The Problem With The Trinity

[TheHolyBookEnds]

...6) The Father and the Son converse with each other, but why don't they converse with the Holy Spirit?

How would the Father and the Holy Ghost send the Son, if there is no 'conversing' going on in Isaiah?

Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

How would the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost to the earth if there was no 'conversing' going on?

Joh. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh. 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The Holy Ghost even led the Son into the wilderness:

Mat. 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

The Holy Ghost speaks and converses, and even pleads with us:

1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Act_8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Act_10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

And again:

Act. 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

Act. 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

Act. 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Compare:

Isa. 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Isa. 6:9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Isa. 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

The Holy Ghost is generally the witness, but is not always silent, which is why you have record of the events that took place in Heaven, in the hearts of men, and on earth, in the mind of Lucifer, etc. Who do you think is telling you these things in scripture? For the scripture is given by inspiration, and holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost was communicating to the Father Jesus' prayers also in the Garden and throughout, since Jesus is our example in prayer. The Holy Ghost does this in a mysterious way, since again, that the nature of the Holy Ghost is not revealed to us in scripture. It is a mystery.

That we cannot understand fully the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, does not negate their persons/beings. That we do not understand fully their reaons, methods, likewise.

I use a cell phone. I do not understand all of its workings, but I know it is real and exists. I do not negate what it does simply because I do not understand how it all does what it does.

I have relatives. I do not understand all their workings, but I know them as real persons/beigns. I do not negate their persons/beings simply because I do not fathom them as I fathom myself (which I cannot even fathom all of myself, but I exist, I am a person/being).

 

[Enoch111]

That we cannot understand fully the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, does not negate their persons/beings.

Exactly. That is why we have the terms "the Mystery of God" and "the Mystery of Godliness" in Scripture. God cannot be fathomed by human beings, therefore we must believe what the Bible says without reservations. But the naysayers rely on their human *logic* to *prove* their false notions about God.

 

[gadar perets]

Yes, most of the above I agree with, and for that reason, I reject the traditional version of the trinity.

So what version of the trinity do you accept?

I also agree that the Father is greater than the Son, but only in rank. But the Son is equal to the Father in all other respects and therefore worthy of worship of both men and angels.

I also agree the Son is worthy of worship, but not as the "only true God". That kind of worship can ONLY be directed to Yeshua's Father, Almighty YHWH, our Creator and the only true God (John 17:3).

And the Father did speak through the Son in the OT....
1Peter1:10
‭Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace ‭that should come‭ unto you:‭
11
‭Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.‭

YHWH always gives His spirit, and then it is named as it functions. When it is associated with wisdom, it is called the “spirit of wisdom” (Exodus 28:3). When it is associated with grace, it is called the “spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29). When it is related to glory, it is called the “spirit of glory” (1 Peter 4:14). It is called the “spirit of adoption” when it is associated with becoming one of YHWH's children (Romans 8:15). It is called “the spirit of truth” when it is associated with the truth we learn by revelation (John 14:17). When it came with the same power as it brought to Elijah, it was called “the spirit of Elijah” (2 Kings 2:15). These are all one and the same Spirit that function differently.

When Peter mentions that “the spirit of Messiah” was upon prophets as they “predicted the sufferings of Messiah and the glory that would follow,” it is because it is associated with Messiah and foretold of Messiah, not because Messiah was actually alive during the Old Testament.

 

[gadar perets]

Again, merely responding is not actually refuting what was stated. Show me specifically where you refuted. Thank you.

I showed you that the Hebrew does not read "Immanuel", but only "imanu" meaning "with". Any Israelite in the wilderness could say, "Moses imanu" meaning "Moses is with us", but that does not make him "Moses Immanuel". You make all sorts of mistakes like this because you read your beliefs into the text.

 

[gadar perets]

No. The Son of God is standing in front of Moses on earth:

Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

JEHOVAH Immanuel appeared directly in front of Moses face, even as He did for Abraham (Gen. 17:1,22, 18:1,2, 19:24,27), Isaac and Jacob/Israel:

Exo 4:1 And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.

Therefore, you say exactly what the unbeliever says, that the LORD (JEHOVAH Immanuel) did not appear. For the Father did not appear as is obvious from the text and other texts.

Moses was speaking directly to the Son.

Here is another example of you reading your beliefs into the text. The speaker is Yeshua's Father (YHWH), not Yeshua. Who is YHWH? Psalm 2:7 says YHWH is Yeshua's Father. Acts 3:13 says the speaker of Exodus 3:14-15 "glorified His Son Yeshua". All you are doing is ASSUMING the Son is speaking in Exodus 3:14 and ASSUMING the Son is the "LORD" (YHWH) of Exodus 4:1.

Also, your made up name "JEHOVAH Immanuel" does not exist in any Hebrew manuscripts.

 

[gadar perets]

Again, that is not what the Gospel of John (and the whole of scripture, from Gen. 1) states. Notice:

John the baptist, filled with the Holy Ghost, witnessed saying:

Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Was John's testimony from Heaven or of men, tell me?

Again, two for a witness:

Joh 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Jesus Himself testified have having come from Heaven, seen Heaven, and spake of it to Nicodemus, from having been there:

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Jesus Himself confirmed what John the Baptist said:

Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Do you even know why?

Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

Joh 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I will not reply to posts that bombard me with Scripture, especially since I already refuted half of them. However, I will address John 1:15, 30.

John 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.​

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

First, the idea of preference is not found in the Greek. The word translated "preferred" is the Greek "ginomai". Of the 678 times it was used in the New Testament, it was translated "preferred" three times, twice above and in verses 27 where the same words are repeated. The word should have been translated "come to be"; "He that cometh after me has come to be before me." As for the latter part of the verse, the word "before" is from the Greek "protos". It can refer to time, place or rank as in "chief", "leader", "first", etc. There are many examples of this in Scripture, including: Matthew 20:27; 22:38; Mark 6:21; 10:44. The Emphatic Diaglott translates it, "for he is my Superior". John the Baptist recognized that Yeshua was above him in rank

 

[gadar perets]

No. That is only a single definition, and not the original definition.

It stems from the Germanic 'gast', simply meaning breath, wind, movement of air, and also includes 'spirit'. In connection with persons, it means the heart/mind, the thoughts, or conscious breathing person/being. Jesus is called the life-giving spirit - 1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Angels are also called 'spirits', but they have form, body, celestial flesh, 1 Cor. 15:38-41.

The Heavenly Father is called the Father of spirits (Heb. 12:9).

Please explain why the KJV always uses "Spirit" when the word "pneuma" stands alone, but uses "Ghost" when it is used with "hagios" ("Holy").
I believe it is because they want people to believe the "Holy Ghost" is a person, for that is what a ghost is, the disembodied soul of a person.

Explain to me why "pneuma" is translated as "Ghost" and "Spirit" in the same verse in the KJV;

Luke 4:1 AndG1161 JesusG2424 being fullG4134 of the HolyG40 GhostG4151 returnedG5290 fromG575 Jordan,G2446 andG2532 was ledG71 byG1722 theG3588 SpiritG4151 intoG1519 theG3588 wilderness,G2048

Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,​

 

[Episkopos]

Jesus is called Immanuel...."God with us"....in Is. 7

But the text reads this in 2 words...Imanou (with us) El (God in singular form)

1. Elohim is in plural form (more than one)

2. Imanou el is in 2 words meaning this is not a name but a statement that God is really to be born of men. We see other people that have names that include El like Samuel..etc...but these are in one word forms. When we break up the word into it's components leaving El unattached...,it is saying something about God.

3. Jesus as a member of the Godhead is coming to us in singular form...El...

 

[gadar perets]

You say that the Holy Spirit is eternal, but not a person/being, and only something of the Father.

Please quote anywhere, where I advocated for the word "trinity".

You will find that you are attacking a doctrine I do not adhere to, in regards a specific definition, as defined by Catholicism.

What doctrine do you adhere to? Elsewhere you wrote; "The Holy Ghost is through scripture identified as a person/being, as Deity, neither the person/being of the Father, nor the Son." That is exactly what the trinity doctrine states.

Gen. 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

(Jesus, the LORD [JEHOVAH Immanuel] who came down with the two covering cherubs, the two angels that are beside the LORD, is standing upon the earth (Genesis 18-19, especially 18:25 “Judge of all the Earth) and calling down fire from His Father above, the Holy Spirit being included by the Fire also)

Yes, and Solomon assembled all the elders unto another Solomon in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1). You need to learn some of the idioms of the Hebrew language. There are NOT two YHWHs.

In Gen. 1:1 it reads plainly enough:

Gen 1:1 HOT בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃

Gen 1:1 HOT Translit. B'rëshiyt Bärä élohiym ët haSHämayim w'ët hääretz

Elohiym is a true plural, meaning 3 or greater, not 1, not 2. It does not include the angels, and does not mean 'pluralis majesticus' (a late construct, that cannot apply to Gen. 1, even the Queen of England used it, but she believed in the eternal persons of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.)

"Elohim" is plural in form in this verse, but NOT plural in meaning as is evident by the fact that it is used with the singular "bara".
Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Exodus 12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am YHWH." Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Samuel 5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god” and 2 Kings 1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings?

Elohim, when referring to Father YHWH, is almost always used with singular pronouns such as "he", "Him", etc.

I believe that when “elohim” is used of a singular sense, it is the plural of majesty or intensity, not of number.

The "את", "ët" is again the Alpha and Omega, the Aleph Tau, the "Word" that John refers to in Jhn. 1:1-3, 1 Jhn. 1:1-3, that was with the Father in creating this world and all things therein. It is also seen suspended between heavens and earth, with a spike, the Vau Aleph Tau.

"את"/ "ët" is simply the definite direct object marker and has nothing to do with Yeshua (http://everlastinggoodnewsofyahweh.info/Aleph_Tav.html)

 

[gadar perets]

The eternal Person, known as the "Word" and many other names, is the eternal "Son" of the Father. It is their eternal relationship. Then the Holy Ghost also becomes a father to the second Person, in "mystery of Godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" through working of the Holy Ghost. This is how all can be fathers to us, and that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are fathers to Jesus. Notice in the verses you cited, the second Person is called in a new way, "the Son of God", in/through humanity, though He already was by Divinity.

A fine example of verbal gymnastics. So tell me, how can the Son be eternal if the very word "Son" implies a beginning from one's Father?

 

[Episkopos]

What doctrine do you adhere to? Elsewhere you wrote; "The Holy Ghost is through scripture identified as a person/being, as Deity, neither the person/being of the Father, nor the Son." That is exactly what the trinity doctrine states.


Yes, and Solomon assembled all the elders unto another Solomon in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1). You need to learn some of the idioms of the Hebrew language. There are NOT two YHWHs.


"Elohim" is plural in form in this verse, but NOT plural in meaning as is evident by the fact that it is used with the singular "bara".
Elohim is used in the Bible with a plural sense when it refers to several deities and in a singular sense when it refers to a singular deity. Its plural sense can be seen in Exodus 12:12, "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods (elohim) of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am YHWH." Its singular sense can be seen in 1 Samuel 5:7, ". . . and upon Dagon our god” and 2 Kings 1:2, ". . . Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease." Are we to believe that Dagon and Baal-zebub are also plural beings?

Elohim, when referring to Father YHWH, is almost always used with singular pronouns such as "he", "Him", etc.

I believe that when “elohim” is used of a singular sense, it is the plural of majesty or intensity, not of number.


"את"/ "ët" is simply the definite direct object marker and has nothing to do with Yeshua (http://everlastinggoodnewsofyahweh.info/Aleph_Tav.html)

What about this.. יהוה the name of God...in which the letters mean..
. a hand
ה behold
ו a nail
ה behold


John 20:25 So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

 

[gadar perets]

However, the Holy Ghost is so represented near the throne, as the 7 branch candlestick is across from it, in the same throne room, Rev. 4:5, 5:6, etc.

Wow! What a stretch!

Mat. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Psa. 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Mat. 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mar. 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Zec. 3:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

That is three persons in each instance above. We know this by the words Jesus spake, the prophecies (Isa. 63:3, "alone", "none of the people with" him) and the book of Hebrews (Heb. 1:3, "by himself"). He became sin for us. The father turned away, the Holy Ghost left, and all the people left. He, JEHOVAH Immanuel, God with us, the Saviour, did it, "by himself". No creature could ever do this, let alone take the responsibility for sin, but only Deity could do it, since all find their origin in Him (Col. 1:16-17, etc.) and was greater than all of humnaity, since the Son was the father of Adam (Luk. 3:38).

This is by far your most absurd statements yet and your worst case of reading into the text whatever you want. And if anyone on this forum agrees with your interpretation of those four verses above, they should be ashamed of themselves as should you.

 

[gadar perets]

When you read the word "God" do you understand it as speaking of merely one person? If so, that may be where the issue is.

Yes, it refers to one person since there is only one true God (Yeshua's Father).

 

[gadar perets]

How would the Father and the Holy Ghost send the Son, if there is no 'conversing' going on in Isaiah?

Isa_48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

How would the Father and the Son send the Holy Ghost to the earth if there was no 'conversing' going on?

The Father and the Son did not send the "Holy Ghost" in that verse. The Father sent someone, but it is not clear who. "Me" can refer to Isaiah or Yeshua. Even if it refers to Yeshua, it is Father YHWH that sends Yeshua through the power of His Holy Spirit.

Joh. 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh. 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

These verses are not related to Isaiah 48:16. The sending of the Comforter occurs after the sending of the Son.

 

[gadar perets]

Jesus is called Immanuel...."God with us"....in Is. 7

But the text reads this in 2 words...Imanou (with us) El (God in singular form)

1. Elohim is in plural form (more than one)

2. Imanou el is in 2 words meaning this is not a name but a statement that God is really to be born of men. We see other people that have names that include El like Samuel..etc...but these are in one word forms. When we break up the word into it's components leaving El unattached...,it is saying something about God.

3. Jesus as a member of the Godhead is coming to us in singular form...El...

I agree it is not a name (although others on this forum would have me to believe there is such a name as "JEHOVAH Immanuel"). However, simply because it is two words does not mean it is a statement "that God is really to be born of men". That is reading your own definition into the words. A simple reading of those words means that "El" would be "with us", not "born to us".

 

[Episkopos]

I agree it is not a name (although others on this forum would have me to believe there is such a name as "JEHOVAH Immanuel"). However, simply because it is two words does not mean it is a statement "that God is really to be born of men". That is reading your own definition into the words. A simple reading of those words means that "El" would be "with us", not "born to us".

In Hebrew..IM ( עם ) means "with"...Imanou is "with us" (adding in the vav) El...is God in the singular.

A virgin (young maiden) bears a son who's title is... "God (separate word) with us"

 

[gadar perets]

What about this.. יהוה the name of God...in which the letters mean..
. a hand
ה behold
ו a nail
ה behold

That is a fanciful rendering of Hebrew pictographs. The Scriptures make it perfectly clear that YHWH is Yeshua's Father, NOT Yeshua himself.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Acts 13:33 God (referring to YHWH) hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Yeshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. ​

 

[gadar perets]

In Hebrew..IM ( עם ) means "with"...Imanou is "with us" (adding in the vav) El...is God in the singular.

A virgin (young maiden) bears a son who's title is... "God (separate word) with us"

You are assuming it is a title of the Son when, in reality, "it is saying something about God". It is saying "God with us". How is "God with us"? By the fact that Yeshua is with us and he is God? No. By the fact that YHWH is God and He is with us by being with and in Yeshua.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Messiah/Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
​

Since God was in Yeshua and Yeshua was with us, by extension God was with us.

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

A fine example of verbal gymnastics. So tell me, how can the Son be eternal if the very word "Son" implies a beginning from one's Father?

Yes, because 'mocking' the reply, is refuting the reply, right?

Job. 21:3 Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on.

You are thinking in mere humanisitic terms, as if Godhead (Deity) is like unto that which is created, as we are. Not so. That which is created has beginning, has origin, not so with Godhead. Their relationship to one another, in Deity, in their persons/beings had no beginning, has no ending. Only in humanity does the flesh that the Son took upon Himself have beginning, and thus is a "Son" in the new way through the mystery of Godliness, God (the person/being of the Son, sent as representative of the person/being of the Father) was manifest (revealed) in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), the JEHOVAH Immanunel, the manifested JEHOVAH, the visible JEHOVAH.

The Father is eternal (Deut. 33:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:10; Psa. 90:2; etc.). The Son is eternal (Pro. 8:23; Isa. 9:6, 63:16; Jer. 31:3; Mic. 5:2; Hab. 1:12; Jhn. 5:39, 8:58, 17:3; etc.). The Holy Ghost is eternal (Heb. 9:14; Jud. 1:7; etc.).

You ask, How can the Son be eternal, and yet be a "Son" to the eternal Father? You might as well ask how JEHOVAH Elohiym exists. You will search in all of eternity, and never come to understand that. But we do not have to understand that, since God told us that is the way it is. We accept the statement of God, by faith. God is true, and can cannot lie.

Again, in a humanly example, I have very many technical devices, and I accept that they are what they are, and do not understand all of their intricate workings, or consider the human body itself, can I ever know all the workings of God? It is past finding out, but I can exclaim as David, I am fearfully and wonderfully made! I accept them as truth, though I do not understand everything about those things or myself. Simply because we lack understanding of 'how', does not mean that 'it' is not what 'it is'.

JEHOVAH Elohiym is "I AM THAT I AM" (Exo. 3:14). I accept it based upon faith (Rom. 10:17, 12:3), not because I can actually understand how JEHOVAH Elohiym is eternally existant. Such knowledge is beyond my finite understanding, even in eternity from this point, since I still had beginning, whereas JEHOVAH Elohiym does not.

The "Son", though eternally having sat "at the right hand of the Father" (before, Phil. 2, and again afterwards, Luk. 22:69; Act. 2:25,34, 7:55, etc.), is the Father's Son, by His eternal nature, being "the express image" of the Father's person/being (Heb. 1:3), ever having been the "my fellow" (Zec. 13:7) of the Father, as He says, "I (Son) was by him (the Father), as one brought up with him (the Father)" (Pro. 8:30).

You say, that makes no sense, for a 'son' comes through time, birth, etc. If you think this, you are thinking in finite, humanistic terms, not accepting what JEHOVAH Elohiym has said concerning this.

He even gave an example in the created world, in Genesis, and it is found in the Tree of Life.

Which came first, the Tree, the Seed, or the Fruit?

Answer me according to the text.

 

[gadar perets]

You are thinking in mere humanisitic terms, as if Godhead (Deity) is like unto that which is created, as we are. Not so. That which is created has beginning, has origin, not so with Godhead. Their relationship to one another, in Deity, in their persons/beings had no beginning, has no ending. Only in humanity does the flesh that the Son took upon Himself have beginning, and thus is a "Son" in the new way through the mystery of Godliness, God (the person/being of the Son, sent as representative of the person/being of the Father) was manifest (revealed) in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), the JEHOVAH Immanunel, the manifested JEHOVAH, the visible JEHOVAH.

I agree about the Son having a beginning in the flesh, but you are calling that being "the Son" prior to his beginning in the flesh. Therefore, he must have had a spiritual beginning as well and could not be eternal. A son is the offspring of his father whether literally or figuratively and comes into existence AFTER his father comes into existence.

The Son is eternal

(Pro. 8:23; Isa. 9:6, 63:16; Jer. 31:3; Mic. 5:2; Hab. 1:12; Jhn. 5:39, 8:58, 17:3; etc.).

Pro. 8:23 - reading the Son into the text.
Isa. 9:6 - "Father of Eternity", not "Everlasting Father". Eternal life comes to us through him.
Isa. 63:16 - This is referring to Father YHWH.
Jer. 31:3 - reading the Son into the text.
Mic. 5:2 - "goings forth" means "family descent" (lineage). Messiah's lineage is from everlasting because his Father is eternal.
Hab. 1:12 - This is referring to Father YHWH.
Jhn. 5:39 - This says nothing about the Son being eternal.
Jhn. 8:58 - The "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 is Yeshua's Father YHWH.
Jhn. 17:3 - This says nothing about the Son being eternal.

JEHOVAH Elohiym is "I AM THAT I AM" (Exo. 3:14). I accept it based upon faith (Rom. 10:17, 12:3), not because I can actually understand how JEHOVAH Elohiym is eternally existant. Such knowledge is beyond my finite understanding, even in eternity from this point, since I still had beginning, whereas JEHOVAH Elohiym does not.

I agree Father YHWH (who you erroneously call "JEHOVAH Elohiym") is eternal.

The "Son", though eternally having sat "at the right hand of the Father" (before, Phil. 2, and again afterwards, Luk. 22:69; Act. 2:25,34, 7:55, etc.), is the Father's Son, by His eternal nature, being "the express image" of the Father's person/being (Heb. 1:3), ever having been the "my fellow" (Zec. 13:7) of the Father, as He says, "I (Son) was by him (the Father), as one brought up with him (the Father)" (Pro. 8:30).

None of these verses say the Son is eternal. You are reading that into the texts as usual.

You say, that makes no sense, for a 'son' comes through time, birth, etc. If you think this, you are thinking in finite, humanistic terms, not accepting what JEHOVAH Elohiym has said concerning this.

YHWH is not trying to deceive us with terms like Father and Son. He wants us to understand the relationship He has with Yeshua by the meaning of those words. You are distorting the meaning and them claiming I am thinking in humanistic terms.

He even gave an example in the created world, in Genesis, and it is found in the Tree of Life.

Which came first, the Tree, the Seed, or the Fruit?

Answer me according to the text.

The Tree. Not according to the text - the thought/plan of making the Tree.

What came first, the Father or His Son? Answer according to the definitions of the inspired words.