- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Traditional trinitarian fallacy declares that the Son is equal to the Father (John 5:18) hence despite Jesus stating emphatically that he (the Son) is NOT EQUAL TO THE FATHER (John 14:28), and an Apostle in Corinthians 15:28 saying: ‘The Son himself shall be be subject to HIM who out all things under him’ – trinitarians continue to declare Jesus as God even as the Father is God.
Corinthians especially shows that even if the Father gives all his wealth to his son, the son is STILL SUBJECT to his living Father (And God is an EVERLASTINGLY LIVING Father!)
Ok, so trinitarians claim that it was a Jewish tradition that the ‘ELDEST SON’ (chronologically by birth) gained the lions share of his fathers assets at an appointed time by his father or on death of his Father.
Of course, we can see that this ‘Eldest Son’ right was not STRICT. In fact it was NOT the ‘Eldest Son’ but the ‘FIRSTBORN’ son who had the right.
Now what is the difference between the ‘Eldest Son’ and the ‘FIRSTBORN’ son? Well, ‘Firstborn’ is the son in Jewish terms who is ‘CLOSEST TO THE Father IN AFFECTION’ and thus is NOT necessarily the chronologically FIRST-BORN (I emphasise the difference in usage by the ‘-‘ (dash)). Read the scriptures and see the evidence – re: Cain and Abel; Ishmael and Isaac; Esau and Jacob; …, Joseph…, David.. And of course: Adam and Jesus!
Astute readers will immediately raise an almighty question at this point: Are ALL SONS of a Father EQUAL to the Father?
I hazard a calculated guess that trinitarians will choke on answering this questions and finally declare that ‘Not ALL SONS are EQUAL to the Father’. They will declare that the statement of equality ONLY REFERS to God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son – because Jesus (they will say) is the son of God.
Again you point out hat the scriptures declared that ALL HUMANKIND – all mankind – are sons of God the Father (albeit SINFUL Sons by the flesh). Trinitarians will jump on the ‘son’ point and declare that Jesus was different because he had no sin… All fine by ther false logic except that such an argument is non sequitur: a Son is a Son irrespective of standing – and there are ‘Those who are destined to be TRUE SONS (without sin): those whose names were written in the book of life from before the world was’!
Are these ‘Elite’ Sons of God ALSO EQUAL TO THE Father…,EQUALLY ALMIGHTY GOD?
What is your take on the false phrase used by the Jews in what the scripture writer says, ‘He (Jesus) was calling God his father making himself equal to God’.
Did Jesus not immediately afterwards reply to the Jews that he was NOT CALLING HIMSELF GOD but ‘Only the Son of God… Almighty God himself even called others ‘God’ yet I did not even say that but that I was only SON of God!!’ Meaning Jesus re-emphasised his original statement: ‘The Father (God) is greater than I’!
Good post Jael. I agree with what you have written. But just have one point to make that you perhaps allude to.
It is true that sometimes the eldest is not the firstborn and you give examples. But is this because the eldest rejected their status or were not worthy of it. So it was given to another. From what I have read and understood (and that is limited), all firstborns are either the eldest or were given it by reason of the eldest rejecting it, selling it, or not being worthy of it. But they are the default firstborn, but the default is not always the result.
Hi t8, you said, ‘…. But they are the default firstborn, but the default is not always the result.’
I do not understand what you mean by your suggestion. Could you explain a little better, please.
What I said was totally general. Of course there are, and obviously would be, firstborn (closest and dearest to the Father) who are also first-born (chronologically)… Ah, I see what you are getting at!!!
Sorry, no, Jesus was NOT first-born chronologically as well as firstborn dearest to the Father. I saw your post to terraricca in another thread just this morning and both you and terraricca were at odds with each other – confused and muddled and forcing scripture verses to attempt to meet your own views.
Jesus was born as the SECOND ADAM, scriptures clearly states this. And this follows through with the theme that I set in my opening text – essentially, that the first-born son (in relation to the CONTEXT, you know well enough about this) sins and his Father is displeased with him. The next (or another) of the father’s sons is then credited with being that firstborn (despite not being the lions-share default). Check David, Joseph, Solomon… Joseph’s story is even a mild prophecy of Jesus:
1) Joseph: born as the last of the sons of jesse
Jesus: born as the last of the phrophets
2) Joseph: conducted himself with great humility and became the fathers first love (‘Adopted’ as firstborn over his older brethren (note that Jesses eldest son SINNED a great sin – read about it!!) and given a most wonderful multicoloured – a costly item in its time, no doubt – and caused great envy among his brethren
Jesus: conducted himself with great humility and became the fathers first love (‘This day you have become to me a son and I to you a Father’ re: The Adoption Clause). He was given the ‘coat of gladness: the Holy Spirit – in full. We’re the Jews not angry and envious that Jesus declared himself as ‘Son of God’, yet they themselves also claimed to be children of God (John 8:41).
3) Joseph: put down into ‘the pit’ and his coat stripped from him and tore and blooded it… His Father wept for him.
Jesus: clothes torn and blooded and sent down into the ‘pit’ (Sheol). God wept for him : Lightening and earthquakes, the sun blocked, and the massive heavy curtains in the temple separating the outer from the inner sanctum (holy of Holies) torn in two.
4) Joseph was taken out the pit ….and rose to glory in Egypt.
Jesus rose from the dead (out of the pit of Sheol) and was taken up in glory in heaven
5) Joseph took the seat of PHAROAH to oversee the great famine : he was NOT PHAROAH but he ACTED AS (in place of) Pharaoh with ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY (by way of the signet ring of PHAROAH), excepting for ‘The Throne of Pharoah’, until the famine was over, whence he handed back all power and authority to him (PHAROAH) who gave it to him so he (PHAROAH) was once again all in all – PHAROAH!
Jesus: takes the seat of Almighty God: The Father to oversee the great tribulation : he is NOT Almighty God: the Father but he ACTED AS (in place of) Almighty God: the Father with ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY (by way of the Holy Spirit of God: the Father), excepting for ‘The Throne of God: the Father’, until the tribulation is over, whence he hands back all power and authority to him (ALmighty God: the Father) who gave it to him so he (Almighty God: the Father ) will once again be all in all – Almighty God: the Father!
Jesus is ‘The ONLY BEGOTTEN’ Son of God because only Jesus fulfills the role of a TRUE SON OF GOD by fully doing the father’s will – the ONLY ONE Adopted (begotten) so far. Scriptures tells us that God Almighty will also adopt us if we do his will (Corin 6:17-18).
Thus, Jesus is ‘Firstborn’ over ALL WHO WILL BE adopted as Sons. Adam …WOULD HAVE BEEN if he had not sinned!!!
THINK: If Adam HAD NOT SINNED…. what purpose would there have been, what need would there have been … for a CHRIST???
Oops, sorry, I didn’t mean ‘Jesse’ for Joseph’s Father. I meant, Jacob, obviously. And Joseph was the last but one Jacob’s sons.
please accept my apology for this inarticulate error.
To get back on topic, I asked a trinitarian a very critical question regarding their claim that ‘The Son is EQUAL to The Father’.
Equality is commutative. The question therefore is this:
‘Is the Father Equal to the Son’?
To this day I have not received a reply that addressed that question. Yes, there were words and arguments and phrases – and the usual quote from the trinity creed that says the Father is not the son…etc ., but nothing that simply stated a commutative fact:
if the son is equal to the Father then the Father is equal to the son…
Astute participants will immediately notice the grand flaw in the trinitarian claim… Plus the missing ‘third’ part (person) in the false equation: Where is the holy spiritual – AND is the Holy Spirit equal to the Father And equal to the son… Moreover: is the son equal to the Holy Spirit – AND – is the Father equal to the Holy Spirit.
in this argument remember that trinitarians readily admit that the holt spirit is ‘From the Father, From God… Of God’, aka, ‘The Holy Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father, the Holy Spirit sent FROM God, the holy spiritual OF God’. An unwitting admission that ‘the Father (alone) IS GOD’ …. (Yes, I know that they tried to claim that the Holy Spirit ALSO is from Jesus and proceeds from Jesus – but anyone but a diehard unthinking extremist would see that nothing in scriptures even purports to such a claim. Jesus tells us that he sent (passed on) what the Father promised and sent to the disciples / Apostles (at Pentecost). It is the father’s gift that Jesus sent. It was not Jesus’ own. A postman does not OWN the gift that your grandpa sends you just because he delivered it!!!
The Holy Spirit being ‘of the father ‘ and proceeding ‘From’ the Father cannot therefore be EQUAL to the Father (Probably why they deliberately ignored this their ‘third EQUAL PERSON’ of the trinity.)
On realising the grand flaw trinitarians invented an ‘elephant in the room’ solution: ‘The trinity members have RANKS, ORDERS of power and authority’….!!!!
Apparently The three who are equality God in every way are not equally God by rank… Nor can any trinitarian state any equality between the three except to draw on a HUMAN JEWISH MIS-TERMED claim that a Son is equal to his Father … None, however, try to show how this works when the Father has many sons….
Are they then all Equal? Then all those who become adopted sons of God: children of God, will thus, by flawed trinitarian claims, be EQUAL TO ALMIGHTY GOD!!!!
You ask a good question.
As I understand, the Father and the Son are equal in essence-two persons…one eternal and divine essence. (When I think of essence in perhaps a way to understand it according to this physical world, I think of two identical cells…they are two in number but one in essence.) In regards to the Father and the Son…within that divine essence is their own personal spirit which is the spirit particular to the Father and another which is the spirit particular to the Son. (Within each living human there is also a personal spirit, particular to them, which has the potential to unite with other people’s spirits as well as the Father and Sons already united holy Spirit.) Because They are perfect, They have perfect unity and thus Their spirits are united and always has been. They are of ‘one Spirit.’ That one Spirit is directed by the Father and sent through the Son. While the one united Spirit remains in them, it also extends from them to go wherever it is directed, even to the omnipresent potential. The Father and the Son each have an immediate presence and through their united spirit, they can have a transcending presence. (They can be in heaven next to each other and at the same time at the bottom of the sea, for example, and also within each believer-through their Spirit. Psalm 139:7-10)
Context will play a part in understanding the two persons and their united Spirit. For instance, when it seems that only one of the two persons is God alone in the context, the other can be understood as a part of that one God alone, i.e. the Word, or the Arm, etc.
Man can never become one in essence with them because man is not eternal. Believers will ‘partake’ of the divine nature but cannot ever be equal in essence to the Father or the Son who have always had the divine nature. One who must be ‘renewed’ in order to ‘partake’ can never be equal to whom has always partook and have never been in need of renewel. Always having divine , eternal essence is required for someone to be true God. Because both the Father and the Son have always had divine and eternal essence, they both rightfully can be called God. The reason that we ultimately do not have two distinct Gods is because they act as one, interdependently-not independently, to be the God who creates and saves us. So in the fullest sense of the role of a god who creates and saves, we have both the Father and the Son and their holy Spirit. The Father does not save us apart from the Son, nor does He create apart from the Son…they act as one, through their united holy Spirit.
The reason they are distinct as Father and Son, is because the Son was begotten out of the Father and the Father was not begotten, He was the begetter. The term ‘begotten’ does not need to imply that there was a beginning for the Son, but merely a change of location…the Son who is of the same eternal and divine essence as the Father, came ‘out’ of the Father before creation.
With this understanding of mine, I do not say that God is three persons in one God, but I say that in the fullest sense of God, there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for the question. I hope that my response here was written clearly enough. I will be happy to answer any further questions you might have.
God bless!
Hi Lightenup, part of what you said was:
“Man can never become one in essence with them because man is not eternal. Believers will ‘partake’ of the divine nature but cannot ever be equal in essence to the Father or the Son who have always had the divine nature. One who must be ‘renewed’ in order to ‘partake’ can never be equal to whom has always partook and have never been in need of renewel. Always having divine , eternal essence is required for someone to be true God. Because both the Father and the Son have always had divine and eternal essence, they both rightfully can be called God”
Did Jesus Christ not say, ‘Father, I wish that they (disciples) become one in you just as I am one in you and you in me’ (words to that effect). So if Jesus being ‘one with the Father makes him “GOD” just as the Father is God, then why would the disciples (Actually, APOSTLES) NOT be “GOD” as Jesus wished for them?
And what is the difference between Jesus being “Begotten (Adopted) by God” and the Apostles who are prophecies to be adopted by God (Become Sons and daughters of God). If the Son of God is God then are the children of God not also God?
Lightenup, I don’t understand how you say that Jesus coming out of the Father makes him God? Or was it EQUAL to God? GODS are not CREATED…nor do GODS come out of anyone else. A TRUE GOD ‘IS’. A true age is ETERNAL as you say, but if Jesus came out of or proceeded from the father (even from eternity) then he is NOT from the same eternity as the Father. Moreover, Almighty God said, ‘I am he who IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE…’ But Jesus said, ‘I am he who WAS DEAD, but is NOW ALIVE forevermore’.
Lightenup, if Jesus states himself that he was dead (and we know also that this is true from the scriptures) then surely he could not be ETERNAL…but rather he absolutely states that he ‘IS NOW’…Eternal. He is ETERNAL NOW from the point of time THAT HE WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD… Scriptures tells us that he was RAISED IN GLORY and is alive forevermore. He conquered DEATH – it now has no hold on him and it is to this end that he is the AUTHOUR OF ETERNAL LIFE to all who believe in his name. He is the FIRSTBORN of those who are to obtain ETERNAL LIFE.
Hello there Jael. You asked:
So if Jesus being ‘one with the Father makes him “GOD” just as the Father is God, then why would the disciples (Actually, APOSTLES) NOT be “GOD” as Jesus wished for them?
Being one with the Father is not what made the Son to be God. It is His divine and eternal essence that makes the Son to be God. Believers will never have that divine and eternal essence, The Father and the Son both do have that divine and eternal essence. Believers can be one ‘in’ them but not one ‘as’ them.
You also asked this:
And what is the difference between Jesus being “Begotten (Adopted) by God” and the Apostles who are prophecies to be adopted by God (Become Sons and daughters of God). If the Son of God is God then are the children of God not also God?
Jesus was NOT adopted by God, the Father. Jesus is a true son of the Father. Believers are adopted sons, Jesus always was a son.
You said:
Lightenup, I don’t understand how you say that Jesus coming out of the Father makes him God? Or was it EQUAL to God? GODS are not CREATED…nor do GODS come out of anyone else.
I didn’t say that ‘coming out of’ the Father made Jesus God. That makes him a son in relationship to the one whom He came out of. It is his divine and eternal (always existent) essence that makes Jesus God. You said correctly that Gods are not created. The Son was not created. You said that Gods do not come out of anyone else, in this, I disagree. God the Son came out of God the Father.
You said:
A TRUE GOD ‘IS’. A true age is ETERNAL as you say, but if Jesus came out of or proceeded from the father (even from eternity) then he is NOT from the same eternity as the Father.
If Jesus always existed within the Father before he came out of the Father, then they both have eternal past existence.
You said:
Moreover, Almighty God said, ‘I am he who IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE…’ But Jesus said, ‘I am he who WAS DEAD, but is NOW ALIVE forevermore’.
It was the flesh body of Jesus that died, His spirit never died. It is his flesh body that is resurrected and will never die again. His spirit has always lived.
I hope that clears some things up about what I understand.
God bless you, Jael.
Good stuff Jael.
What I said earlier was firstborns are literally firstborn unless they give it up or lose it. Jesus is the final Adam because Adam sinned. Another person sold his birthright for a meal. I was saying that the default is the oldest unless they lose it or are not worthy of it. Not sure this is 100% right. If not can I have an example.
Hi Lightenup,
You said: “Being one with the Father is not what made the Son to be God. It is His divine and eternal essence that makes the Son to be God.”
Please can you show me scripture verses that say that Jesus ALWAYS HAD ‘divine and eternal essence’. Surely a verse says that ‘the Father was pleased that Jesus should be filled with …the Holy Spirit…’ as sure as the fullness of the Holy Spirit alighted on Jesus at Jesus’ baptism, and GOD SAID, ‘This is my son in whom I am well pleased.’ Again, why would GOD state that he was pleased with GOD?
By the way, what exactly is ‘Divine and Eternal Essence’? Where does it come from and how is it possssed?
You also said: “Jesus was NOT adopted by God, the Father. Jesus is a true son of the Father. Believers are adopted sons, Jesus always was a son.”
All of mankind are ‘SONS of God’. God is the Father, the creator, of mankind: Man is made in the image of God. However, a true son does what his Father does, thinks as his Father thinks – that is why fallen man (sons all through Adam) is disenfranchised from being true Sons – some so far gone that Jesus called them ‘Sons of Satan’. Jesus was born (brought into life) in the same manner as Adam, that is, he was created not through the seed of another man but directly by God by means of the Holy Spirit of God. Thus, Jesus was holy and sinless, ‘The spirit of God will overshadow you (Mary) and you shall conceive a child. Therefore this child shall be holy and called the son of God’.
Adam, in the day of his creation was ‘SON OF GOD’ (Luke 3:38) But he later sinned. Jesus FAILED TO SIN despite tremendous pressure and temptation by Satan. Jesus therefore is and remains ETERNALLY (from his birth) the ONLY SINLESS SON OF GOD. As a reward for this, God said, ‘This day you have BECOME TO ME A SON – and I to you A Father’ – Lightenup, is this not what is spoken by a father on sealing an ADOPTION OF A (child)?
If GOD himself spoke this to Jesus (and he did), what was Jesus BEFORE this adoption that you say did not happen? Are the scriptures incorrect on this point – did someone add that verse (it is repeated from the Old Testament concerning King David!)
You said: “I didn’t say that ‘coming out of’ the Father made Jesus God. That makes him a son in relationship to the one whom He came out of.”
But LU…, Are you saying that God ‘incubated’ Jesus and then at some point before HUMAN TIME God gave birth to Jesus? Where does scriptures say this fantasmical thing? As far as I see scriptures says ‘[at the appointed time] I (Almighty God) will bring forth MY SERVANT (Jesus), etc etc.’ And Jesus confirmed the prophecy in his spew hate to the Jews in the synagogue: ‘This day that prophecy has been fulfilled in me – and he closed the book and sat down…’
LU, the servant revealed…., yes?
LU, you said: “It is his divine and eternal (always existent) essence that makes Jesus God. You said correctly that Gods are not created. The Son was not created. You said that Gods do not come out of anyone else, in this, I disagree. God the Son came out of God the Father.”
Lu, please show me even ONE scripture verse stating, ‘GOD THE SON’.
You replied to what I said: “A TRUE GOD ‘IS’. A true age is ETERNAL as you say, but if Jesus came out of or proceeded from the father (even from eternity) then he is NOT from the same eternity as the Father.”, saying:
“If Jesus always existed within the Father before he came out of the Father, then they both have eternal past existence.”
Lu, this that you say is a teaching that comes from no Christian ideology. Nowhere in any Christian bible text is there any reference to such a concept. In order to further this discussion using your view I would urge you to SHOW WHERE what you say is written so I can understand where your error is. For sure, God PROPHECIED a saviour (a Christ) would come and laud own his life for the sin of Adam. This CHRIST would be ‘A SECOND ADAM’ – a man – a human being born in like manner to the first. And, in the fullness of time, God created a HOLY AND SINLESS man child as was the first Adam. Created WITHOUT A Father. The Spirit of a child is in the seed of a man. The egg in the woman is analogous to the dust of the earth from which the BODY of Adam was created. God blew to to that body the breathe that ENLIVENED it – and Adam became a LIVING person. In the SAME WAY the sperm of a man PROCREATES the egg in the woman (don’t confuse ‘Seed of the woman’ as a prophecy with the physical egg in a woman). The sin element is in the seed of the man therefore Jesus (and Adam) being created WITHOUT the seed of a man (I.e. Created through the Holy Spirit of God) makes them SINLESS AND HOLY just as the Angel Gabriel told the Virgin Mary.
You again replied to what I said:”Moreover, Almighty God said, ‘I am he who IS, WAS, and ALWAYS WILL BE…’ But Jesus said, ‘I am he who WAS DEAD, but is NOW ALIVE forevermore’.” Saying:
“It was the flesh body of Jesus that died, His spirit never died. It is his flesh body that is resurrected and will never die again. His spirit has always lived.”
lu, EVERYONE BORN in a body WITH A SPIRIT dies (or will die) BY THAT BODY. The spirit however, does not die. The Spirit can only be DESTROYED. And destroyed by God alone because it is HIS possession. Thus when the person DIES the spirit of that persons goes BACK TO GOD. Jesus was no exception.
I have heard this ludicrous argument about ‘Jesus didn’t die- it as only his body that died’ from trinitarians so many times that I figure the truth is abhorrent to them. Now you raise the same argument here!!
lu, NO SPIRIT DIES… Not Jesus’ nor ANY OTHER MAN. God gives a person their spirit and receives that spirit back at death.
LU, how do you distinguish Jesus ‘giving up HIS SPIRIT’ to God as different from any other person who gives up his spirit at death? Are we not ALL ‘Alive in God’ (by our spirits)!?
Hi t8, you said, “What I said earlier was firstborns are literally firstborn unless they give it up or lose it. Jesus is the final Adam because Adam sinned. Another person sold his birthright for a meal. I was saying that the default is the oldest unless they lose it or are not worthy of it. Not sure this is 100% right. If not can I have an example.”
Well, I don’t think what you wrote is any different to what I wrote. Evidently if there is only one son then that son is both firstborn and first-born. The rest follows that a second-born can become firstborn (most beloved by the father) at the father’s pleasure in him over his elder brother. The TRADITION is brought about by the Jewish (Hebrew) teaching that the FIRST CHILD (desiring it to be a Son) to open the womb of the mother was to be most blessed of God (even supposedly dedicated to God – scriptures does not say what it is when the first-born child is a female – ignored as a first-born I guess and claimed to be a displeasure from God, maybe!!!).
Abraham loved Ishmael as his first-born child but was displeased with his attitude towards Isaac (Ishmael was encouraged to mercilessly tease Isaac by his Egyptian slave mother). However, God informed Abraham that it was Isaac that was to be his firstborn (love) because he did not authorise Abraham to have a child by a slave. Abraham sinned in listening to the urging a of his wife that he should take the slave and conceive a child by her even by the tradition of the surrogate mother (sit the conceiving mother in the lap of the proposed mother as the baby is dropped!!! That child become the proposed mothers child….)
In all this, I see nothing that shows that a child, firstborn or first-born, is spoken of as being ‘Equal to the Father’.
Do you have any ideas where such a claim comes from?
I have a great suspicion that trinitarians have hijacked the scriptures to create this false claim in the name of the Jews.
The Jews called God their Father. So why would they be so angry that Jesus said he was the son of God. They did not believe that ‘God creates a God’ …
They knew and firmly believed that there was ‘ONLY ONE GOD: the Father’ and that ‘Beside(s?) him there was no other’. Why would they suddenly and collectively believe that there was yet another God – Another who is God and equal to the Father God?
But nonetheless, Jesus told them absolutely that he did not call himself ‘GOD’ but ‘only the Son of God’. Jesus even went on to say that ‘God himself called those of the forefathers “GODS”‘yet he (Jesus) himself did not even say that.
Its sadly laughable that neither the Jews nor trinitarians find it in themselves to claim that ‘Those whom the word of God came to’ are called ‘GODS’ and say there are many gods next to or in the Father God – BUT DECLARE that Jesus is EQUAL TO GOD even as Jesus denies he said any such thing.
(ha!! Equal to another: Implies a TWO WAY Mutual commutative RELATIONSHIP.
– is GOD EQUAL Jesus… No trinitarian dare answer!!!
– and where is there a trinity involved in a two person relationship (‘I and the Father are one!’ ‘The Father is in me as I am in him’ ‘I am going to the Father’ ‘I am going to my God (he was speaking if the Father only at this point – in fact he never spoke of the so-called ‘third’ person of a supposed trinity except as an objective force of holiness.)
Jesus is called the “only begotten son” in St John while we are also told in John of his preexistence and that he made the world.So if he preexisted and made the world then isn’t it safe to say he’s the only born son from eternity? Was he just God the Word that later became a son by being born? The gospel of John doesn’t tell of his natural birth or baptism and the term begotten doesn’t mean adopted or resurrected in John.
Good post. I agree that the Son was the only born son from eternity. I believe that the Son always existed within the Father and then at one point, as the Father’s first work, the Son was begotten (brought forth) from within the Father before creation and therefore became the firstborn over all creation as all things were created through him (the Son).
Wow, that’s a lot of questions 🙂
You said:
Please can you show me scripture verses that say that Jesus ALWAYS HAD ‘divine and eternal essence’. Surely a verse says that ‘the Father was pleased that Jesus should be filled with …the Holy Spirit…’ as sure as the fullness of the Holy Spirit alighted on Jesus at Jesus’ baptism, and GOD SAID, ‘This is my son in whom I am well pleased.’ Again, why would GOD state that he was pleased with GOD?
The Son is referred to by the name YHVH at times, the Father is also referred to by the name YHVH. That is a name that means ‘self-existent one’ according to the scholars. That would signify that his essence was eternal as well as divine.
God the Father was pleased with God the Son. That is why he would state that he was pleased with him.
You said:
By the way, what exactly is ‘Divine and Eternal Essence’? Where does it come from and how is it possessed?
It is what makes a being truly God. God must be self-existent (eternal) and divine. You ask where does it come from and how is it possessed…divine and eternal essence doesn’t come from anything. If it came from something, it wouldn’t be eternal. God the Father and God the Son always had their essence and that essence has always been identical, that is as I understand it.
you said:
All of mankind are ‘SONS of God’. God is the Father, the creator, of mankind: Man is made in the image of God. However, a true son does what his Father does, thinks as his Father thinks – that is why fallen man (sons all through Adam) is disenfranchised from being true Sons – some so far gone that Jesus called them ‘Sons of Satan’. Jesus was born (brought into life) in the same manner as Adam, that is, he was created not through the seed of another man but directly by God by means of the Holy Spirit of God. Thus, Jesus was holy and sinless, ‘The spirit of God will overshadow you (Mary) and you shall conceive a child. Therefore this child shall be holy and called the son of God’.
There are many ‘sons’ that are sons because they were created but there is only one Son who is a son because he came from within the Father and shares the same essence as his father. As far as what you said about the Father being the creator of mankind, it was actually both, the Father and the Son who were involved in creating mankind. Regarding what you said about Jesus being brought to life, well it was Jesus’s flesh that was brought to life in Mary, conceived by the spirit of God the Father, however, his spirit that came to reside in the created flesh, it has always been alive from eternity past. The son, according to his pre-existence was always the Son of God as well as when he became flesh, and as well as when his body was resurrected to his spirit.
I will take a little break here and address more of your concerns later. God bless you Jael!
Hi LU, you say that anything that comes from something else cannot be eternal YET you say that Jesus came from God…
Moreover, since Jesus is THE SON ‘OF’ GOD this necessitates that Jesus be an offspring – and therefore NOT GOD himself: A branch OF (or OFF) a tree is NOT the tree it is the branch of (or OFF).
In the same way, the children OF God are not GOD. But in any case this still leaves the question of HOW is the Son EQUAL to HIS GOD.
Is THE FATHER equal to HIS SONS? This must be true… Where is this written in scriptures?
Are the sons then all equal to each other?
LU, you replied to Andrew, saying: “Good post. I agree that the Son was the only born son from eternity. I believe that the Son always existed within the Father and then at one point, as the Father’s first work, the Son was begotten (brought forth) from within the Father before creation and therefore became the firstborn over all creation as all things were created through him (the Son).”
I am pleased that you say that what you think is only what YOU believe. This leaves hope that the truth may one day every borne in you.
You say that you BELIEVE that the son was always existent in The Father. Yet when I ask you to show where you get this inappropriate idea from you fail to respond.
Sure, God always had an idea (certainty prophecy) that a saviour (a Christ) would be required – after all, he created mankind to be like himself, in that mankind would have autonomy over his environment, to create, destroy, to have divine love with freedom, design, nurture, …and as flesh: to learn bit by bit the truth of the nature and limitations of the creation he resides in and finally transcend from the fleshly world to the spiritual world. At some point the free nature would likely lead to negative behaviour. God hoped that in that freedom man would respect him as Father and refrain from the disaster and that at least one of man would hold to the truth and lead the rest back to him as Father.
You can see this theme is the nations of the world. God took out of them one ‘Son’ for himself: the Israelites.
The Israelites (Gods chosen people – eventually called ‘Jew’s) were meant to learn all truth about God and then lead all the other nations back to him.
Similarly, god chose one man from among mankind to lead the people back to him: Prophesied in MOSES leading the Israelites out if Egypt : ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son (that is: Israel!)’
LU, I think you are confusing the Prophecy of God that ‘his son’ would save the world. The reality is that it would take someone of mankind who showed himself to be a true son beholding to God to save the world from the son of Adam. God saw that because all men were afflicted by the sin of Adam, not even Abraham, Moses, David or Solomon, in their own greatness could adequately fulfil that role, ‘No, not one!’. God wrong back to basics starting with a MAN who was LIKE ADAM: Sinless and fully holy – as Adam in the day of his creation. God saw the vessel to carry this new Adam, a virgin with purity: Mary. But as Adam was created from the dust of the earth, new Adam was created in the egg of her. The egg is the body material – akin to the dust of the earth:
p.s. ‘DUST OF THE EARTH’ just means ‘Chemical Elements’…Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Mercury….. Moses, who wrote the first books, did not know about exact chemical elements nor had the chemistry or physics and biology degrees to explain it to first millenium Hebrews!!
It is the sperm of the man that gives LIFE (Spirit) to the body created from the dust of the egg. Why then does a woman flush her eggs each month but a man ‘re-absorbs’ sperm that is unused (..fact!!). Why is it abhorrent for a man to ‘spill his seed (sperm) on the ground’?
So, LU, Jesus was created …JUST LIKE ADAM. Created TO BE the Son, the Christ. But to BE the Son he would have to PROVE HIMSELF. … In your scenario jesushad NOTHING to prove if he was ALREADY (as YOU say) a living offspring of GOD – GOD HIMSELF, indeed.
Lu, Jesus was GOD HIMSELF??? And GOD IS: The Father.., so Jesus is the Father? LU, this is rhetorical?
Your summary: The Father is God who incubated a God who is the same God as the Father. The son was always living in the Father but was not God because God is all power and authority and the son could not be if he was incubated. Suddenly Jesus was sprung from God (Sounds like Greek mythology) and became God because he was now living (although he had ALWAYS been living!!!). Jesus came down as spirit into the body of the egg of Mary to become man (although GOD CANNOT BECOME because GOD ALWAYS IS) but despite being MAN he was also GOD in disguise….!
Lu, so far oh agent read your ideas on anything more but it must be intriguing to hear what you say about GOD saying to him: ‘This day I have begotten you as a son and you have begotten me as a Father’. And, how Jesus, who IS GOD, you say, acquires FROM GOD, the things he ALREADY OWN (as God). How GOD dies (please don’t tell me anymore nonsense about ‘it was his flesh alone that died’) and was raised again from the dead and RAISED UP in glory to a HIGHER POSITION ….NEXT TO GOD!!!
Now, ‘next to God’… The RIGHT HAND OF GOD, in fact. LU, the ‘right hand’ of a King, is an HONORARY POSITION. It does not make that person ‘KING’ because he occupies that position – at the PLEASURE of the King who say, ‘In you I am well pleased’, and has poured on his head the oil of gladness (an anointment: by man, symbolically, a special secret oil mixture. By God, the Holy Spirit).
Lu, how is the Son equal to the King (God) if the son is only in an honorary position NEXT TO God / King?
Lu, ‘NEXT TO’ is not ‘EQUAL TO’.
Next to the King is the king’s son. Is that son then the KING as his Father is KING… What if there are more than one sons, are they ALL KINGS?
Please answer these questions. They look many but in fact are ONE AND THE SAME….!
Essentially, given the above: Is a Son EQUAL to his father and IS the Father equal TO his Son? And WHERE does scriptures say this (Not what it says in John !!! alone – this is trinitarian addition. Test the spirit of the word by finding THREE EXAMPLES (two others!)
Jael,
“(Not what it says in John !!! alone – this is trinitarian addition” Surely you’re not saying St.John is trinitarian addition are you? If not for the gospel of John the trinity doctrine may not have come about for it more than any other testifies to Jesus divine status as God.Paul and the other gospels show Jesus as a divine son but don’t identify him as God as much or in the same way as John. It is all quite confusing and the trinity or originally more like binity-Nicea,was an attempt to simplify it and keep God’s unity.
LU, you said:
“Perhaps you are quoting from one of these verses which is technically not translated like you wrote it according to the original language.
Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;The Begetting which is referred to in the above verses is the event when the Father raised up the Son from the grave; a fulfillment of a promise made to the ancient Israelites. This made Him the Firstborn from the dead. This did not make Him the Firstborn over all creation…that was the begetting which took place before creation.
God the Father already had witnessed to the fact that Jesus/Yeshua was His Son during His ministry before He died. See here for example:
2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Lu, the verse I am referring to is ‘Hebrews 1:5’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
