Trinity.

[dizerner]

How good does Jesus have to be to bear our sins? Could Michael the archangel have done it instead or another in a litany of lesser "elohim." Who could bridge the gap between fallen man and a Holy God? I think if you trust in Christ's work alone to save you, you will be saved. But it had to be a perfect work by a Perfect Being, and the Trinity plays a vital role in all aspects of salvation and it will make a stronger faith to see how God's Word perfectly fits. God sent Himself to bridge the gap, and if you just open the possibility to your mind that maybe the Trinity does fit Scripture, you will absolutely be surprised how much it does. The Holy Spirit is our connection to Christ, and Christ is our connection to the Father. The Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ given to us by the Father. Take that truth, and try to fit into every Scripture you see, and it will always fit.

[TheEditor]

But it had to be a perfect work by a Perfect Being, and the Trinity plays a vital role in all aspects of salvation and it will make a stronger faith to see how God's Word perfectly fits. God sent Himself to bridge the gap, and if you just open the possibility to your mind that maybe the Trinity does fit Scripture, you will absolutely be surprised how much it does. The Holy Spirit is our connection to Christ, and Christ is our connection to the Father. The Holy Spirit applies the work of Christ given to us by the Father. Take that truth, and try to fit into every Scripture you see, and it will always fit.

Hi Dizerner,

That is a nice sentiment. But you must realize that many who were raised non-trinitarian (such as I) that have had their paradigms shifted, and have tried to do just that. After all, the tendency is to "pendulum swing" when you leave a belief system, and as for me, I figured, if they (the WT) were wrong about some core beliefs, then why not this one? And so, I have tried to see if "orthodoxy" was correct after all. But I simply cannot get past certain mental hurdles.

Even in your plea above you made the statement, "God sent Himself to bridge the gap". ? I thought that the "Son" was "God" because he was "divine", but that the Son is a different "person" then the Father. If this is the case, how could the "trinity" send "himself"? Or, couched differently, how could the "Father" (God) be sending "himself" if he was sending his Son, whom we have determined to be a different person? I am coming to the conclusion that Paidion is right when he says that trinitarians are Modalists but don't realize it.

How good does Jesus have to be to bear our sins? Could Michael the archangel have done it instead or another in a litany of lesser "elohim." Who could bridge the gap between fallen man and a Holy God?

I guess this comes down to how one views the Ransom. If strict substitutionary atonement were what was needed, then all that would be needed would be a perfect man. If a perfect man (Adam) lost mankind through his sin, then a perfect man (Jesus, the "last Adam") could reconcile the world through his obedience. I have even heard it put that Jesus Ransomed Adam, and by so doing, all in Adam's loins. But then again, as you probably know, subtitutionary atonement is only one of several views of the Ransom.

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

I find myself in harmony with nearly everything you wrote in the post above, Robby. However, I ran into a snag with your million dollar question:

The 1 million dollar question is did "THE GOD" create The Son of God as The First in all creation.

Clearly Jesus was the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15 ESV), but this does not imply that He was created. In the hymn "Adeste Fideles", He is said to be "begotten not created" in verse 2, the verse which is seldom sung. In the original Nicene Creed, and in many second-century writings, He is affirmed to have been "begotten before all ages". That was a single act. Being begotten is of a different order from being created. An artist begets his children, but he creates a work of art. Jesus was begotten from the Father Himself and was therefore of the same divine essence. "He is the exact imprint of his [God's] essence" (Heb 1:3).

Yes, Jesus was the first-born of all creation. The bottom line is that He was BORN but not created. It was THROUGH the Son, that the Father created all things. The Father was the Creator, and the Son was the means by which the Father created.

Hi Brother Paidion,

Fair enough, let's rephrase the question, "Did Yeshua, The Word of God, eternally exist with The Father without having "A Beginning"?

Yeshua said, in John 8:42, He came from GOD. Well we all came from GOD as well, do we not have His breathe of life? Do not all living souls belong to HIM?

How did Yeshua come from GOD? I think Colossians gives us a pretty good idea concerning the matter, unambiguous and clearly stated:

Colossians 1:15-21 “And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

Therefore, if The Father wanted to communicate that Yeshua was the FIRST in all creation, how much better could HE have said it? Then, if The Father wanted to communicate exactly who is responsible for everything created afterwards, how much better could HE have said this? The term "begotten" is a descriptive condition that does not answer the origin question. I ask then, what's wrong with accepting what Paul, under the inspiration of The Spirit, says about "the origin" of Yeshua? I see no evidence of a trinity concept, however, I see evidence that clearly debunks the idea, making it unnecessary to the gospel message.

Verses that state Yeshua is one with The Father and promotes His deity or divinity, does not answer "the origin" question. Of course "The Son" is in perfect agreement with The Father, but how does this answer "The Son's" origin. IMHO, The Apostle Paul gives us one of the most unambiguous teachings on "the origin" question. How much better can GOD communicate the answer?

God Bless.

[darinhouston]

I believe it was Homer who suggested that Jesus was our connection to the Father and that the Holy Spirit was our connection to Jesus. We are going to need to start spinning some threads off into new topics as these peripheral issues arise, so watch for one on this subject.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

The term "begotten " is a descriptive condition that does not answer the origin question.

I think the phrase "begotten by God" answers the question of Jesus' origin perfectly, just as "begotten by (your parents)" answers the question of your origin.
The Greek word "gennaō" might better be translated as "generate" or "produce" or "procreate", as "beget" is a word no longer in common use. Your parents generated you; they produced you; they procreated you—but they didn't CREATE you. The same with the son of God. Before all ages God generated or produced or procreated his Son. That's why the Son is of the same essence (hypostasis) as the Father. But the Father did not CREATE Him.

Thus He is the only-begotten SON, rather than the first created CREATURE.

When was He begotten? My belief is that of the second-century Christians. They said his begetting was the first of God's acts. They also said, "He was begotten before all ages." This statement also occurs in the original Nicene Creed. I think this first act of God marked the beginning of time.

[robbyyoung]

The term "begotten " is a descriptive condition that does not answer the origin question.

I think the phrase "begotten by God" answers the question of Jesus' origin perfectly, just as "begotten by (your parents)" answers the question of your origin.
The Greek word "gennaō" might better be translated as "generate" or "produce" or "procreate", as "beget" is a word no longer in common use. Your parents generated you; they produced you; they procreated you—but they didn't CREATE you. The same with the son of God. Before all ages God generated or produced or procreated his Son. That's why the Son is of the same essence (hypostasis) as the Father. But the Father did not CREATE Him.

Thus He is the only-begotten SON, rather than the first created CREATURE.

When was He begotten? My belief is that of the second-century Christians. They said his begetting was the first of God's acts. They also said, "He was begotten before all ages." This statement also occurs in the original Nicene Creed. I think this first act of God marked the beginning of time.

Hello again Paidion,

If husband and wife procreate or "begat" offspring, did that offspring ever exist before in time? The answer is NO. Of the same essence or not, Paul says He was created. Your concept doesn't square with Paul's understanding, given to him by inspiration. Begotten identifies Yeshua's unique relationship to GOD. Furthermore, being "The first-born of all creation", it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, therefore the text tells us right here how and when His deity and divinity took place. After being "the first-born" of all creation. You can't just use the term "Begotten" in a vacuum, this term doesn't stand on it's own, especially in light of the full account of origins.

Paul said Yeshua was "the first-born OF ALL CREATION" and "Yeshua IS THE BEGINNING". THE GOD isn't the first-born of anything, nor does He have a beginning. How could The Holy Spirit communicate this concept anymore clearer than what He taught or revealed to Paul. Yeshua is unique and above all others. To the Glory of The Father He is to be worshipped and believed on in order to obtain salvation.

I'm still not clear on how you think Yeshua came into being. IMHO, Paul gives us the account in straight-talk, and you say?

God Bless.

[dizerner]

I agree that begotten is very different than created ex nihilio (out of nothing).

If husband and wife procreate or "begat" offspring, did that offspring ever exist before in time? The answer is NO.

This isn't exactly true. If I take one rock and put it on top of another rock, did that pile of two rocks ever exist before in time? Well, not in that exact arrangement. Begetting takes previously existing material and rearranges it a certain way.

If God begets his own essence, what he begets will also share his attributes.

[Paidion]

Greetings Robby,

If husband and wife procreate or "begat" offspring, did that offspring ever exist before in time? The answer is NO.

Correct. What' the point?

Of the same essence or not, Paul says He was created.

Because he said that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation? That is not proof that He was created. That merely affirms that He was begotten before all creation.

Your concept doesn't square with Paul's understanding, given to him by inspiration.

You say that as if it were a fact. Well, I say the contrary as a fact.

Begotten identifies Yeshua's unique relationship to GOD. Furthermore, being "The first-born of all creation", it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, therefore the text tells us right here how and when His deity and divinity took place.

So when did his deity and divinity take place? When He was begotten in Mary's womb? I don't think so. He was divine as soon as He was begotten before all ages as the first act of God.

After being "the first-born" of all creation. You can't just use the term "Begotten" in a vacuum, this term doesn't stand on it's own, especially in light of the full account of origins.

There is no difference whatever in the Son's having been begotten as the first act of God and his having been the firstborn of all creation.

[robbyyoung]

Greetings Robby,

If husband and wife procreate or "begat" offspring, did that offspring ever exist before in time? The answer is NO.

Correct. What' the point?

Of the same essence or not, Paul says He was created.

Because he said that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation? That is not proof that He was created. That merely affirms that He was begotten before all creation.

Your concept doesn't square with Paul's understanding, given to him by inspiration.

You say that as if it were a fact. Well, I say the contrary as a fact.

Begotten identifies Yeshua's unique relationship to GOD. Furthermore, being "The first-born of all creation", it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, therefore the text tells us right here how and when His deity and divinity took place.

So when did his deity and divinity take place? When He was begotten in Mary's womb? I don't think so. He was divine as soon as He was begotten before all ages as the first act of God.

After being "the first-born" of all creation. You can't just use the term "Begotten" in a vacuum, this term doesn't stand on it's own, especially in light of the full account of origins.

There is no difference whatever in the Son's having been begotten as the first act of God and his having been the firstborn of all creation.

Hi Paidion,

We are probably talking past each other at this point, but I'll tentatively conclude by saying this: Translators… I find it all the more important to research their bias conclusions on every matter. There’s nothing remotely mysterious about the term “monogenēs” or “begotten”, unless of course your paradigm precede or influence your choice of words. Which seemingly is the case with translators, as I will explain.

The O.T. and Jewish understanding regarding the Hebrew equivalent “yalad” (begotten), as described in Psalms 2:7, messianic verse, simply means – to bear, bring forth; as in a child. There is nothing mysterious at all, in any sense of the word or its understanding. Fast-forward to the N.T., as Hebrew speaking Christian Jews seek to convince other Jews, in the synagogues, concerning Psalm 2:7 as a fulfilled prophecy concerning Yeshua. There is simply no good reason to inflate the greek term “monogenēs” from it’s parallel simplistic meaning of “yalad” to mean anything other than bearing a child, in this case, a son.

For example; take a look at Luke 7:12 “Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.”

Here we have the same word, without all the fan-fare, easily to grasp without a doctrine attached to it. For it is as common of a word used to described procreation and lineage. The Jews clearly understood the implications of such a simple claim: Matt 26:63, Matt 27:40, etc…

Lastly, this concept is so basic, regarding origin, in Luke 3:38 Adam was said to be The Son of God, yet we all know he was created, but he was not first. We know from scripture that there were many Sons of God. Fast-forward to Luke 1:35 “monogenēs” isn’t even used, and we see how it’s normal and uncomplicated use plays out in the realities of Christ.

Yeshua was God’s only Son specific to His unique calling. We know Yeshua in His pre-incarnate state as “The Word”. In the beginning was The Word? Well THE GOD is absent of a beginning, and the scripture clearly says, “In the beginning was The Word.” This beginning is none other than the creation of all things, whether in heaven or on earth. The Word was first or came into being “in the beginning”, and was then responsible for creating all things afterwards. The Word was God, and as scripture clearly shows, there were many other Gods sanctioned by The Father as well. The difference is, they are not THE GOD in which all creation submits to.

The Word is not THE GOD and had a beginning. The Word is obviously divine in nature and is spirit. To take it any further, IMHO, is to venture into nothing more than wild speculation, which is provoking, fun and imaginative, but nonetheless, doesn’t necessitate a doctrine of division in the body such as The Trinity.

God Bless.

[dizerner]

God clearly says in Scriptures that some attributes of God claim exclusivity, that is, God does and will not share these attributes, yet these attributes are applied to Christ. To take a simple example:

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Col 1:16-17 NAS)

Are there lots of "gods" who created all things alongside THE GOD? Did THE GOD have a big pantheon and posse of "little gods" that helped him out? Does a big group of little "gods" help "hold all things together"? So that we have, say, a couple thousands gods helping "hold all things together" inside themselves? Is there anything that only THE GOD can claim?

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My own hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.

Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands. It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands And I ordained all their host.

Big G or little helper g?

"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.

No Savior besides big G? Do all those pantheons of "gods" all help a little bit, a whole bunch of little "saviors" that all contribute to big G's salvation and creation? A bunch of little "gods" that all get a little worship too along with big G? Are all things created for big G but also for a bunch of little g's too?