimes uses concepts where they do not "fit the facts" perfectly. I think that this is entirely reasonable.

The facts are very plain, Drew. Any number of Scriptures state, unequivocally and in totally certain language, that God is Jesus' Father.

I hear you denying that statement - yet it it the very fabric and context of the whole of scripture, and that includes the OT in addition to the New. Such as:

2 Sam 7.14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men;

There is the Father claiming fatherhood of His Son, and threatening Him with blows if the son commits iniquity.

Ps 89.26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27 I also will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

Note, at the time of writing those words, Jesus was not yet born, and was GOING TO BE MADE the firstborn.

There is a creation of the Son, and an appointment to high office.

Ps 2.7 ¶ I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.

And when was that day? The day of resurrection: Rom.1.4

These are all starting points, creation points, of things that did not exist before.

I don't know how you can gainsay all that very clear evidence that God preceded Jesus, is higher than Jesus, and created Jesus.

However, I think you are treating concepts as "ultimate truth" - to the point where you cannot imagine the sense of using "Father" and "Son" language to describe the relation between Jesus and God, unless those two "persons" fit perfectly into the "father" and "son" concepts.

If the scriptures can't manage to use the words 'father' and 'son' properly, then who can? Those aren't concepts, they are among the most profound relationships on the planet and out of it.

So is Jesus God's son, or not?

And I suggest that is to get the cart before the horse. The scriptural account is primary...

And you never spoke a truer word than that. Now that is precisely what I've been saying all along, and you have been doing your best to gainsay.

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

“FC, you may not have seen this argument before, but I pointed out that if Jesus existed in heaven before His birth, then He was 'implanted', 'transplanted' or some other such word, into Mary's womb, and the word 'conceived' as used by Luke the doctor, Gabriel the archangel, and God the Father (in Isa 7.14) is a complete misnomer.
She, of course, was His 'surrogate mother', not His real mother at all. â€

Your right. I’ve never see that argument before. Surrogate mother. Pardon me a moment. LOLOLOL. Sorry. Where were we.

That's precisely where the pre-existence an eternal concepts get us. And you're right - it is absurd. Which is, of course, my whole point.

I believe that Jesus inherited his Divine nature through his Father and his human nature through his mother. Nothing surrogate about that.

Absolutely. Therefore He did not pre-exist.

Jesus shares both a Divine nature and a human nature that are integrated into one being in Christ. And we who are in Christ will be like Christ in the end, and can be to a degree today as we are conformed to the image of Christ. Sharing the Divine and human nature.

Correct.

To the extent that Christ shares in the Divinity of God, will be the extent that we’ll share in the Divinity of God as well. If Jesus is God, then that means we’ll be God also. Not individually, but certainly together with Christ being in Christ as members of the Body of Christ.

Reminds me of:

Jn 17.21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

Some think of eternal as meaning only forward and backward in an unlimited sense, not understanding that eternal could refer to only forward in an unlimited sense. That is certainly how it works for one who is in Christ. God is more than just eternal. He’s eternally self-existing. Humanity as created beings aren’t self-existing, but we can exist in an eternal sense.

I don't follow this.

[...]

“And in the same vein, if what Drew and Free say is correct, was God His Father? How can someone eternal have a Father? The idea of Jesus being 'eternal', as they are insisting, carries with it all manner of serious and very difficult problems.
All of which is a flat contradiction of Lk 1 and Isa 7.â€

All sides have problems. Wouldn’t be any argument if one side or the other didn’t have any problems.

True, but arguing is not the real point, is it? Arriving at the truth is.

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

That implies to me that he was the only begotten Son prior to being sent, which to me means pre-existence. Not necessarily eternal pre-existence. But neither does it deny eternal pre-existence.

As I've shown, eternal pre-existence leads directly to the concept of the fatherhood of God being falsified.

Therefore, the 'preexistence' you're arguing for, must be a decidedly restricted one. As I've also shown, 'the world' in Jn 1 is the Jewish 'world'.

The eternal extent of that pre-existence would only have relevance to a Trinitarian. Jesus could conceivably be eternal as is his Father having inherited a share of the Divine nature from him.

There is no possibility of that. Isaiah is very clear on that point:

Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity...

The question that I would have is the extent of his existence prior to becoming the Son of God, since the text says “this day I have begotten theeâ€.

This day is identified for us as the day of resurrection:

Rom1.4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord

Acts 13.33 how that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

One thing I believe that Trinitarians don’t, apparently, is that Jesus in his humanity is a created being. Just like his mother. And I believe that Mary is as truly his mother as God is his Father.
FC

Absolutely. If you abandon the pre-existence concept, the 'surrogate mother' bit, and the 'non-Fatherhood of God' both disappear completely.

If you don't, they are there very firmly in your path.

 

[francisdesales]

As I said francis, you are at liberty to comment on my posts, but I will not be commenting on yours. Fear of infraction, you see.

There's still a question outstanding,you recall, I've raised it again here. Till you have answered that one, I regret that I will not be replying to your comments.

Over and out.

I asked you one first - but I suppose you are afraid of "infraction" (is that what you call it?), so you won't be answering me...

 

[Free]

Is that supposed to be an argument for the objectivity of these scientists, for their ability to come to the right conclusions through their educated ability to interpret facts properly? Most of those same scientists believe there’s no God to create the electron. They agree with Richard Dawkins who believes that anyone who believes in a religion is insane. I’m not even going to bring up the logical conclusion of that idea. They also agree with Dawkins that life on this planet is the result of evolution, and that the existence of God is unnecessary to that which is a fact to them. Aren’t you interpreting the Scientists as you are about to accuse me of doing? Do you pick and choose in your agreement with scientific interpretations? Do you agree with their idea of Evolutionism, thus nullifying the relevance of your own religion to anyone but yourself?

Discussion of this type of stuff is to stay in the Science forum, but for the record, I will say here that it is false to present evolution as though it is against the Bible or Christian belief. Atheists do it and Christians do it but it is error to pit one against the other, as though one proves the other false.

If anyone has something to say about that, post up in the Science forum and we'll discuss.

And what you’re advocating as a religion is just an interpretation. And there’s no reason for me to believe your interpretation over my own or that accepted by my peers.

Actually, there can be good reasons, very good reasons, to reject one interpretation over another.

I assume you haven’t been reading my posts. Otherwise you would know that I oppose the practice of Biblical interpretation. Don’t you see that to those who interpret, the data itself is only an interpretation to be interpreted? And as the song says, people don’t understand the Bible alike. Because they’re determined to believe that “We all interpret - there is no way to read without interpreting.†It’s part of the denominational thinking that makes me what I am today.

But Drew is absolutely correct: the very act of reading the Bible means you are interpreting it. I'm a little behind on this thread and I think he has addressed this, but one's life experiences, preconceived ideas, learned doctrines, biblical knowledge, education, etc., any number of factors, are the lenses through which we read and understand what is written. To read the Bible is to interpret it. There is no way around it.

Want to take your toys and go home do ya? Shoot! If everyone has that attitude, I’m never gonna to get my question answered.

If it was your original question, I believe I addressed it, twice. I am enjoying the discussion with you, so I might stick around a bit.

 

[Free]

Before Abraham was, I am what?

And how long before Abraham am He talking about?

"Before Abraham was I AM," is what Jesus is saying.

Question is, is your 'most part' inclusive of the essential feature of a father/son relationship: ie that the Father is indeed the father of the son?

The case in point here is quite simple. If a father is indeed a 'father', then he pre-dates and precedes the 'son' at every relevant point in the description of their relationship.

But that is exactly what scripture states quite flatly. Jesus is 'the beginning of the creation of God'. (Rev 3.14)

You are, if I may say so, begging the question quite noticeably by assuming the moot point.

We've been over this more than once before. You are only using a definition of "beginning" that suits your limited theology instead of one that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity and all that Scripture reveals about God.

"Beginning" can refer to the "author of" or the "First Cause." This is entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, and agree or disagree, in the very least, it does not prove the Trinity false.

The facts are very plain, Drew. Any number of Scriptures state, unequivocally and in totally certain language, that God is Jesus' Father.

I hear you denying that statement - yet it it the very fabric and context of the whole of scripture, and that includes the OT in addition to the New.

You really need to make an attempt at following what is being said. Your question begging about the meaning of "God" is not helping; it is fallacious to equate God with Father.

As far as I can tell, Drew is not saying that the Father is not Jesus' Father. Drew and I agree that the Father is Jesus' Father. But the Father is not a literal father in terms of having created Jesus, or procreated in case you subscribe to Mormon error. From what I can remember, it is proper to say that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father.

Ps 89.26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
27 I also will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

Note, at the time of writing those words, Jesus was not yet born, and was GOING TO BE MADE the firstborn.

Same mistake here. There is more than one meaning for "firstborn," and there is one that doesn't literally mean "born." Note that this passage is speaking of David. Clearly David existed when this was written.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. (NKJV)

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn. (NKJV)

"Firstborn" is used to speak of a position in which one has the rights of one who is firstborn--the heir. This implies preeminence and sovereignty, which again, is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.

If the scriptures can't manage to use the words 'father' and 'son' properly, then who can? Those aren't concepts, they are among the most profound relationships on the planet and out of it.

So is Jesus God's son, or not?

They are very true relationships between human beings which is precisely why they are such a great metaphor for the relationship between Jesus and the Father, and us and the Father.

We, as children of God, joint heirs with Christ, are to call the Father, Father. What you are suggesting is that the Father is literally our Father since it is not a concept. Do you seriously believe that?

Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: (NKJV)

Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (ESV)

Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" (ESV)

Now that is precisely what I've been saying all along, and you have been doing your best to gainsay.

Do not accuse others of doing something that they very clearly have not been doing. 2

 

[Asyncritus]

"Before Abraham was I AM," is what Jesus is saying.

It must be obvious that Jesus' statement implies other things.

Before Abraham was [was what? In existence? the recipient of the Great Promises? faithful enough to offer Isaac? In the land of Canaan? What?]

I am [I am what? An object is demanded by the statement. What do you suggest the object is, or could be? Or is He referring to something they already knew in connection with Abraham?].

Granted, He may be being deliberately obscure to put the wind up His enemies, but you have to produce some kind of sensible idea to explain His meaning. There is such a meaning, and I suggest you read the context of that discussion to grasp it.

We've been over this more than once before. You are only using a definition of "beginning" that suits your limited theology instead of one that is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity and all that Scripture reveals about God.

"Beginning" can refer to the "author of" or the "First Cause." This is entirely consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, and agree or disagree, in the very least, it does not prove the Trinity false.

Sure, as you rightly say, 'beginning' can have another meaning or 2, but each one demands the precedence of God the Father.

Jesus IS the Author of our salvation. It says so.

He IS the first cause of our salvation.

But in both cases, it is God who delivers us from death,(and don't forget, it is God who delivered Him from death), BECAUSE OF what the Author and First Cause has done and is doing even now.

If you want to use the 'start', or the usual meaning of 'beginning', then you're in deep trouble once more.

You really need to make an attempt at following what is being said. Your question begging about the meaning of "God" is not helping; it is fallacious to equate God with Father.

Do you want to re-phrase that? Paul does it for you in regard to Jesus:

Eph 1.3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

As far as I can tell, Drew is not saying that the Father is not Jesus' Father. Drew and I agree that the Father is Jesus' Father.

Well, I agree with that too, certainly.

But the Father is not a literal father in terms of having created Jesus, or procreated in case you subscribe to Mormon error.

I neither know nor care what the Mormon error is. But I do subscribe to:

31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. [Remember that little problem???]

[...]

32 He shall be great, and shall be called [note, He isn't the Son as yet] the Son of the Most High:

Son again, you see.

[...]

The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called [again repeated for emphasis. He is not yet the Son of God. See Rom 1.4] holy, the Son of God.

So we have here, twice repeated for emphasis, the fact that Jesus SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God.

Therefore, at the time of the visitation, He wasn't. Therefore, I am right about this matter. Gabriel said so.

From what I can remember, it is proper to say that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father.

'Eternally' and 'begotten' are mutually exclusive terms.

Same mistake here. There is more than one meaning for "firstborn," and there is one that doesn't literally mean "born." Note that this passage is speaking of David. Clearly David existed when this was written.

If David wrote the Psalm, then he did exist, and was looking into the future, to the coming of the Messiah.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. (NKJV)

Glad you quoted that. Your left foot giving you any pain? Now who is God's firstborn, did you say - AT THE TIME OF WRITING of Ex 4.22?

Israel. Not Jesus. So straight up the chute go all the misinterpretations of Col. 1.15 ff.

Therefore 'firstborn of all creation' does not refer to the planet and all that goes with it.

ISRAEL is or was God's Firstborn. Because of their misbehaviour, they were deposed from that position, and were to be replaced by Jesus:

"I WILL MAKE Him my firstborn.." as Ps 89 says. That is the prophecy's intent.

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn. (NKJV)

See the above.

"Firstborn" is used to speak of a position in which one has the rights of one who is firstborn--the heir. This implies preeminence and sovereignty,

Right so far.

Jesus, as God's appointed 'Firstborn', has been given the pre-eminence and sovereignty OVER THE CHURCH, as Col 1 says so clearly.

He is the 'heir of all things' - Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who did the appointing? You got it: God did.

They are very true relationships between human beings which is precisely why they are such a great metaphor for the relationship between Jesus and the Father, and us and the Father.

We, as children of God, joint heirs with Christ, are to call the Father, Father. What you are suggesting is that the Father is literally our Father since it is not a concept. Do you seriously believe that?

No I don't: but it was never said to my parents or anybody else's that:

31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High:

or

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God.

or called me the 'only begotten' son of God.

So as far as we are concerned, we are sons, but by adoption:

Ga 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

So now your quote of

Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: (NKJV)

is seen to be correct, if we understand the 'adoption' bit.

That, however, is not the case, as shown above, with Christ, who is THE literal Son of God.

Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (ESV)

Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" (ESV)

Excellent.

Do not accuse others of doing something that they very clearly have not been doing. 2

My apologies, Drew.

So to summarise:

You are still faced with the gigantic problem that 'Father' in this case does literally mean 'Father'.

Which means the Jesus could not have been eternal.

 

[Former Christian]

Drew

“On a practical matter, can you please consider using the "quote" feature when you reply - this makes it easier to distinguish your words from our words.â€

Don’t know how. Wouldn’t use if I did. A totally misused feature in my humble opinion. To quote a whole post and answer it in a few words is a waste.

But I see what you mean. Everything is separated when I post it, but when it becomes an actual post, everything seems to run all together. And whatever size type one uses, it all becomes the same when posted. Perhaps if I stop quoting altogether. Subjects are what we’re dealing with. Perhaps this method:


Objective Truth

Already agreed with you about that.


Interpretation

What I disagreed with you about was that Biblical interpretation is the only valid way to understand the Bible. Interpretation is the way the natural man understands everything. Including the Bible. I contend that the valid way to understand the Bible is a supernatural way, not a natural way.

And I further contend that denominationalism in Christianity is the result of the practice of Biblical interpretation. That you are contributing to denominationalism by your belief in the validity of the practice of Biblical interpretation. That denominationalism is the primary evidence that Christianity not only doesn’t follow Christ (John 17), but is a man-made religion.


My original question (restated in yet a different way)

If Jehovah is an individual person, as the Old Testament clearly says
If Jehovah is the only God, as the Old Testament clearly says
If the Father is God, as the New Testament clearly says
If the Father is an individual person, as the New Testament clearly says
If Jesus is an individual person, as the New Testament clearly says
If the Father and Jesus are not the same person, as the New Testament clearly says

Then how can God and Jesus be the same person?



Does that method look any better to you?

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Free

Interpretation

If what you say is true, then the Bible is a worthless document except for historians and Bible interpreters to play with. And I’m a fool to believe that I can understand what it says in any other way than in a subjective way.

Through the practice of interpretation, we can only gain what we think is objective truth. What is considered objective truth today, may not be considered objective truth tomorrow. And all the scientific methodology won’t change the outcome. If scientists believed what they believe today is objective truth, scientific endeavor would end today. Obviously, even they know the limitations of interpretation of their observations and experiments.

The practice of Biblical interpretation has obvious results. Either a unified understanding that progressively changes over time, like the Catholic Church corresponding to modern Scientific endeavor. Or there would be a diversity of understanding like what is seen in Protestantism corresponding to political philosophies of the nations.

We can only gain what appears to us to be objective truth through the practice of Biblical interpretation. There can be no certainty that it actually is objective truth. Where we can agree on certain things we believe to be truth, such as the existence of God, it may be objective truth. But if we only know that because we have interpreted it to be so, there is no certainty that it actually is so. Christianity, if it proves nothing else, proves that the practice of Biblical interpretation does NOT lead to objective truth.

If I agreed with Drew and yourself on this matter, I would have blown this joint (believing in the Bible) long ago.


Sticking around

Glad to have ya.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

Eternal existence

Even if Jesus has no pre-existence, he still has been resurrected to an eternal existence. So also we who are in Christ. We can have an eternal existence by virtue of our being in Christ. A forward eternal existence. In Adam there is only a dying existence. Until the resurrection.


Argumentation

Argumentation and discussion are two different things. Argumentation leads to nothing. As forums have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The same questions are argued without resolution. What you’re referring to is discussion. On a natural level, discussion can lead to solutions. But discussion can’t lead to truth. Truth is objective. But we can only understand truth in a subjective way. Thus we can agree on certain truths that seem to be objective truth in our own minds. But when we claim to have objective truth through natural means, such as discussion or the practice of Biblical interpretation, we have gone beyond what we are capable of.

Jesus is truth. We can only learn objective truth through Jesus Christ through walking by the Spirit. The Bible contains objective truth. But we can only know that truth through the teaching of Christ through the connection between our human spirit and the Spirit of God. When we try to understand the Bible by natural means, through the practice of Biblical interpretation or discussion, the result will be a subjective understanding of objective truth. All the argumentation and discussion won’t change that. Those who are in Christ, share the objective truth that Jesus teaches them. But discussion is a natural way to understand truth, just as is the practice of Biblical interpretation. We can clarify our own thinking on a forum such as this, where there is some discussion going on. But it is Jesus who through the Spirit transforms us through the renewing of our mind. It is Jesus, in his own time, who reveals to us what is our own thinking that needs renewing. An ongoing process that lasts a lifetime according to Paul.

Some contend that what I am saying leads to subjectivity and is actually interpretation. I leave them to their thoughts. If they can’t tell the difference between the natural and the supernatural, then I suggest that maybe they haven’t as yet been in contact with the supernatural. Either that, or there isn’t any supernatural to be in contact with and I’m deceiving myself.


That Jesus became the Son of God on the day of resurrection

Jesus is called the Son of God throughout the Gospels. For example:

(all NIV)

Mt 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Mt 8:29 "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

Mt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

To which Jesus replied,

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Mt 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

Obviously, Jesus was the Son of God before his resurrection.

FC

 

[John Zain]

There's a lot about the Word of God in the OT.
Many times it simply means God's purpose expressed in words like:
Ex 9:20 He that feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh
made his servants and his cattle flee into the houses:

Many thanks for not going on and on.
"the word of the Lord" in the OT has nothing to do with
"the Word" who became flesh and walked amongst us for 33 years.
But thanks anyway.

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus

Eternal existence

Even if Jesus has no pre-existence, he still has been resurrected to an eternal existence. So also we who are in Christ. We can have an eternal existence by virtue of our being in Christ. A forward eternal existence. In Adam there is only a dying existence. Until the resurrection.

I can agree with that:

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Re 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

1.18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

That Jesus became the Son of God on the day of resurrection

Jesus is called the Son of God throughout the Gospels. For example:

(all NIV)

Mt 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Mt 8:29 "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

Mt 16:16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

To which Jesus replied,

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Mt 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

Obviously, Jesus was the Son of God before his resurrection.

He was the Son of God from the day of His birth, I agree.

But what do you make of Rom 1.4 in that case?

1.4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord