Trinity.

[darinhouston]

The Father can be greater than He because Jesus "emptied Himself" and took on the form of a servant. He became the Son which He henceforth would be.

Question... Do you believe the Father always greater than the Son (i.e., prior to the incarnation)?

[Homer]

So, basically, you're saying hindsight is what suggests the exegesis? Isn't that eisegesis?

No, eisegesis is reading into the text your preconceived ideas. Hindsight can open your eyes to what you missed.

Would you say that the prophecies about the Messiah, in the Old testament, were better understood after Jesus' death and resurrection than before the incarnation? Or that the understanding about what Jesus came for was unaffected in the minds of the Apostles by Jesus' death and resurrection?

Question... Do you believe the Father always greater than the Son (i.e., prior to the incarnation)?

My belief is that the Christ was the "Word" prior to His incarnation. Word as in "word and rational thought", which I understand, as best I can, as personal. This "Word" appeared as the "Angel of the Lord" in the OT. Whether God's rational thoughts and words are less than the One that thinks and says them I can not say. I am trying to understand this as best I can and can see no explanation that makes sense of all the data more than the Trinity, and sometimes the Trinitarians in the creeds say things borderline incomprehensible. But then other explanations all seem worse. I think the subject is a tad bit over our heads.

[jriccitelli]

One foot=12 inches; One yard = 3feet. But does one of those feet =one yard? Yet this is precisely what trinitarianism espouses’ (Editor)

I can only guess at what meaning your putting into your yard metaphor (I told you what my numerators were: One yard/3 feet. One God/3 persons). Please explain what you meant by the metaphor.

I have never have never come across any definition of the T that says:
3 Gods = 1 God. Neither is one member all of God, without the other members (the lemonade metaphor).

The Father is God, The Son is God, The Spirit is God, that is not saying they are 3 Gods, they are 1 God, three persons.
Jesus says so Himself: 'I and the Father are one' Jesus knew the Shema and was well aware of what He was saying (He was the Torah).
One person of God is as much God as the others, yet when we speak of them as persons, we are not saying each member is the whole. God (or the total) is greater than 'each' person, but that does not prevent a person from being 'greater' than the other (while at the same time being One).

We believe it is impossible to have One 'without' the Others, Jesus, the Spirit, John and the others bear witness to this:
‘… the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves’ (John 14:10-11) ‘Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father' (1 John 2:23)

[robbyyoung]

Hello All and God Bless,

John 1:1-2 states that Yeshua was God. However, there are many Gods, in which John testifies that Yeshua is (Psalm 82:1 & 6 ESV best translation). Yeshua was in the beginning (e.g. creation, Gen 1:1) with THE GOD. THE GOD described in Deuteronomy 10:17 ESV, This text says, "For Yahweh your [speaking to Israel] Elohim is the Elohim of elohim and the Adonay of adon, the great, the mighty, and awesome El who does not show partiality nor take a bribe." So there are many gods, but only one Yahweh, who is God of gods: See also Psalms 89:5-7.

John 1:1 is not violating or contradicting The O.T. The only real question is, where does The Bible state that Yeshua is THE GOD and not created. The above references testifies to how The Jews viewed these matters. Also, Col 1:16-17 says Yeshua created all things, as God, but He was the first IN CREATION. Leaving the only sovereign GOD of Deut.10:17 as stated throughout scripture.

By understanding there are many Elohim, you can clear up the confusion of which one is in view.

Your thoughts?

[dizerner]

There are some attributes that only the self-existent uncreated infinite Being has. Whatever other "gods" there may be under that title, the question is what is the primary meaning and attributes of God, and some of these are uncreated and Creator of all things. These attributes of God only fit three Persons in the Bible, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No other being shares these attributes, no other being is "big G" God. The Son, because he also has a created nature (the incarnation), is unique among the Trinity, and thus considered the first creation, since he both created all things, and was himself created. A created thing cannot create all things—that should be clear enough to anybody. So there must have been a substantial change in the Son to go from Creator to a Creator/created hybrid. A large part of the glory of the Gospel of Christ is the fact that he humiliated himself that much! So far as to go from Creator to sharing our created nature. Amazing. This is why the centrality of the inspiration of the Biblical message is around Christ's Person and Work, and what it means for us... God so loved the world that he gave the uniquely begotten God, the second person of the Trinity, the One with life in himself, life that he shares to us through his death and resurrection.

In Isaiah 9:6, Christ is called by many modern translations "everlasting Father." But the Hebrew for this phrase is quite intriguing—the Hebrews had a phrase for the afterlife, called "le olam," which was from the literal meaning of the horizon. As you look off into the horizon you get a sense of distance and vastness and the sense of something beyond. When they wanted to emphasize its continuing nature, they would add the phrase "v'ad," which means "and again." So they would say "le olem v'ad" as the closest thing conceptually they could express to infinity, and endless duration. It would literally mean "to the horizon and again, or and further"; we might even say something like "to infinity, and beyond" . In Hebrew as well as Greek we know the word "Father" also means more generally "begetter" or "originator." Here in Isaiah we have the phrase אֲבִיעַ֖ד , which literally means "begetter of the beyond," a clear indication of Christ's resurrection and bringing us into the hereafter through our faith in him. I was always confused that the title "Father" would be given to Christ in this passage and this completely cleared it up for me in an amazing way. Now Isaiah 9:6 is a powerful testimony to the divinity of the second Person of the Trinity and his incarnation, as well as his mission:

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Begetter of the Beyond, Prince of Peace.

Sure you can work hard to make "El Gibor" and all these other amazing titles not mean what they obviously do when strung together in this remarkable context, by trying to show how the phrase can be used about people other than God. You won't find a single time that all these attributes are given to one human being anywhere else. This is yet another clear witness from the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to us, grace upon grace, the incarnation of the Son for our salvation, the gospel preached to us by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven.

[Jose]

Hi Robby,

Unfortunately, I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, so it didn't clear things up for me.

Are you saying that Yahweh is the only one who is "the God" and that Jesus is one of many Elohim in the same way that Baal is Elohim?

[Paidion]

In Isaiah 9:6, Christ is called by many modern translations "everlasting Father."

Sadly, and misleadingly, this is the case. But it's not the fault of the translators. The problem is with the Masoretic text from which it was translated. An older text type was found in cave 4 of Qumran from which the Septuagint was translated. The NT writers either used the Septuagint translation or else had access to this older text type. For their quotes of the Old Testament, sometimes exactly, and sometimes approximately match that of the Septuagint (and also the Hebrew of Cave 4).

Unfortunately, Isaiah 9 was not found in cave 4, but we do have the Septuagint text from which it was translated. Here is an English translation of Isaiah 9:6,7 from the Septuagint:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgement and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the lord of hosts shall perform this.

The translators of the Orthodox Study Bible of the Orthodox Church have translated the Old Testament from the Septuagint.
Here is their translation of Isaiah 9:6,7

For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. His name will be called the Angel of Great Counsel, for I shall bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health by him. Great shall be HIs government, and of HIs peace there is no end. His peace shall be upone the throne of David and oaver His kingdom, to order and establish it with righteousness and judgment, from thattime foreward and unto ages of ages.The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.

[Jose]

The Son, because he also has a created nature (the incarnation), is unique among the Trinity, and thus considered the first creation, since he both created all things, and was himself created. A created thing cannot create all things—that should be clear enough to anybody.

Hi dizerner,

I'm not trying to be a pain in your rear end. Really. However, I'm having difficulty understanding your logic, when in almost the same breath, you say that Jesus was created and he created all things, and also, that no created being can create anything.

You are admitting that Jesus is a created being?

[Paidion]

My guess, Jose, is that Dizerner regards Christ as being uncreated in his pre-existence with the Father and therefore co-creator with the Father. Then He thinks of Christ being created as a human being, coming into a new existence which He did not previously have.

However, we'll await Dizerner's reply and see how close (or how far) my guess turns out to be.

[Jose]

Hi dizerner,

You can disregard my last post. In my effort to read this entire thread from its beginning, I just came across a post of yours , #202, which answered my question.

There you said: "Basically, as a Trinitarian, we do believe in a paradox that a being can be both Creator and creation. We see that as part of the Gospel, He came to His own things, and they received Him not. The other objection boils down to, basically, Jesus is not in the role of the Father. He's God, who does not play the role of "God," as it were, but plays the role of bridge between God and man. He is a true hybrid, and so, although fully God, does not "grasp equality with God." In other words, He truly laid down his role similar to the Father, to become a human being, and ever since no longer plays a role similar to the Father but enters into a hierarchical relationship described as Son. Thereafter, He truly is both (1) created and (2) subservient. Could God become those things? As a Trinitarian I can consider that being those things does truly alter the nature of what we classically think of as God. Once Christ becomes those things, He may be thought of as a God-hybrid in a way."