Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Randy]

Not according to John 1. It says the "word" (logos) was with God in the beginning. Jesus isn't a word.

Are we going by what it states now? OK
The Logos was God and was with God. So God became flesh. And that flesh was identified as the Son of God.
The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

As servant he's in the Fathers service.

He came to serve.
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Then do you accept these translations by qualified and training professionals with their teams of Koine Greek scholars?

Yes, Ages is used. It's not the word but what it means to a english speaking person. Several translations "Through whom He made the worlds" Several other translations "Through whom He made the universe" Some others "through whom He made the world"

Berean Literal Bible​

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,​

​

Literal Standard Version​

in these last days speaks to us in [His] Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages;​

​

Berean Literal Bible​

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,​

​

Young's Literal Translation​

in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;​

​

Smith's Literal Translation​

At these last days spake to us in the Son, whom he set heir of all things, by whom also he made the times;​

​

Literal Emphasis Translation​

Has spoken to us in His Son, upon these last days, whom He appointed heir of all, and through whom He made the ages,​

​

Anderson New Testament​

whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom, also, he made the ages;​

​

Godbey New Testament​

whom he put forth the heir of all things, and through whom he created the ages;​

​

Weymouth New Testament​

has at the end of these days spoken to us through a Son, who is the pre-destined Lord of the universe, and through whom He made the Ages.​

​

Worrell New Testament​

at the end of these days spake to us in His Son, Whom He appointed Heir of all things, through Whom also He constituted the ages;​

Only God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. As such, Jesus rightly said "Why do you call me good? Only God alone is good." While it's true Jesus is sinless, he is a man descended from Adam who is completely susceptible to the temptation to sin. Jesus had to learn to reject evil, choose good, grow in stature, and favor before God as he was perfected in obedience to his God.

His heart was pure and could not be ensnared by evil. No darkness was in Him to capture Him. I only pointed out in God their is no darkness.

Luke 2​

52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.​

Sure He was born as a baby.

​

Hebrews 2​

10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting for God, for whom and through whom all things exist, to make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.​

He understands man by experience and suffering from others as well.

Irrelevant.


You don't have a testimony from Jesus about him being before all things.

If He did you wouldn't believe it. You couldn't even accept He was before Abraham was born.
But we do have that testimony about Him Col 1:17

It doesn't mean it wasn't a vision. There is no record of Satan falling like lightning from heaven in the beginning. It doesn't happen, according to Revelation 12:7-9 until before the future great tribulation.

Demons were well known in Jesus's time. He was tempted by Satan.

It had to have been a vision since Satan hasn't been hurled to earth by Michael the angel yet.

Your unbelief is breathtaking.

He was the only one who saw the vision:

It wasn't a vision. The Logos who was stated God became flesh testified to what He saw.

Acts 7
56“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

That wasn't Jesus.

 

[7thMoon]

I study God’s word.

Sure, you think you do; but you don't bother with Hebrew or Greek.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Begotten of the Father before all worlds is orthodox. John 1:18 declares that begotten one with the Father before the incarnation.

Your scrip' doesn't say that ?

I know there was no Son of Man before the incarnation. I agree. I stating He has always been the Son.

One can't be a son before being born.

Hebrews states God created by and through His Son.

What was to eventually be His Son, was still the Word when the world was created.

Not by and through the Logos.

What or who is your "Logos" ?

That would be before man was made. If He is not the Fathers Son then whose Son is He?

From the perspective of the day of creation, the Word would eventually be the Son.
But the Word had to put on flesh in order to actually be the Son.

 

[7thMoon]

What or who is your "Logos" ?

I have 2. YHWH first then Yeshu.

 

[Free]

One can't be a son before being born.

What was to eventually be His Son, was still the Word when the world was created.

And yet there has never been a time when the Son was not (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10-12).

Also:

Jhn 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

What or who is your "Logos" ?

The preincarnate Son.

From the perspective of the day of creation, the Word would eventually be the Son.
But the Word had to put on flesh in order to actually be the Son.

The Word is the preincarnate Son. The Trinity is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Never had there been a time when none of them did not exist.

 

[Hopeful 2]

And yet there has never been a time when the Son was not (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10-12).

You are substituting Son for Word.

Also:
Jhn 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Your version of the KJV bible has polluted the words and thus the intent of the scripture.
KJV..."18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Your version would have me read..."No man has seen God: the only God who is at the Father's side has made Him known."
I don't go for two Gods.

The preincarnate Son.

That would be the Word.

The Word is the preincarnate Son.

The Word would eventually be the born as the Son.

The Trinity is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Never had there been a time when none of them did not exist.

Do you call your six year old a college graduate ?
While he may eventually be a graduate, he isn't one until he actually graduates !
You keep referring to the Word as the Son, though in the scriptures you used He is still the Word only.

 

[Free]

You are substituting Son for Word.

Not at all:

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (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 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
…
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. (ESV)
Heb 1:8a 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)
Notice that they’re all saying the same thing, yet first is the Word, then Jesus Christ, then the Son.

Your version of the KJV bible

You mean the ESV, which is most certainly not a “version of the KJV Bible.”

has polluted the words and thus the intent of the scripture.
KJV..."18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
Your version would have me read..."No man has seen God: the only God who is at the Father's side has made Him known."
I don't go for two Gods.

I don’t either and neither does the ESV. From M. R. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, ‘Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”’

It’s about manuscript evidence. Nothing more. Besides, “begotten” (monogenes) means “unique,” “only.”

That would be the Word.

Yes, the Son and the Word are one and the same, as I have shown.

The Word would eventually be the born as the Son.

The Word was the Son.

Do you call your six year old a college graduate ?
While he may eventually be a graduate, he isn't one until he actually graduates !

Of course not. That’s a false analogy.

You keep referring to the Word as the Son, though in the scriptures you used He is still the Word only.

No, they clearly say he was the Son.

 

[Hopeful 2]

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

The Word, not Jesus.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,

Amen.

…
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)

"Him" was the Word".

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

The Son was once the Word, by whom God created all things.

Heb 1:8a 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)
Notice that they’re all saying the same thing, yet first is the Word, then Jesus Christ, then the Son.

Now there are three ?
The Word turned into Jesus the Son when He was born of a virgin.

You mean the ESV, which is most certainly not a “version of the KJV Bible.”

It is a bad version of the KJV.

I don’t either and neither does the ESV. From M. R. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, ‘Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading μονογενὴς Θεὸς, “God only begotten.”’

Does Mr. Vincent commit sin ?
If you don't know, I won't risk my salvation on the words of a potential liar.

It’s about manuscript evidence. Nothing more. Besides, “begotten” (monogenes) means “unique,” “only.”

Good translation of the word "only".
But not of "begotten".

Yes, the Son and the Word are one and the same, as I have shown.

Beautiful.
But never at the same time.
The Word put on flesh and became Jesus.

The Word was the Son.

Yes, after the Word put on flesh.
The Word wasn't God's Son until He was born of a woman.

Of course not. That’s a false analogy.

It is the perfect analogy.
You are calling the Word "Son", even before He put on flesh.
Don't you see the end of the Word and the start of Jesus ?

No, they clearly say he was the Son.

You are calling the Word "Son", even before He put on flesh.

 

[Runningman]

Are we going by what it states now? OK
The Logos was God and was with God. So God became flesh. And that flesh was identified as the Son of God.
The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

There is another way to translate this verse because language translation is like that. If there isn't a "the" article before God in the Greek then the word becomes qualitative. In that case, it wouldn't be a direct reference to God Himself, but rather the characteristics of God such as godliness.

^^^I find this is more likely.

For example, Apostle John couldn't have made it anymore clear that the "word of life" is an it in 1 John 1:1-3. When a translation start removing contradictions then we are on the right path. That's the path I'm on.

Yes, Ages is used. It's not the word but what it means to a english speaking person. Several translations "Through whom He made the worlds" Several other translations "Through whom He made the universe" Some others "through whom He made the world"

Aion is used exclusively in Greek to refer to time. Feel free to research this word "αἰῶνας " and you should see that.

His heart was pure and could not be ensnared by evil. No darkness was in Him to capture Him. I only pointed out in God their is no darkness.

Is being tempted to sin a darkness?

Sure He was born as a baby.

God had to grow in favor with God?

He understands man by experience and suffering from others as well.

We can also understand each other in this way.

If He did you wouldn't believe it. You couldn't even accept He was before Abraham was born.
But we do have that testimony about Him Col 1:17

The image of the invisible God isn't God according to Colossians 1:15.

Your unbelief is breathtaking.

I am a believer.

It wasn't a vision. The Logos who was stated God became flesh testified to what He saw.

Jesus saw something that hadn't happened yet?

That wasn't Jesus.

Wait, when Stephen saw the heavens open and the Son of Man "standing" at the right hand of God, that wasn't Jesus?

 

[Randy]

Your scrip' doesn't say that ?

It states begotten:

One can't be a son before being born.

Begotten of the Father.

What was to eventually be His Son, was still the Word when the world was created.

Thats your statement. God created through the Son. As I asked if He wasn't the Fathers Son then whose Son was He?

What or who is your "Logos" ?

The Son, obviously not the Son of Man. Who is that person to you for the logos was with God meaning not the person of the Father? You call Him the person of the Logos or do you believe He was even a person?

From the perspective of the day of creation, the Word would eventually be the Son.
But the Word had to put on flesh in order to actually be the Son.

God created by and through the Son. I didn't read "eventually" thats you.
We agree to disagree.

 

[Randy]

There is another way to translate this verse because language translation is like that. If there isn't a "the" article before God in the Greek then the word becomes qualitative. In that case, it wouldn't be a direct reference to God Himself, but rather the characteristics of God such as godliness.

^^^I find this is more likely.

For example, Apostle John couldn't have made it anymore clear that the "word of life" is an it in 1 John 1:1-3. When a translation start removing contradictions then we are on the right path. That's the path I'm on.


Aion is used exclusively in Greek to refer to time. Feel free to research this word "αἰῶνας " and you should see that.

Can you show even one translation to state it means the Church age?

Is being tempted to sin a darkness?

Being enticed and dragged away is by the evil in ones heart. Jesus's heart was pure. Satan had nothing to latch on to. Therefore in Jesus was no darkness. He was sinless unlike ALL others in the world. As I pointed out in God is no darkness.

God had to grow in favor with God?

The Son of Man grew in favor with the Father who as we read was well pleased with His Son.

We can also understand each other in this way.

The image of the invisible God isn't God according to Colossians 1:15.

The context is clear to the majority here.
The radiance of Gods glory and the exact expression of the substance of God.

Hebrews 1:3 Greek Text Analysis

I am a believer.

So you say. But your words seem to state otherwise. I have to wonder if God were your Father why can't you hear the testimony in regard to the Son who was.

Jesus saw something that hadn't happened yet?

Jesus, the one who is above all and came down from heaven testifies to what He saw and heard.
The one who leads the whole world astray. The one cast to the earth and his angels with him.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Wait, when Stephen saw the heavens open and the Son of Man "standing" at the right hand of God, that wasn't Jesus?

No, Jesus wasn't the one who made that statement.
This is His statement.

When the seventy-two disciples returned, they joyfully reported to him, “Lord, even the demons obey us when we use your name!”

18“Yes,” he told them, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning!

 

[Runningman]

Can you show even one translation to state it means the Church age?

After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, while the church was beginning, Peter referred to this time as the last day and quoted Joel to prove it.

Acts 2​

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice, and addressed the crowd: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen carefully to my words. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only the third hour of the day! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:​

​

17‘In the last days, God says,​

I will pour out My Spirit on all people.​

Your sons and daughters will prophesy,​

your young men will see visions,​

your old men will dream dreams.​

And the author of Hebrews 1:2 said God created through the Son "in these last days." While in the past God didn't speak through the Son. This can refer to no other period except the church age.

Hebrews 1​

2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,​

Being enticed and dragged away is by the evil in ones heart. Jesus's heart was pure. Satan had nothing to latch on to. Therefore in Jesus was no darkness. He was sinless unlike ALL others in the world. As I pointed out in God is no darkness.

Jesus was tempted and yet that is how James defined temptation. There isn't a separate definition for temptation for Jesus than there is for other people. God Himself cannot be tempted.

James 1​

13Let no one being tempted say, “I am being tempted by God.” For God is unable to be tempted by evils, and He Himself tempts no one. 14But a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire.​

​

Hebrews 4​

15For we do not have a high priest not being able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one having been tempted in all things by the same way, without sin.​

The Son of Man grew in favor with the Father who as we read was well pleased with His Son.

Is the Son of Man the Son of God?

The context is clear to the majority here.
The radiance of Gods glory and the exact expression of the substance of God.

Hebrews 1:3 Greek Text Analysis

Is God a substance or a person?

So you say. But your words seem to state otherwise. I have to wonder if God were your Father why can't you hear the testimony in regard to the Son who was.

I hear it loud and clear. Are you hearing it? Are you 100% sure?

Jesus, the one who is above all and came down from heaven testifies to what He saw and heard.

It's more nuanced than that. The Father is above all, the Father sent the Son, the one who is sent is not greater than the One Who sent him.

Ephesians 4​

6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.​

​

John 17​

3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​

​

John 13​

16Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor a messenger greater than the one having sent him. ​

The one who leads the whole world astray. The one cast to the earth and his angels with him.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus didn't lie about "seeing" Satan fall from heaven like lightning, but the only example of him falling in the Bible is in Revelation 12 and it seems to take place in the future.

No, Jesus wasn't the one who made that statement.
This is His statement.

When the seventy-two disciples returned, they joyfully reported to him, “Lord, even the demons obey us when we use your name!”

18“Yes,” he told them, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning!

Acts 4 is clear that the usage of Jesus' name is something God was using. Jesus is God's servant, but not God. The power itself was from God, the Creator, not from the servant Jesus.

Acts 4​

30as You stretch out Your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”​

 

[Free]

The Word, not Jesus.

You think Paul got it wrong in 1 Cor 8:6? What is the commonality with Jesus and the Word?

"Him" was the Word".

What does the context say (v. 13)?

The Son was once the Word, by whom God created all things.

According to the passages I’ve given, the Son is the Word.

Now there are three ?
The Word turned into Jesus the Son when He was born of a virgin.

Again, what does the context suggest? That the Son was involved in the creation of everything. The Son became Jesus the man.

We could just use the title, second person of the Trinity, if you prefer. You can say that that is only the Word, but the Church has always believed it is the Son, who is also known as the Word.

It is a bad version of the KJV.

Well, it’s a superior version to the KJV, but that’s another topic.

Does Mr. Vincent commit sin ?
If you don't know, I won't risk my salvation on the words of a potential liar.

Please keep your abominable heresy out of this discussion. Besides, that’s fallacious and only a way of avoiding what was stated.

Good translation of the word "only".
But not of "begotten".

Please do some study on this first. “Only begotten” is one Greek word, monogenes. And it means “unique,” “only,” or “one and only.” Do a search to see for yourself how it’s translated.

Beautiful.
But never at the same time.

Yes, eternally at the same time.

The Word put on flesh and became Jesus.

I’ve never said otherwise. But the Word has always been the Son.

Yes, after the Word put on flesh.
The Word wasn't God's Son until He was born of a woman.

There was never a time when he wasn’t the Son. The verses I’ve given show that to be the case.

You are calling the Word "Son", even before He put on flesh.

Of course. That is the biblical position, which is why the Church has always believed it. The Sonship is eternal. That John refers to the Son also as the Word doesn’t negate that the Son has always existed.

You’re begging the question by assuming that Son refers only to Jesus once he was born. Several writers of the NT disagree with you by strongly implying that the Spn was involved in creation.

Don't you see the end of the Word and the start of Jesus ?

The Word never ends; there is no such thing as “the end of the Word and the start of Jesus.”

 

[JLB]

Sure, you think you do; but you don't bother with Hebrew or Greek.

Do you speak and understand Hebrew and Greek?


Here is what the scripture says —



And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16.


Who became flesh, the Father or the Son?

 

[Free]

There is another way to translate this verse because language translation is like that. If there isn't a "the" article before God in the Greek then the word becomes qualitative. In that case, it wouldn't be a direct reference to God Himself, but rather the characteristics of God such as godliness.

^^^I find this is more likely.

It is a reference as to the nature of the Word, that the Word was God in nature. Since there is only one who is God in nature, which is God, then it is no different than saying the Word was God.

To try and avoid that by saying it is a reference to the "characteristics of God such as godliness," makes little sense. If it includes all the characteristics of God, then again, it can only be God in nature, since only God can have all the characteristics of God. The only way around that is to subjectively pick and choose which characteristics.

For example, Apostle John couldn't have made it anymore clear that the "word of life" is an it in 1 John 1:1-3. When a translation start removing contradictions then we are on the right path. That's the path I'm on.

You're creating contradictions, that's the problem. And, you probably should avoid arguing to which personal pronoun applies in a given context, as it has been previously been that you don't understand the Greek.

God had to grow in favor with God?

Phil 2:5-8 is key. If God came in the flesh, what sort of man do you think he would be like i?

The image of the invisible God isn't God according to Colossians 1:15.

It's the Son, God in human flesh, through whom all things were created, which can only mean that he has always existed.

And the author of Hebrews 1:2 said God created through the Son "in these last days." While in the past God didn't speak through the Son. This can refer to no other period except the church age.

Hebrews 1​

2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,​

Nowhere does it say that 'God created through the Son "in these last days."'

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

It clearly says that God "has spoken to us by his Son" "in these last days." It then adds, through the use of "and," "through whom he created the world." "World" or "universe" is a legitimate translation of aion.

 

[Hopeful 2]

It states begotten:

Yes it does.
But Jesus wasn't begotten before He was sired.
From Vocabulay.com..."Something is begotten when it's been generated by procreation — in other words, it's been fathered."
Jesus wasn't fathered until the Holy Spirit "came over" Mary.
It is written..."And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
There was no Son before there was a son.

Begotten of the Father.

Yes.

Thats your statement. God created through the Son.

Actually, it was the Word.

As I asked if He wasn't the Fathers Son then whose Son was He?

Jesus came into being when the Holy Ghost came over Mary.
Jesus came into existence when He was conceived in her.

The Son, obviously not the Son of Man.

Jesus wasn't a Son until He had a Father and was born of a woman..

Who is that person to you for the logos was with God meaning not the person of the Father?

The Word.

You call Him the person of the Logos or do you believe He was even a person?

I have never studied the term logos.
But as John 1 says, "...the Word was with God..."

God created by and through the Son. I didn't read "eventually" thats you.
We agree to disagree.

You opine a son existed before a son's birth.
The Word turned into the Son when the Word put on flesh and was born of a woman.

 

[Hopeful 2]

You think Paul got it wrong in 1 Cor 8:6?

Nope.

What is the commonality with Jesus and the Word?

To each other ?
The Word became Jesus when He was born of a woman.

What does the context say (v. 13)?

Pretty straightforward..."He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son," (Col 1:13)
This was written after the Word made flesh returned to heaven.

According to the passages I’ve given, the Son is the Word.

I agree.

Again, what does the context suggest? That the Son was involved in the creation of everything. The Son became Jesus the man.

Actually it was the Word, because there was no Son when the universe was created.
You seem to be saying that the Word was the Son even before the Word took on flesh and was born of a woman.
And, that the Son became the Son.
I don't agree.

We could just use the title, second person of the Trinity, if you prefer. You can say that that is only the Word, but the Church has always believed it is the Son, who is also known as the Word.

The Word became Jesus when He took on flesh and was born of a woman.

Well, it’s a superior version to the KJV, but that’s another topic.

Yeah.

Please keep your abominable heresy out of this discussion. Besides, that’s fallacious and only a way of avoiding what was stated.

The ability to be obedient to God is not a heresy.
It is the fruit of a true repentance form sin and rebirth from God's seed.

Please do some study on this first. “Only begotten” is one Greek word, monogenes. And it means “unique,” “only,” or “one and only.” Do a search to see for yourself how it’s translated.

Your "interpreter" translated the word "only", and not the word "begotten".

yes, eternally at the same time.

You have a doctrine that says the Word was already born of a woman before the Holy Ghost came over Mary.
I cannot agree with that.

I’ve never said otherwise. But the Word has always been the Son.

Not until the Son was born.

There was never a time when he wasn’t the Son. The verses I’ve given show that to be the case.

There was no Jesus before a Jesus was born of woman.
Jesus was the Word before the Word took on flesh.

Of course. That is the biblical position, which is why the Church has always believed it. The Sonship is eternal. That John refers to the Son also as the Word doesn’t negate that the Son has always existed.

We disagree.

You’re begging the question by assuming that Son refers only to Jesus once he was born. Several writers of the NT disagree with you by strongly implying that the Spn was involved in creation.

Those writers, like me see that the Word became Jesus.
The Word was not born of God.
Jesus was.

The Word never ends; there is no such thing as “the end of the Word and the start of Jesus.”

We disagree.
I can't visualize God, and the Word, and Jesus, sitting around deciding how to make the universe.

 

[Free]

Nope.

But you said, in part regarding 1 Cor 8:6, "The Word, not Jesus." But Paul clearly says Jesus, who is the Son in human flesh.

To each other ?
The Word became Jesus when He was born of a woman.

The Word and Jesus are both the Son.

Pretty straightforward..."He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son," (Col 1:13)

Right. So, it is the Son that is being spoken of in verses 16-17.

This was written after the Word made flesh returned to heaven.

What does this have to do with anything?

I agree.

Not really. You believe the Word became the Son in the incarnation. I'm saying, as orthodox Christian belief states, that the Word is the eternal Son, who has always been the Son prior to the incarnation.

Actually it was the Word, because there was no Son when the universe was created.

Now you're changing what the texts state.

You seem to be saying that the Word was the Son even before the Word took on flesh and was born of a woman.
And, that the Son became the Son.
I don't agree.

Then you disagree with historic, orthodox belief. The Son didn't become the Son; the Son always has been in existence. It was the Son, the second person of the Trinity, that took on human flesh.

The Word became Jesus when He took on flesh and was born of a woman.

Yes, I've agreed with this already.

Your "interpreter" translated the word "only", and not the word "begotten".

Please study and reread what I wrote. I said it is one word, monogenes, that is translated as "only begotten," even in the KJV. Other versions typically say "only" or "one and only," which is essentially what it means, with the sense of being "unique."

You have a doctrine that says the Word was already born of a woman before the Holy Ghost came over Mary.
I cannot agree with that.

Nowhere have I said or implied that.

Not until the Son was born.

The Son has always existed. John just happens to also call him the Word in his prologue.

There was no Jesus before a Jesus was born of woman.
Jesus was the Word before the Word took on flesh.

I have never said otherwise. I've actually stated this and agreed with it.

We disagree.

You disagree with the historic, orthodox doctrine of Christianity.

Those writers, like me see that the Word became Jesus.

Again, nowhere have I disagreed with that. The issue is, they speak of the Son as being involved in creation. Only in John 1:1-3 is the Son also called the Word.

The Word was not born of God.

Eternally generated or eternally begotten is how the Son's eternal existence is stated.

We disagree.
I can't visualize God, and the Word, and Jesus, sitting around deciding how to make the universe.

Again, you seem intent on not trying to understand what I am actually writing. This actually seems like you're purposely misrepresenting my position, as I have been very clear. The Word became flesh in the person of Jesus, but the Word is just another name for the Son, used only by John for his purposes.

 

[Randy]

Yes it does.
But Jesus wasn't begotten before He was sired.
From Vocabulay.com..."Something is begotten when it's been generated by procreation — in other words, it's been fathered."
Jesus wasn't fathered until the Holy Spirit "came over" Mary.
It is written..."And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
There was no Son before there was a son.

Yes.

Actually, it was the Word.

Jesus came into being when the Holy Ghost came over Mary.
Jesus came into existence when He was conceived in her.

Jesus wasn't a Son until He had a Father and was born of a woman..

The Word.

I have never studied the term logos.
But as John 1 says, "...the Word was with God..."

You opine a son existed before a son's birth.
The Word turned into the Son when the Word put on flesh and was born of a woman.

Logos is the greek written that is translated into english as "Word"

Yes, I hold Jesus has always been the Son of the Father.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

[Randy]

After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, while the church was beginning, Peter referred to this time as the last day and quoted Joel to prove it.

Acts 2​

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, lifted up his voice, and addressed the crowd: “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen carefully to my words. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only the third hour of the day! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:​

​

17‘In the last days, God says,​

I will pour out My Spirit on all people.​

Your sons and daughters will prophesy,​

your young men will see visions,​

your old men will dream dreams.​

And the author of Hebrews 1:2 said God created through the Son "in these last days." While in the past God didn't speak through the Son. This can refer to no other period except the church age.

Hebrews 1​

2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,​

In the last days He has spoken to us by His Son
Whom He appointed heir of all things
Through whom He made the ages
The same Son He spoke through is the same Son He appointed Heir and the same Son He created the worlds. It does not mean in these last days God created anything as I believe He rested on the 7th day.

Jesus was tempted and yet that is how James defined temptation. There isn't a separate definition for temptation for Jesus than there is for other people. God Himself cannot be tempted.

The tempted is inviting you to do evil. The capture or ensnaring is by the evil desires in one's heart. Jesus had a pure heart so Satan had no evil desire to grab on to. Jesus alone is without sin. There was no darkness found in Him.

James 1​

13Let no one being tempted say, “I am being tempted by God.” For God is unable to be tempted by evils, and He Himself tempts no one. 14But a man is tempted, being drawn away and being enticed by the own desire.​

​

Hebrews 4​

15For we do not have a high priest not being able to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one having been tempted in all things by the same way, without sin.​

Is the Son of Man the Son of God?


Is God a substance or a person?

That doesn't negate what is meant. Jesus is all that the Father is. The image of the invisible God.
Feel free to read all the translations.
Here are several.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature.
The Son is the light of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person
The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being
He is the shining reflection of God’s own glory, the precise expression of his own very being

I hear it loud and clear. Are you hearing it? Are you 100% sure?

In every single witness that testifies about the preexistence of the Son prior to the incarnation you do not hear. You deny, explain away every time.

It's more nuanced than that. The Father is above all, the Father sent the Son, the one who is sent is not greater than the One Who sent him.

Ephesians 4​

6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.​

​

John 17​

3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.​

​

John 13​

16Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor a messenger greater than the one having sent him. ​

Jesus didn't lie about "seeing" Satan fall from heaven like lightning, but the only example of him falling in the Bible is in Revelation 12 and it seems to take place

Nope.
The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”

18He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

in the future.


Acts 4 is clear that the usage of Jesus' name is something God was using. Jesus is God's servant, but not God. The power itself was from God, the Creator, not from the servant Jesus.

Acts 4​

30as You stretch out Your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.”​