The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible

fjtoth

Undisf’d,
You wrote:
So, now that we know what "Almighty" means, does the Bible show that Jesus is Almighty? Matthew 28:18 (ESV): And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. If "Almighty" means having power or authority over all things, then Jesus, by definition, is Almighty, because He has ALL authority in HEAVEN and on EARTH.
Again I say, Trinitarians do not read the Bible properly. Jesus said concerning the authority he has that it “has been given to me.” If Jesus was the eternal Almighty God, he would have possessed that authority from all past eternity.

This statement by the apostle Paul adds additional clarification: “For he [God] has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him.” (1 Cor. 15:27)

Do Trinitarians accept what Paul wrote? He clearly shows that Christ did not give himself all authority in heaven and on earth. God the Father “put all things in subjection under his feet.” But there is an exception to “all things” according to Paul. He wrote that “it is evident that he is excepted who put all things in subjection to him.” Note that “it is evident.” Why is it not evident to Trinitarians? Why do they continue to insist that Christ is Almighty God, even though the Bible makes it plain that someone greater than Christ placed him in charge of “all things”?

You wrote:
Other Scriptures also show Jesus is the Almighty One: 1 Timothy 6:14-16 (ESV): to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time--he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.
This is still another example of reading the Bible improperly. It isn’t surprising that Trinitarians prefer a translation like the ESV in this instance. It gives the impression that Christ is the “only Sovereign, the King of kings,” etc. But the majority of translators and commentators say that it is God, not Christ, who will bring about “the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Good News Bible says, for example, “His appearing will be brought about at the right time by God.” The NIV also says “God” instead of “he”: “…until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”

A footnote for 1 Timothy 6:15 in the NIV Study Bible states: “Just as Jesus’ first coming occurred at the precise time God wanted (Gal 4:4), so also his second coming will be at God’s appointed time. Acts 3:20 says it is God who will 'send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you.'”

It would contradict the facts of Scripture to insist that Christ is the one “who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see.” Christ has been seen and will be seen again. It is the Father “whom no one has ever seen or can see.”

You asked:
If Jesus is our Only Sovereign, as the Bible teaches, does that exclude The Father from also being The Sovereign?
As shown above, it is the Father “alone” who is the “only Sovereign”. Thus 1 Timothy 6:14-16 is a powerful testimony against the Trinity doctrine.

You wrote:
Also, since you yourself said that The Father is the Only, One Lord, and that there cannot be TWO Lords because Jesus taught children that there is only ONE Lord -- then WHICH Lord is the ONE Lord -- The Father or Jesus? The Bible calls BOTH of them The ONE Lord: Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Mark 12:29, ESV) yet for us there is ... one Lord, Jesus Christ ... (1 Corinthians 8:6, ESV)
There is no evidence or even a hint that Jesus taught little children that he himself is the “one Lord.” Children had it impressed in their minds and hearts by frequent repetition at mealtimes from a very early age that the God of Deuteronomy is that “one Lord.” According to Jesus, that fact is one of the most important teachings of the Scriptures. (Mark 12:28, 29) Jewish children were also clearly taught that God is invisible to human eyes and that “God is not a man, nor a son of man.” (Ex. 33:20; Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29)

Yes, we are told in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that “there is … one Lord, Jesus Christ,” but it also says “there is but one God, the Father.” That is the creed of the Bible, and it should lay all argument to rest. No, Paul did not say “there is one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” There is only one universal “Sovereign,” as pointed out in 1 Timothy 4:16. The Father is the Sovereign God and the Sovereign Lord, but he chooses others to be lords to a lesser degree. Thus, the Father is “the Lord our God,” but Jesus has been designated “the Lord Jesus Christ (Messiah).” (Matt. 16:16; Luke 2:11, 26; 4:41; 9:20; John 1:41; Rom. 16:18; Phil. 2:11, etc.) The Father is the Lord God, and Jesus is the Lord Messiah. Those two identities should not be confused.

David spoke of King Saul as “my lord, the Lord’s anointed (Messiah)”. (1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 26:15, 16) Jesus is the ultimate Lord Messiah or Anointed One. He is the final king of Israel, but like his ancestors upon "the throne of the Lord" he is not the Lord God. In the last book of the Bible, the glorified Jesus is still “the Lord’s Anointed (Messiah).” (Rev. 11:15; 12:10)

An Old Testament verse quoted more than any other in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1: “The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" The frequency of its occurrence should indicate its critical importance in determining who Jesus Christ really is. In the original Hebrew, David wrote that the LORD God is adonai, and he wrote that “my lord,” the Messiah, is adoni. There is a big difference. Adoni is often used of Israel’s king and other human superiors. Adoni never refers to God, and adonai never refers to anyone but God. No one reading Psalm 110:1 in the original Hebrew text during the days of Jesus and the apostles could imagine that the Messiah is the Lord God. The Lord God is Lord from eternity to eternity, but Jesus was made Lord at a point in human history. Acts 2:36 says, “God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus."

You wrote:
Notice also that the Apostle Paul quoted a Scripture that says "everyone who calls on the Name of Yahweh" and applied it directly to Jesus Christ, and put "Lord" (Kyrios) instead of Yahweh.
As shown in Matthew 28 and Acts 2, God gave Jesus all authority and made him Lord. That is what Pharaoh did to Joseph in order to meet the needs of the people. Pharaoh elevated Joseph to second-in-command and told the people, “Go to Joseph.” (Gen. 41:55) Pharaoh and Joseph were not the same being, and there is no reason to conclude that God and Jesus are both the “Lord God” just because Jesus now has some of the responsibilities that God reserved for himself until he exalted Jesus.

You wrote:
I don't pretend to understand everything about the wonderful relationship within the Trinity. No human can possibly understand everything about God.
I find it interesting that Trinitarians often use an expression similar to this. But in discussing the relationship between God and Jesus, we are not asked to “understand everything about God.” All we need do is shun the creeds of men and allow the Bible to speak. It is the opinions and theories of men that cause so much confusion.
You wrote:
Philippians 2:6-8 says that Jesus came to earth in "human FORM." Was Jesus truly a Human, or was He only like a human? It also says He took on the "FORM of a servant." Was Jesus truly a Servant, or was He only like a servant? It also says that before coming to earth, Jesus existed in the "FORM of God." Was Jesus truly God, or was He only like God?
Verse 6 does not say Jesus existed “as God.” It says he “existed in the form of God.” There is a big difference. If I tell you of how my son appeared in a play “in the form of” a lion, you would not assume that my son is a bona fide lion. He simply appeared on stage with the outward appearance of a lion. And that is the meaning of morphe, the Greek word translated as “form.” Christ is the image of God, but he is not God himself. By comparing the way morphe is used elsewhere in the Bible, we can discern its meaning.
Mark 16:12 says concerning Jesus, “He appeared in a different form [morphe] to two of them while they were walking along on their way to the country.” That explains why Luke 24:15, 16 says, “As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him." Jesus may have taken on the form of a scribe or a doctor or a horseman, but that does not mean he was such. His form (morphe) was his external appearance, and it had changed from the way they may have formerly recognized him.
A word closely related to morphe appears in 2 Timothy 3:5. It is morphosis, also translated as “form”: There we read of evil men who would be “holding to a form [morphosis] of godliness, although they have denied its power." They would not “exist” as godly men, but they would put on an outward display or form of being such.
As you know, the Old Testament was translated into Greek and was called the Septuagint.Morphe appears several times in the Septuagint. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word temuhah. One of the places it appears in the Septuagint is at Job 4:15, 16: “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form [morphe] stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice.” Eliphaz saw the outward or external appearance of something, but he “could not tell what it was.”
Isaiah 44:13 tells us of a carpenter who chisels wood into an idol: “He shapes it in the form [morphe] of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine.” The idol is not actually a man; it merely ‘existed in the form of man.’ Similarly, Christ is not actually God though he outwardly gives the appearance of being God since he is the express image of his Father.
Daniel 3:19 tells us what happened when Nebuchadnezzar became enraged at Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, “The form [morphe] of his countenance was altered.” The NASB says “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance or form had changed.
Philippians 2:7 says Christ also “emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant." For all appearances, Jesus would have passed for a slave. (Isa. 53:3) But in actuality, Christ was not a bond-servant. He was God’s Son. As stated in Hebrews 5:8, “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered." His outward appearance was that of a slave, but in reality he was “the heir of all things.” (Heb. 1:2)
The ESV is incorrect in saying “human form.” The Greek word in this case is not morphe. It is schema, defined by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament as “the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc.” Jesus was born as a man, and he lived as a man. He suffered as a man and died as a man. He was in every sense of the word a real, genuine, human man! And he was also most certainly not God. He was the image of God and "existed in the form of God."
You wrote:
Also, several Translations render Philippians 2:6 to show that Jesus was indeed equal to God before coming to earth:
No, they do not. Most of the ones you quote say he was “in the form of God” and, as I’ve said above, that is not the same as saying he “existed as God.” Giving the correct idea, the New Century Version, which you quote, says “Christ himself was like God in everything.” He was not God himself, but he was similar to or “like God.”
To be continued.

Frank
fjtoth

Undisf'd,
You wrote:
Yes, Psalm 45:7 applies to Jesus when He was a Man on earth. Jesus did have "companions" or "associates" while He was a Man, because Jesus was truly, 100% Human. Therefore, God said He was anointing Jesus above His companions, His fellow humans.
There's that Trinitarian doublespeak again! You say Jesus was "100% Human," and yet, a few sentences later you reasoned this way:
The Bible says that Jesus is the Only-Begotten Son of God. Humans beget humans. Apes beget apes. Dogs beget dogs. You get the idea. What does God beget? If something is begotten of God, wouldn't that Person also be God by His Nature?
If he was thoroughly human -- 100 percent -- how much of him was left to be God in the flesh? The Trinitarian dual nature theology negates the humanity of Christ. It leaves us with someone who is not a normal human being, someone who is basically not one of our kind. Much better than the Trinitarian explanation, Psalm 8:5 foretold that Jesus on earth would be, not God, but "a little lower than God." And Hebrews 2:17 states that he was "like his brothers in every respect." (ESV) Do you know any of "his brothers" who are God-men?
You asked,
"What does God beget?"
Begettal requires a woman, a mother. The baby who grew within Mary's womb was fully human, someone who would grow up to be the full equivalent of the first man Adam. Adam "the son of God" was a genuinely authentic man, and so was Jesus who is called "the last Adam." (1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:14)
God is God. He never changes. (Mal. 3:6) He has never been a man. On the other hand, God's Son Jesus is one of us. The apostle Peter said before thousands of people that he is "Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death." (Acts 2:22, 23) Peter did not portray Jesus as God. Three thousand people who heard Peter's sermon were saved that day, without hearing anything about the Trinity or Christ being God. If it is necessary to believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved, as stated in the Athanasian Creed, Peter certainly fell down on the job of pointing that out. Peter called upon the Jews to believe that Jesus was "this Man" who was "attested ... by God." That was the test for salvation, not the Trinity which is portrayed as the vital test by the Athanasian Creed.
Philippians 2:6, NIV, says that Christ "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." What was the point of mentioning this if Christ already shared equality with God? The act of grasping is for what a person does not have, not for what he already possesses. This verse is a powerful argument against the Trinitarian idea that Jesus walked the earth as God Incarnate. It does no good to say that Jesus did not consider equality with God to be something he could not give up. The word used is "grasped." Equality with God is something Jesus has never had, and unlike the first Adam, it is something he will never seek to grasp away from his Father.
You wrote:
Well, I would say the king was to be obeyed LIKE you would obey God, but not the SAME as you would obey God.
Is there a difference? If I told my son, "I want you to obey your mother like you obey me," isn't that the same as saying I want him to obey her "the same" as he obeys me? It seems to me you are quibbling over words. You have already made the following acknowledgement:
I don't have any problem saying that kings and judges and angels were called gods in the sense of being a representative of God.
So, now are you arguing that obedience to them does not have to be total when they speak for God as his representatives? God told the Israelites: "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since my name is in him." (Ex. 23:20, 21)
God required total obedience to Moses when Moses spoke as God's representative. Several times disobedience to Moses led to death at God's hands. God told Moses this concerning the people of Israel: "I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him." (Deut. 18:18, 19)
Peter applied that prophecy to Jesus, showing clearly that Jesus was to be obeyed, not because he was God since he was not God. He was to be obeyed in the same way that the angel of the Lord and Moses were to be obeyed. Like them he was God in the sense of being God's agent or spokesman.
Bath-sheba was under no obligation to obey David when he made amorous overtures toward her. On that occasion David was not speaking any message that God had authorized him to speak.
You wrote:
You should NEVER obey anyone the SAME that you would obey God. That is why the Watchtower Society is so dangerous -- they have convinced people to obey them "just as you would the voice of God."
Where is the evidence that God has in any way spoken to the leaders of the Watchtower Society?
Your argument against what Jesus said at Mark 13:32 has no basis. It is the same as saying Jesus did not mean what he said concerning no one knowing the day or hour except the Father.
Your argument #1: Jesus meant no person on earth knew the day or hour. Yet Jesus mentioned heavenly persons, namely, the Father and the angels. Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit does not exist in heaven?
Your argument #2: Jesus did not mention the Holy Spirit because, as John 7:39 says, "the Holy Spirit was not yet given." You are overlooking the fact that the spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism and that Jesus told even Nicodemus who was not an apostle that he should know what it means to be born again of the spirit. So the apostles were well aware of the existence of the holy spirit.
Your argument #3: Jesus did not mention the Holy Spirit because he did not want to confuse his disciples any more than necessary by mentioning a THIRD person he had not yet spoken about. Is this not an admission on your part that the Jews, even including the apostles, knew nothing about God as a Trinity? As I mentioned above, the apostles knew about the holy spirit, and so did Nicodemus. But here I have to agree with you that the Trinity was completely unknown among God's true worshipers among the Jewish people. But I can't agree with you that Jesus would distort the truth about the day and hour simply because he didn't want to "confuse" the disciples.
Your argument #4: Since one of the persons of the Trinity is mentioned, all three persons are included in what Jesus stated at Matthew 24:36. In other words, when Jesus said "the Father only," he meant the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Then how do you harmonize that with Jesus' own statement that he himself did not know? Again I detect Trinitarian doublespeak. You stated
nearly always, whenever [the New Testament] mentions an attribute or title of One of the Persons of the Trinity, it is true of ALL 3 Persons.
So, did all three persons die at Calvary? Were all three placed in a tomb? Were all resurrected? How do you know? What basis do you have for deciding that all three are meant here but not there? I believe you are using language that pretends to communicate when it actually does not! The Bible does not lead us to accept such confusion.
Now I'm going to give you one more example of how you read the Bible incorrectly. You wrote:
You could ask the Jehovah's Witnesses why 1 Corinthians 2:11 says that ONLY The Holy Spirit knows what God is thinking. Why did that Verse not say that Jesus knows what God is thinking?
I'm not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I don't agree with much of what they teach. But here they do better than Trinitarians in explaining the meaning of the holy spirit. Please look at the context. The "spirit" in 1 Corinthians 2 is not a person at all. Verse 11 sets off "the spirit of the man, which is in him" against "the spirit of God." Verse 12 contrasts "the spirit of the world" against "the spirit which is from God." Then verse 13 similarly shows a difference between "man's wisdom" and "the spirit" that comes from God.
"The spirit of the man" is not the man himself. Neither is it a person in addition to the man who has that spirit. The spirit of the man is something that is in the man. Noting the contrast between "man's wisdom" and "the spirit" from God, we are led to assume that the spirit in man is the human mind. Joined with the physical brain of the man, it imparts to the man's brain his unique powers of intellect and personality—the ability to think rationally and make free will decisions, all combined to form "man's wisdom." But that is all! The spirit that is in man has no consciousness of itself. The same can be said of "the spirit of the world." It is not a person. It is a pervasive mood or mindset that identifies with the ways of this world.
To be consistent, we are forced to assume that, at least in this context, "the spirit of God" or "the spirit which is from God" is not a person. This is indicated by the fact that most translations do not speak of the spirit "who is from God" but as "the spirit which is from God" or "the spirit that comes from God." The Greek is neuter here. As is the case with the spirit of man, the spirit of God is holy intelligence, a revelation of the very mind of God. In the Bible, spirit and heart are closely connected and sometimes interchanged. So 1 Corinthians 2 is simply telling us that God opens up to spiritually-minded persons his innermost plans and purposes, speaking heart-to-heart with humans. These are things that worldly-minded persons cannot grasp.
That's it for now.
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth, you said:
My prayer is that you sincerely mean that, Undisfellowshiped. I wish you could see Trinitarianism as I now see it. I can no longer accept it because I have found, by letting the Bible speak for itself, God's message about himself and his only-begotten Son is so much easier to understand than the mysticism and incomprehensible and pompous jargon of the so-called orthodox creeds.
I truly do mean what I said. I could not agree with you more on the fact that we must let the Bible speak for itself (with the help of God's Holy Spirit) and we must let the Bible interpret and explain itself. (There are times that you need outside historical or other information to help enlighten your understanding of the Scriptures however).
I do not resent you or your beliefs. I respect the fact that you have the freedom to believe whatever you think that the Scriptures teach.
The Noble-Minded Beroeans are my heroes! Reading about them in Acts 17:11 was one of the reasons why I started questioning the Watchtower Society.
I do really appreciate you taking the time to explain clearly to me what you believe about Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. I have talked with several people who are not Trinitarians on this board, and they have, for the most part, not taken the time to explain their beliefs to the extent that you have so far.
I have not yet had the time to read all of what you have posted, however, I will try to do so as soon as I can. Then I will also post some questions I have about what you posted, so I can better understand what you are saying.
I will also try to explain what I believe, and raise my questions, in a more gentle, meek, humble, way than I did earlier in this thread.
You said:
As much as some Trinitarians I've met seem to resent it, the saying is true that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1.
My main question for you (and I have asked several non-Trinitarians/Unitarians this question before and never really received a satisfying answer) is this:
You said that Trinitarians, since they believe that The Father is Lord and The Son is Lord and The Spirit is Lord, that they actually believe in 3 Lords. In other words, 1 Lord [Father] + 1 Lord [Son] + 1 Lord [Spirit] = 3 Lords, which equals polytheism.
You yourself said that The Father is Lord (1 Lord), and that The Son is Lord (1 Lord), so how do you not get this conclusion: 1 Lord [Father] + 1 Lord [Son] = 2 Lords, which equals polytheism? The Bible itself teaches that The Father is Lord and that The Son is Lord.
You also correctly pointed out that the Bible calls The Father the One Lord. Yet, the Bible also calls Jesus the One Lord. With your belief system, how do you not have 2 different Lords then?
In general, Trinitarians, in order to harmonize those Scriptures (and based on other Scriptures), believe that The Father and The Son are The One Lord which the Bible speaks of.
Since you believe that The Father is a completely different Being than The Son, and that The Son is a lesser and inferior creature, it would be much harder to show that The Father and The Son are The One Lord together. Whereas, in the Trinitarian belief system, The Father and The Son are One Being; they both share the SAME Nature, Essence, Godship, Deity, and Being -- so it is much easier to understand how The Father and The Son could both be The One Lord.
In your belief system, you said that The Father is One Lord, and that Jesus is One Lord (that makes 2 different Lords), but yet the Bible teaches that there is only One Lord, and it is The Father. How do you explain this using the Holy Scriptures?
UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth said:
Begettal requires a woman, a mother. The baby who grew within Mary's womb was fully human, someone who would grow up to be the full equivalent of the first man Adam. Adam "the son of God" was a genuinely authentic man, and so was Jesus who is called "the last Adam." (1 Cor. 15:45; Rom. 5:14)
But, I don't believe you answered my question. Was Jesus the only-begotten of God, or only of Mary? You make it sound as though Jesus was just 100% Human and not divine at all because He was born of a woman. But, if He was truly begotten by God, how would He be ONLY Human?
If man begets man, and ape begets ape, and so on, then what does God beget? Even if you say that God beget Jesus in Mary when He became human, then shouldn't Jesus have at least been half-God and half-human? How do you explain that?
Also, was Jesus only called the Only-Begotten after He came to earth? I don't think so -- just read these verses:
John 3:16 (LITV): For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1 John 4:9 (ASV): Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.
Jesus was already the Only-Begotten Son when God sent Him into the world.
In what sense is Jesus the Only-Begotten God? (John 1:18)
What did the Early Church Fathers believe about Jesus being "Begotten" of God? Let's have a look here: (most of these quotes are taken from http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm)
Ignatius: Epistle to the Tarsians (http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-28.htm#P2648_435849)
How could such a one be a mere man, receiving the beginning of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten Son? For "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
____________________________________
Irenaeus:
47. So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God.And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father. Because to created things the Father of all is invisible and unapproachable,135 therefore those who are to draw near to God must have their access to the Father through the Son. And yet more plainly and evidently does David speak concerning the Father and the Son as follows: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: thou hast loved righteousness and hated unrighteousness: therefore God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.136 For the Son, as being God, receives from the Father, that is, from God, the throne of the everlasting kingdom, and the oil of anointing above His fellows. The oil of anointing is the Spirit, wherewith He has been anointed; and His fellows are prophets and righteous men and apostles, and all who receive the fellowship of His kingdom, that is to say, His disciples.
[...]
‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”____________________________________
Theophilus to Autolycus Book II (http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1669_480398)
You will say, then, to me: "You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? "Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. ____________________________________
Letter on the Council of Nicaea (Eusebius of Caesarea):
"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost:"
[...] "We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:"—"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge quick and dead." "And in the Holy Ghost."
"And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence,' or 'created' or 'alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes."
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced "of the essence of the Father," and "one in essence with the Father." Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase "of the essence" was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term "One in essence," peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.
6. In the same way we also admitted "begotten, not made;" since the Council alleged that "made" was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of an essence which is too high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being inscrutable and incalculable to every originated nature.
7. And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is "one in essence" with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because "one in essence with the Father" suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father. To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we were aware that even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term "one in essence," in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.
fjtoth:
One thing that is certain after reading from all the different church fathers is that they most definitely did not believe that Jesus was only a "god" or "God" in the sense of being a representative or spokesman of God -- they believed He was God in His Nature/Essence because He was begotten by God before time began.
fjtoth

Hi Undisfellowshiped,
You and I seem to approach Bible study from the same position. I believe you when you say you wish to let the Bible speak for itself and that we should allow the holy spirit and other sources to enhance the enlightenment we are hoping to receive.
You say you do not resent me or my beliefs. I believe that, and I assure you the feeling is mutual. I have several Bible study friends who are Trinitarians. When we get together, it is always a high point in our week. We learn from one another. There was a time when we tended to disagree more, but we have learned to avoid certain topics for the sake of peace. Not that we don't care about truth, it's just that we don't want to put wedges into our relationships. We know where each other stands, and we are content with that and with getting and giving the blessings that come from viewing one another as brothers in Christ.
As to your "main question" (if I may condense it): How do non-Trinitarians explain scripturally that there is only one Lord whereas the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each spoken of in the Bible as "the Lord"? In other words, how do you reject polytheism if you acknowledge that there are three distinct beings called "Lord"?
I hope you will get the opportunity to examine my posts since I believe I have gone into the question quite extensively. My purpose is not to attack, but to explain simply and thoroughly why I have concluded that the Trinity doctrine is unscriptural and unreasonable. If others don't agree, I am not their judge. Each believer, myself included, stands or falls before the Lord God, and before him alone.
I look forward to any questions you may have, and I will do what I can to answer them scripturally as I have time. You mentioned posting in the future in a more gentle and humble way. I hope I haven't given the impression that I view your past posts in any other way. Though I disagree with you about 80 percent of the time, I don't think you have been anything but friendly and courteous. I sometimes feel a bit squeemish about my own postings, knowing that I probably should have spent more time with the phrasing.
All the best, in Christ,
Frank
http://formerjw.homestead.com
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
But, I don't believe you answered my question. Was Jesus the only-begotten of God, or only of Mary? You make it sound as though Jesus was just 100% Human and not divine at all because He was born of a woman. But, if He was truly begotten by God, how would He be ONLY Human?
I hope you noticed that I mentioned that Adam was also "the son of God" and that the Bible speaks of Jesus as "the last Adam." Your illustration of "man begets man and ape begets ape" has no bearing upon the question. It is the Bible answer we should be seeking, not the answer to some personal paradox. Some Trinitarians seem to think that "only-begotten" means of the Father only. But there can be no begetting without a mother. Mary was that mother, contrary to what Trinitarians claim about some sort of "eternal begetting" that isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Gabriel told Mary regarding the baby she would conceive, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end." (Luke 1:31-33)
According to what Gabriel said, Jesus was not "great" before he was born. "He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High." Jesus is divine in the same way his followers become divine. None of us will become equal to God, but we can enjoy the divine nature. Peter wrote: "He has granted to us his precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust." (2 Peter 1:4) Jesus is our brother, God's firstborn. He is the "firstborn among many brothers." And God's ages-old purpose is that, just as Jesus reflects the image of the Father, we are to reflect the image of Christ. (Romans 8:29) He became like us in "all respects" that God's purpose might become possible. (Hebrews 2:17) He was not a God-man any more than we are God-men.
This "half-God and half-human" stuff is not found in the Bible. That is why I believe we should dismiss human creeds from our minds as soon as possible. They only tend to confuse and to hide from our minds the very simple truths of the Bible. Sadly humans prefer the mysticism that has been handed down from century to century. This is preferred over what the Bible teaches. As the apostle John said, and it's still true today, "The whole world lies in the power of the evil one." (1 John 5:19)
John 3:16 is not speaking of Jesus before his birth. Stop and think for a moment: When was Jesus given over as a sacrifice for our sins, before he was born or after? It was at the time of his death that "God gave his only-begotten Son." That should be easy to understand if we dismiss Trinitarianism and accept the Bible's simple teaching.
Similarly, 1 John 4:9 does not say that Jesus was sent into the world at the time of his birth. Both John the Baptist and Jesus were sent into the world when they began their ministry. (John 1:6; Galatians 4:4)
Only confusion will result by examining what the "Early Church Fathers" believed. Those men were not in agreement with each other and often not in agreement with what they themselves once taught. They were not inspired, and they were no closer to truth than modern scholars who have many more resources available to them than those so-called "early" churchmen had. When I see Christians running to the "Early Church Fathers," I see the same thing as JWs running to their Watchtowers.
The United States Constitution is only about 200 years old, and men today are arguing over its interpretation. It's a much smaller document than the Bible, and still there is heated bickering and disputing. When the "Early Church Fathers" were doing their writing, the situation was the same. So, I personally have no use for their observations and comments. My concern is "What did Jesus and the apostles teach?"
Not according to the "Fathers," but according to the Bible, Jesus became God's only-begotten Son by means of his conception in Mary's womb. Jesus is the only person who can claim that God is his true genetic Father. All other humans have Adam or one of his descendants as their genetic father.
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

Frank (fjtoth), you said:
According to what Gabriel said, Jesus was not "great" before he was born.
What and/or who was Jesus before He was born on earth?
Also, when I read the account of Gabriel talking to Mary, I don't think that Gabriel is trying to say anything about Jesus' pre-existence, I think he is simply telling Mary what Jesus is going to be as a Man when He grows up. I don't see how you can use this as some kind of proof-text proving that Jesus was not "great" before being born as a Man.
In fact, your statement above completely contradicts what Jesus Himself said in John 17:5:
John 17:5 (ESV) And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
UnDisfellowshipped

Another question to think about related to Jesus' pre-existence in John 1:1:
If, as you claim, the word "God" when used in reference to Jesus, only means that He is God's Representative or Spokesman who is speaking for God, in the same way that angels and kings and prophets did, then WHAT did the word "God" mean in John 1:1 when referring to Jesus?
In John 1:1, "In the beginning," before anything was ever created (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-18), Jesus already existed as "God [Theos]."
How could the Logos (Word) be "God" in the sense of only being God's representative or spokesman or agent or messenger when ONLY HE AND THE FATHER EXISTED? Who did the Logos represent God to? Who did the Logos speak to for God? There was nothing else in existence!!!
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You asked,
What and/or who was Jesus before He was born on earth?
I'm interested in knowing how you explain what Gabriel said. I already told you what I believe it means. According to your editing, I gather you believe Gabriel was wrong or at least did not believe what he told Mary. Angels don't waste words. They are to be obeyed. But over the years, I've often found that Trinitarians are eager to dismiss plain statements in the Bible that do not jive with their concept of God.
Trinitarians say the Son of God is "eternally begotten." Thus he was begotten long, long before his birth as a baby. However, a begetting marks a beginning, yet Trinitarians also say that the Son never had a beginning. As grown men we know such a concept is utter nonsense, do we not? The Son could never have had a beginning if he is equal to the Father, yet the Bible says Christ was begotten. So which are we going to accept? The simple Bible teaching that the Son had a beginning at his begetal, or the weird Trinitarian concept that the Son is "eternally begotten," as if he is ever beginning and never growing into a full-fledged intelligent person?
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

Frank,
I don't mean to seem rude, but I am now focused almost entirely on your one statement that Jesus was not great before He was born on earth. I have to understand what you mean. Jesus Himself said at John 17:5 that He shared His Father's own glory before the world was created. I believe Jesus over any angel, any spirit, any man.
How can you possibly say Jesus was not great before He was born, when Jesus Himself said He shared His Father's glory before the world was created, and when John 1:1 says that Jesus existed as God before anything was ever created?

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

Share this