Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Talk Jesus Statement of Faith

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are told by John and Paul, nothing was made without Him (Christ.), so we know He was there.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him (The Word) was not anything made that was made.

If the Bible meant three persons of God or that Christ existed before His incarnation the Holy Spirit would have used the word "Son" instead of "Word"
 
Look again at the term "word" to distinguish it in usage from the term "Son". The Word or Logos can mean the plan, thought, or mind of God. The Incarnation was a predestined plan—an absolutely certain future event—and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God as expressed in the flesh, that is, in the Son. What is the difference, therefore, between the two terms “Word” and “Son”? The Word had preexistence and the Word was God (the Father), so we can use this term without reference to humanity. However, the Son always refers to the Incarnation, and we cannot speak of the Son in the absence of the human element. Except as a foreordained plan in the mind of God, the Son did not have preexistence before the conception in the womb of Mary. The Son of God preexisted in thought but not in substance. The Bible calls this foreordained revelation the Word (John 1:1, 14).
 
John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. However, many people use the phrase “eternal Son.” Is this latter phrase correct? No. The Bible never uses it, and it expresses a concept contradicted by Scripture. The word begotten is a form of the verb beget, which means “to procreate, to father, to sire.” Thus begotten indicates a definite point in time—the point at which conception takes place. By definition, the begetter (father) always must come before the begotten (offspring). There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

“Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of external existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.
 
Look again at the term "word" to distinguish it in usage from the term "Son". The Word or Logos can mean the plan, thought, or mind of God. The Incarnation was a predestined plan—an absolutely certain future event—and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God as expressed in the flesh, that is, in the Son. What is the difference, therefore, between the two terms “Word” and “Son”? The Word had preexistence and the Word was God (the Father), so we can use this term without reference to humanity. However, the Son always refers to the Incarnation, and we cannot speak of the Son in the absence of the human element. Except as a foreordained plan in the mind of God, the Son did not have preexistence before the conception in the womb of Mary. The Son of God preexisted in thought but not in substance. The Bible calls this foreordained revelation the Word (John 1:1, 14).

Yes, I agree that Jesus became the Son at a point in time, just as He became the Savior at a point in time.

Christ has existed from eternity past with the Father, He is eternal and He is God, as John said.

The Father/Sonship is not eternal, or at least it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I also agree the word "Son" is always referring to His humanity.

As far as the phrase "eternal Son," the Sonship had a beginning but now that He has become the Son, that Sonship is forever- eternal.

I have used that phrase and that's what I mean by it when I use it.
 
Jesus never “became” the Son of God at any time in history he has always been the Son of God in eternity even before creation.

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

Jhn 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

Jesus refers to himself as the Son of man even before his incarnation.

Jesus the Son of God who is eternal did not change from who he was by putting on a physical body as God changes not.

incarnation of Jesus : "Remaining what He was, He became what He was not."

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Jhn 16:28 "I came from the Father and entered the world. Now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
 
Last edited:
Whatever concept you would like to use, all three were there at creation and had a part in it.

The Holy Spirit was there moving over the waters.

We are told by John and Paul, nothing was made without Him (Christ.), so we know He was there.

Where was the Father, well I'm sure He was there.
What does this prove?
 
Isn't it always amazing that it's always the Bible that's wrong when it disagrees with people's idea of who God is.
I didn't say the Bible is wrong. I said the word Godhead is a misnomer. The word Godhead is an English word and is found nowhere in any of the original manuscripts. That necessitates that someone "interpretted" from another language a word and translated it Godhead. That means it's what someone "thought" the Greek or Latin texts meant.

But, I do agree that it is amazing that the Bible is always what's implied to be wrong when it doesn't agree with the idea of who God is. As I've pointed out, Jesus said the Father is the only true God and yet here we are debating over this very point. Paul said to the Corinthian Christians, 'to us there is one God, the Father', and here we are debating over where or not there are three. Paul said there is one. Jesus said there is one. Both of these statements come out of the Bible and yet the majority of Christendom claims there are three.

The question I would ask is, how much evidence do we need before we believe it? It's been shown the doctrine is self refuting. We have clear statements from both Jesus and Paul. We see from Church history that the doctrine didn't appear until the 5th century. When it did appear people were threatened if they didn't believe it. We have 2000 years of people adding things to the Christian faith. Just look at all of the different beliefs out there. How much more evidence do we need? Me personally, I'm questioning any doctrine that flatly contradicts Jesus and Paul. It doesn't matter how many people believe it or how many churches claim it's true. If it contradicts Jesus, Paul, and reason, I'm questioning it. I'm aware of the fact that millions of people can all be wrong. Just look at how many believe in evolution. And not just scientists. The vast majority of people in the world who believe evolution is true have no real working understanding of the doctrine. They simply believe it because it's what they were taught. I think we could say the same about Christians. Studies have shown that Biblical illiteracy in the Church is rampant. So, people are simply parroting what they were taught. Combine that with the fact that most denominations hold the doctrine of the Trinity and many won't even think of questioning it, it's not surprising that we see what we have today.

We have a scenario where people don't believe their own eyes. People see that it's illogical, unreasonable, inconsistent with reality, contradicted by both Jesus and Paul, and they can't explain it. Yet, instead if saying wait a minute we have a problem. They simply look past all of that and run to defend the doctrine.

Why? The Bible doesn't say the Trinity doctrine must be defended at all costs. It doesn't say anything about the Trinity. The apostles never said anything about it. Jesus never said anything about it. No one in Scripture said you must believe in the Trinity to be saved. That begs the question, why do modern Christians pick the Trinity doctrine as a hill to die on?
 
Jesus is referred to as having a priesthood like that of Melchizedek never having a beginning or end. (eternal)Forever being the Son of God.

Heb 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Heb 7:21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT RELENT, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK' "),
 
Read post #80
I can read post 80 but that isn't going to change facts. Facts are facts they don't change. They are truth.

Christians talk about the truth of God's word. Why then would one ignore facts?

A father, by definition is one who begets. He gives life. The one he begets has a starting point. This is why the first Christians called the Father the unbegotten God and they call the Son, the begotten God. They acknowledged that He had a starting point. The question is, if those who were taught by Jesus and the apostles believed that Jesus had a starting point why don't Christians today?

Logic dictates that if the very first teaching regarding the Father and the Son said that the Son had a starting point and the teaching today is that He doesn't, something changed along the way. Somewhere over time someone changed the doctrine. Reason also dictates, as Tertullian said, 'that which is first is true.' Whatever was first taught was the truth. We can't have false teaching about a doctrine until the doctrine exists. For instance, salvation through faith. There couldn't be false teaching about salvation through faith until the doctrine was established. Therefore, the establishment of the doctrine (first teaching) is the truth. Anything that deviates from that is error.

That begs the question, where and when did someone change the doctrine? If we look at church history we can see where and when that happened.

But, to the point you suggested I look at post 80 and someone implying the Bible is wrong when it doesn't agree with their understanding of who God is, may I suggest the words of Jesus and Paul. Jesus to the Father, "that they may know you, the only true God, Paul to the Corinthian Christians, "to us there is one God, the Father.'

It seems to me there are two possibilities here. Jesus and Paul are correct, thus the Bible is correct, and there is one God, the Father. Or, there are three who are coequal. Jesus and Paul, and thus the Bible, are either right or wrong. They say one, Christianity says three. Who's implying what?
 
Jesus is referred to as having a priesthood like that of Melchizedek never having a beginning or end. (eternal)Forever being the Son of God.

Heb 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

Heb 7:21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "THE LORD HAS SWORN AND WILL NOT RELENT, 'YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK' "),
Is He? You only bolded part of the verse. It also says He is without father and mother. Was Jesus without a father and a mother? Obviously He wasn't. There's only one being that is without father and mother. That's God the Father. He's also without beginning and without end.

One who is eternal must be without father and mother because if he had them he wouldn't be eternal.
 
It seems to me there are two possibilities here. Jesus and Paul are correct, thus the Bible is correct, and there is one God, the Father. Or, there are three who are coequal. Jesus and Paul, and thus the Bible, are either right or wrong. They say one, Christianity says three. Who's implying what?

Who makes all these rules you come up with?
Why do they have to be co-equal.
One family has a husband, wife and child. That doesn't mean they are equal.

You keep going back to one God = one person. Why?

One Army platoon has corporals, sergeants, and a captain.
That doesn't mean they are equal.
 
Who makes all these rules you come up with?
Why do they have to be co-equal.
One family has a husband, wife and child. That doesn't mean they are equal.

You keep going back to one God = one person. Why?
The doctrine says they are coequal. Here's the doctrine codified in the Athanasian Creed. As you read this notice that it is laced with fallacies. I mean, it's not just a fallacy, they're all over the place. They say the Son is eternal and then later say He is begotten before all worlds. That's a contradiction. So, they contradict themselves within the Creed. Notice they repeatedly say not three beings, but one being. It's just one fallacy after another.


Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.


But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.

For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.

He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.

Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.

He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.

He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.

For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.

He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.

Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.
 
Is He? You only bolded part of the verse. It also says He is without father and mother. Was Jesus without a father and a mother? Obviously He wasn't. There's only one being that is without father and mother. That's God the Father. He's also without beginning and without end.

One who is eternal must be without father and mother because if he had them he wouldn't be eternal.
Heb 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

What part of this scripture do you say is not true?
 
Jesus the Son of God who is eternal did not change from who he was by putting on a physical body as God changes not.

incarnation of Jesus : "Remaining what He was, He became what He was not."
John Chapter 1 Specifically says The Word not Son put on a physical body. The eternal Spirit of God always existed and always will but became a Son at a specific time.
 
Heb 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

What part of this scripture do you say is not true?
Scripture is not untrue just some people's interpretation is wrong. It says "like the Son of God" not "the Son of God" We all know Jesus Had a divine father (God) and a human mother (Mary). This scripture is talking about God who is eternal not the Son who had a beginning.
 
What does this prove?

You said the word "God" is always singular. I was showing you that's not correct.

"God" in Gen. 1:1 is "Elohim" and is plural. there's much controversy over what that means.

Some say it is introducing the Trinity in the very first verse of the Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top