Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

[brakelite]

Due to the trinity teaching, it is believed by the majority of churches that Jesus Christ is not the literal begotten Son of God, but instead an equal, co-eternal God alongside the Father. The trinity teaching says that Jesus had no beginning and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that are playing a 'family role'. In other words, they are just play acting these roles of Father and Son. The Bible states that there is assuredly a Father and a Son, but are they a literal Father and Son, or are they just playing the roles?

The vast majority of Christian churches (including my own) in order to uphold the co-eternal co-equal nature of the Godhead must share the following as an official belief of sorts...."the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father ... The term 'Son' is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead." A co-eternal relationship between the Son and the Father is neither possible nor logical unless the familial relationship is metaphorical.

And what does the main authority, the Word of God have to say on this? Does the Bible suggest in any way that Jesus is just playing a role as the Son of God? Or is He the literal Son? Let us look at some Bible texts to see if we can get some understanding as to who Christ really is.

John 3:16 ...'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So far so good. In the above two verses there is loads of information. We have firmly established several things concerning which there can be no argument.

• There is but ONE God, and that one God, is clearly identified as the Father.
• That one God has a Son.
• The Father according to the second verse is the absolute source for all things. Everything in existence owes that existence to the Father. This of necessity must include His Son, which is attested to by the Son Himself when on the earth. John 17:7-8 ...'Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from you, and they have believed that you did send me.' See also John chapters 10 and 14.
• While all things begin and owe their existence to the Father, it is through the Son all things came, including us.

Romans 8:3 ...'God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.'
John 16:27-28 ...'For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.'
Mt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

• A further point is established beyond doubt, the Son is here identified as Jesus.

Proverbs 8:23-25 ...'I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.'
Proverbs 30:4 ...'Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?'

• The Son's existence began before the world was. Before creation, in eternity, the Son was 'begotten', or 'brought forth'.

John 20:17 ...'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.'

• Here we have Jesus Himself not only calling God His Father, but also calling His Father God. His God. In context with all the other verses above, this cannot be attributed to just the human nature of Jesus. Even in heaven before the incarnation, the Son honored the Father as God.
• Remember, God is our 'Father' by adoption. God is Christ's Father by birth!

1 John 5:5 ...'Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?'

So the question is...Is John the apostle admonishing us to believe in a literal Son of God, or a metaphorical Son of God?

 

[Barrd]

Due to the trinity teaching, it is believed by the majority of churches that Jesus Christ is not the literal begotten Son of God, but instead an equal, co-eternal God alongside the Father. The trinity teaching says that Jesus had no beginning and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that are playing a 'family role'. In other words, they are just play acting these roles of Father and Son. The Bible states that there is assuredly a Father and a Son, but are they a literal Father and Son, or are they just playing the roles?

The vast majority of Christian churches (including my own) in order to uphold the co-eternal co-equal nature of the Godhead must share the following as an official belief of sorts...."the father-son image cannot be literally applied to the divine Father-Son relationship within the Godhead. The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father ... The term 'Son' is used metaphorically when applied to the Godhead." A co-eternal relationship between the Son and the Father is neither possible nor logical unless the familial relationship is metaphorical.

And what does the main authority, the Word of God have to say on this? Does the Bible suggest in any way that Jesus is just playing a role as the Son of God? Or is He the literal Son? Let us look at some Bible texts to see if we can get some understanding as to who Christ really is.

John 3:16 ...'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.'
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So far so good. In the above two verses there is loads of information. We have firmly established several things concerning which there can be no argument.

• There is but ONE God, and that one God, is clearly identified as the Father.
• That one God has a Son.
• The Father according to the second verse is the absolute source for all things. Everything in existence owes that existence to the Father. This of necessity must include His Son, which is attested to by the Son Himself when on the earth. John 17:7-8 ...'Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from you, and they have believed that you did send me.' See also John chapters 10 and 14.
• While all things begin and owe their existence to the Father, it is through the Son all things came, including us.

Romans 8:3 ...'God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.'
John 16:27-28 ...'For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.'
Mt 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

• A further point is established beyond doubt, the Son is here identified as Jesus.

Proverbs 8:23-25 ...'I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.'
Proverbs 30:4 ...'Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?'

• The Son's existence began before the world was. Before creation, in eternity, the Son was 'begotten', or 'brought forth'.

John 20:17 ...'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.'

• Here we have Jesus Himself not only calling God His Father, but also calling His Father God. His God. In context with all the other verses above, this cannot be attributed to just the human nature of Jesus. Even in heaven before the incarnation, the Son honored the Father as God.
• Remember, God is our 'Father' by adoption. God is Christ's Father by birth!

1 John 5:5 ...'Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?'

So the question is...Is John the apostle admonishing us to believe in a literal Son of God, or a metaphorical Son of God?

Well, of course, Jesus is literally God's Son, by birth.
I think the problem is that we keep thinking in human terms. Jesus was not born in the same way as you or I were born. God brought Him forth from His Own substance. I suppose you could call Him "God Adjacent". He is literally a continuation of God, both the same, and separate.
What He is not is another God. There is only One God.
Now, when God decided to send His Son to us (and I suspect this was the whole point of separating this bit of Himself in the first place), He came through a woman. Now, here is where it gets a bit tricky. Me, I believe that He used Mary's ovum to create the human body He would reside in, thus mixing human with God...and the result would be "The Son of Man"...fully man, and yet fully God.

Now, I do believe you have made a bit of an error.

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

Look at this carefully. Jesus is called "the Word". Let that roll around in your brain for a minute.

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

As you pointed out, and as I have agreed, Jesus was with God from before the world was created.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Now, either this is true, or it is not. Were all things made by Jesus? If you say "yes", then that makes Jesus the Creator...or at least the co-Creator. If you say "no" you are saying that the Bible contains a falsehood.
When I read Genesis, I read that God said "let it be" and it was. He sent forth His Word, and His will was accomplished.
Think about it.

You are right, Jesus is the literal Son of God. But you must remember, God is not a mere man, as you and I are...well, I am a woman, but you get the idea, I hope.
God is...well, He is God. Do not try to limit Him.

 

[brakelite]

Far from trying to limit God, I am simply desiring to accurately know Him in accordance to what He has revealed. I agree with all you have offered above. Yes, Jesus is/was Creator...He is still in that business recreating the image of Himself in those who are His. And I agree, the fact that the Son is God does not mean more than one God. Yet John 5:26 says For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;....just as our natural children inherit our traits and characters, DNA, name etc, so also did Jesus inherit all His Father's attributes and prerogatives of deity. Yet Jesus Himself declared "My Father is greater than I"...."I and My Father are one"... Jesus deferred to His Father...this means clearly that they are equal in nature, but the Son is subordinate still. "For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given the Son to have life in Himself"...Christ's attributes, what He was, was subordinate to the Father in this sense, that they were derived from the Father, but not that they were any less. The same glory, the same power, the same authority,that the Father had. But one cannot be reasonable or logical to claim that the one who derived is as great as the one from whom it was derived.


You mentioned in your second last post on the other thread that you believed the Holy Spirit to be another comforter. I agree of course, for that is what Jesus said too. But 'another', other than whom?

2Co 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
2Co 1:4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

Paul tells us here who the original Comforter is...the Father. Now as yoy quoted, Jesus promised 'another' Comforter. Who was that? Jesus Himself told us....

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Who will come to us? Jesus! It is not 'another person', but Jesus Himself through His Spirit, that comes to us to comfort, strengthen, and empower us to be the children of God He intends for us to be. It is by His Spirit that we are sanctified.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 ¶ And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
2 Cor. 3: 17 Now THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
It is not a third person here, but Christ Himself who comes to us, abides in us, through the same Spirit He shares with His Father, and with us.

Do not take my denial of the trinity as a denial of the divinity of Christ. If that were the case, I would cling to the trinity as tenaciously as the most ardent Roman.

 

[StanJ]

I'm not really sure where you garner your information from, but one of the main stays of Christianity is that Jesus IS the ONLY begotten Son of God as evidenced in Matthew and Luke.
The Shema tells us who God is and Jesus tells us that He is ONE with the Father, so that in itself is self evident, not to mention Heb 1:3 that clearly shows Jesus IS the EXACT representation of God's being.
This sounds like typical Arian doctrine to me, one that has been around since the early 5th century AD, and has ALWAYS been refuted and deemed heretical in the Church of Jesus Christ.
Do I need to quote all the scripture that confirms this?

 

[Barrd]

Far from trying to limit God, I am simply desiring to accurately know Him in accordance to what He has revealed. I agree with all you have offered above. Yes, Jesus is/was Creator...He is still in that business recreating the image of Himself in those who are His. And I agree, the fact that the Son is God does not mean more than one God. Yet John 5:26 says For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;....just as our natural children inherit our traits and characters, DNA, name etc, so also did Jesus inherit all His Father's attributes and prerogatives of deity. Yet Jesus Himself declared "My Father is greater than I"...."I and My Father are one"... Jesus deferred to His Father...this means clearly that they are equal in nature, but the Son is subordinate still. "For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given the Son to have life in Himself"...Christ's attributes, what He was, was subordinate to the Father in this sense, that they were derived from the Father, but not that they were any less. The same glory, the same power, the same authority,that the Father had. But one cannot be reasonable or logical to claim that the one who derived is as great as the one from whom it was derived.


You mentioned in your second last post on the other thread that you believed the Holy Spirit to be another comforter. I agree of course, for that is what Jesus said too. But 'another', other than whom?

2Co 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
2Co 1:4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

Paul tells us here who the original Comforter is...the Father. Now as yoy quoted, Jesus promised 'another' Comforter. Who was that? Jesus Himself told us....

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Who will come to us? Jesus! It is not 'another person', but Jesus Himself through His Spirit, that comes to us to comfort, strengthen, and empower us to be the children of God He intends for us to be. It is by His Spirit that we are sanctified.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 ¶ And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
2 Cor. 3: 17 Now THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
It is not a third person here, but Christ Himself who comes to us, abides in us, through the same Spirit He shares with His Father, and with us.

Do not take my denial of the trinity as a denial of the divinity of Christ. If that were the case, I would cling to the trinity as tenaciously as the most ardent Roman.

No matter how you dance around it, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all parts of the same God. There are not three separate Gods, there is only one God.
Now, I agree with you that calling them "persons" is not accurate. They are not "persons".
That's what happens when the creature tries to wrap the mind around the Creator.

Here's an interesting thought for you...every Christian...that is, every one who accepts Jesus...also receives the Holy Spirit. That is the promise.
The HS resides within our hearts. How many Holy Spirits are there? Only One.
How is this possible, Brakelite?

So, you do understand that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as God the Father, and God the Son. Well and good. Like you, I object to calling these different aspects of God "persons". But I do realize that each of these three is God. I suppose it would be accurate, then, to refer to them as a "trinity"...however, I still prefer the term "Godhead." I believe with all of my being that God can do anything He wants to do...He can be as many as He wants to be. There is absolutely no limit at all to God.
If "clinging" to Him makes me a "Roman", then so be it. I shall simply have to shop for a toga...

 

[TopherNelson]

Friends,
God manifests himself in many ways.
For instance, God appeared to Abraham as "the angel of the Lord", God appeared to Moses as a burning bush, God appeared as a human hand in the book of Daniel and many more...

 

[Barrd]

Friends,
God manifests himself in many ways.
For instance, God appeared to Abraham as "the angel of the Lord", God appeared to Moses as a burning bush, God appeared as a human hand in the book of Daniel and many more...

And each of these manifestations, however brief, was God. Very good point, David!

 

[Zachary]

IMO, this Sonship of Jesus is metaphorical.
Was the Word in heaven really called a Son while in heaven?
This title is mostly for our benefit, because ...

The Son (the Word, Jesus) was/is lesser that the Father re: authority,
i.e. the Father has always been the main Administrator of everything.
And the other Two (being in total unity with Him) simply agree.

All Three have their roles to play in the Triune Godhead.
E.G. The Father created all things through the Word, Jesus.
Some verses say Jesus was the Creator,
but He was simply following the Father's will (i.e. orders).

Another little item is that Jesus (who was walking around in a human body)
could in no way REALLY be considered equal to Father God in heaven.
The idea is simply ridiculous, and this is why He said His Father was greater.

Another little item is that God is omnipresent (God is everywhere at once).
So, what's the problem with Him presenting Himself to us
as being ONLY Three Manifestations or Persons?

 

[Barrd]

It just seems to me to be the epitome of arrogance to think that we could ever actually define the nature of God.

 

[TopherNelson]

God can exists everywhere at any time. That's a good point. God manifested himself as the Son of Man while He is in heaven. And also, I have another point to bring out. God's concept of time is different from ours.

 

[Barrd]

God can exists everywhere at any time. That's a good point. God manifested himself as the Son of Man while He is in heaven. And also, I have another point to bring out. God's concept of time is different from ours.

Well, seeing as time as we know it did not exist until God created it, and since He lives outside of time and space, it only stands to reason that His concept of time would be different than ours.
God holds all of time, from beginning to end, in His hand.

 

[StanJ]

IMO, this Sonship of Jesus is metaphorical.
Was the Word in heaven really called a Son while in heaven?
This title is mostly for our benefit, because ...

The Son (the Word, Jesus) was/is lesser that the Father re: authority,
i.e. the Father has always been the main Administrator of everything.
And the other Two (being in total unity with Him) simply agree.

All Three have their roles to play in the Triune Godhead.
E.G. The Father created all things through the Word, Jesus.
Some verses say Jesus was the Creator,
but He was simply following the Father's will (i.e. orders).

Another little item is that Jesus (who was walking around in a human body)
could in no way REALLY be considered equal to Father God in heaven.
The idea is simply ridiculous, and this is why He said His Father was greater.

Another little item is that God is omnipresent (God is everywhere at once).
So, what's the problem with Him presenting Himself to us
as being ONLY Three Manifestations or Persons?

Not metaphorical at all. Matt 1:20 shows Jesus was the LITERAL son of God.

The SON is the physical manifestation/representation of God. Heb 1:3 and Col 1:19, 2:9-10

Jesus IS the WORD made flesh. Jesus didn't create anything, the WORD did. Jesus was born and that person did NOT exist until he was born.

Jesus said:[SIZE=8pt] [/SIZE]I and the Father are one.
Jesus said: If you've seen me you've seen the Father.
Jesus said: If you knew me, you would know my Father also.
Jesus said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.
Jesus said: If you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins.
Jesus said: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Jesus said: Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jesus is God because his Father, God, addressed him as "O God"- Hebrews 1:8, Psalms 45:6
Jesus is God because he, himself, says he is God: "I will be his God"- Revelation 21:7
Jesus is God because the bible says he is God: "The mighty God" - Isaiah 9:6
Jesus is God because his disciples knew he was God:
"my Lord and my God" - John 20:28
"our God and Savior Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1
"the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" - Titus 2:13
Jesus is God because the OT says Israel's Rock was God & Christ was that same Rock: Psalms 78:35, 1 Corinthians [SIZE=8pt]10:4[/SIZE]

 

[Angelina]

Jesus wore many hats. The Son of God was one of them.

 

[StanJ]

Jesus wore many hats. The Son of God was one of them.

Yes, and he had many names some of which are shown in Is 9:6;
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[Guestman]

The Trinity doctrine has been an ongoing argument for over 1,700 years, especially since the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. that rejected Arius view that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Father and eventually becoming church doctrine with the Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E.

The western churches accepted this as dogma while the eastern churches disagreed, leading to the formation of the Coptic church in Egypt and Abyssinia and the "Jacobite" churches of Syria and Armenia. And because the Trinity doctrine is so wide spread among Christendom, and because many fail to use sound logic and careful examination of the Scriptures, the Trinity continues to hold sway among the masses who profess Christianity.

The belief that the Father, Jesus Christ and the holy spirit are "three persons in one Godhead", co-equal and co-eternal continues to dominate among many professing Christianity. But now is the time to let the Bible speak for itself rather than church doctrine. And what does the Bible show reasonable people concerning the Father, Jesus Christ and the holy spirit ?

First off, who did Jesus have to become in order to open the door to reconciliation with God ? The apostle Paul wrote: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit".(1 Cor 15:45, KJV)

Hence, Jesus could not be God, but rather had to be equal to the "first man Adam" in every respect before Adam's rebellion in the garden of Eden, a perfect man of flesh and blood, in order to satisfy the requirement for justice.(see Ex 21:23-25) Paul further confirmed this by saying: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom (Greek antilytron) for all".("corresponding ransom" is from an·ti´ as at 1 Peter 3:21, “against; in correspondence to; in place of,” and ly´tron as at Matt 20:28, “ransom [price paid]”)

What does Paul establish here ? That Jesus serves in the capacity of mediator "between God and men", not being God. In addtion, Paul identifies Jesus as "a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek" from the words of David.(Heb 5:5, 6; Ps 110:4)

Thus Jesus serves as a high priest "in the manner of Melchizedek", between God and men, for no high priest was ever God. Paul told the Athenians that "God.....has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed".(Acts 17:30, 31) Yes, Jesus is the "man" that God has appointed to be earth's judge.(see John 5:22)

Then Paul continues and says that "during his life on earth, Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. And after he had been made perfect, he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, because he had been designated by God a high priest in the manner of Melchizedek".(Heb 5:7-9)

This is where being able to use sound logic and reason comes into play, for Moses said that God is perfect at Deuteronomy 32:4 and David reaffirmed this at Psalms 18:30. So how could Jesus be God and yet be "made perfect" ?

Too, Paul said that Jesus offered up supplications and petitions to God, and was "favorably heard for his godly fear". How could he be God and yet have "godly fear" ? How could he be "designated by God a high priest" if he is God ? How could Jesus be God and yet ' learn obedience' to God ? If Jesus were God, then what Paul wrote would not fit and neither would the ransom.

But there is much more to assist individuals to grasp that Jesus is not God but an actual Son, for when speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well near Sychar, he told her: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know".(John 4:22)

Jesus included himself in worshiping God, for he now says: "God is a Spirit (not man and spirit, thus leaving Jesus out), and those worshipping him (Jesus identifies that only God the Father is to be worship, including himself as worshipping him) must worship with spirit and truth".(John 4:24)

But some will use John 1:1 to try and give support to the Trinity. Yet there a flaw with respect to how it is rendered by many Bibles. Does it say "and the Word was God" or "the Word was a god" ? How can this be determined ? First off, it need be understood that Koine (or common) Greek had no indefinite article such as "a", but does have a definite article such as "the".

That has given some translators "free reign" to translate how they feel a Scripture should read based upon their view of God, either adding the indefinite article "a".(See Acts 12:22 as well at Acts 28:6 where the KJV reads "a god" though no "a" is found there) or leaving it out, as the King James Bible has done at John 1:1.

Here is where insight and Scriptural capability comes into play. Those who are not biased towards the Trinity but allows the Bible to speak for itself, will see that the word "god" (Greek theos) is used three times at John 1:1, 2, but that before two of the times, that the definite article of "the" is used, in the first and third times, but left indefinite before the second time. Why ?

Because the apostle John wanted to intentionally separate "the Word" from being called "the God", writing it down as an indefinite "god" or godlike one.(note that John uses the definite article "the" before "Word" every time at John 1:1, never changing it) At John 1:18 (as well as 1 John 4:12), he wrote down that "no man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him". Hence, Jesus is "a god", "the only-begotten god" who explained the Father, "the God".(see Matt 11:27)

In prayer to the Father, Jesus said: "This means everlasting life, their (his disciples) coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ".(John 17:3) Jesus clearly defined the Father as "the only true God" and separated himself as "the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ".(see Matt 12:18 and Acts 4:27 whereby Jesus is called God's "servant"; note that KJV tries to hide this by rendering the Greek word pais as "servant" concerning David in verse 25 of Acts 4, but as "child" in verse 27 concerning Jesus)

But there is more, for though Koine Greek had no indefinite article, another language that John's words were translated into in the early centuries after Jesus death does have an indefinite article of "a", Sahidic, a dialect of Coptic, dating from before the fourth century when the Trinity became official doctrine. So, how does John 1:1, 2 read according to Sahidic Coptic that reflects an understanding of Scripture before the Trinity was deemed as a so-called "truth" ?

It reads literally: "In the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word".(source - Sahidic Coptic Text, Chester Beatty-813 , with interlinear translation, located at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland)

Hence, Jesus is "a god", the "only-begotten god" (Greek monogenes theos) that "is in the bosom of the Father".(John 1:18b, KJV) Logic asks the question of how could Jesus be in the Father's bosom and yet be God ? The answer is that he is not God, but "a god".

Others have detailed Scriptures to show that Jesus has a God, as at John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12, that he was created, as at Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14, that he is unaware when this wicked system of things will end but only the Father knows, as at Matthew 24:36, that only the Father, and not the Son, knows specific details concerning events related to the Kingdom, as at Acts 1:6, 7.

So, when Jesus asked his apostles just who he was, Peter raised his voice and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".(Matt 16:16) And the apostle John wrote in the gospel of John, that was one of the books that closed out the Scriptural canon in about 98 C.E., saying: "But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God".(John 20:31)

And of the holy spirit, it is God's active force that he used to bring into existence all the universe and its life.(see Gen 1:2) Each living thing has "spirit" or life force that causes them to be alive, just as electricity gives "life" to an appliance.

Psalms 104 says: "What you (our Maker, Jehovah God) give them (all the animals), they gather (their food). When you open your hand they are satisfied with good things. When you hide your face, they are disturbed. If you take away their spirit (or life force), they die and return to the dust. If you send out your (holy) spirit, they are created, and you renew the surface of the ground".(Ps 104:28-30)

The word spirit (Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma) is that which is invisible, but produces visible results. To show that God's holy spirit is not a person, at Luke 4 it says that after Jesus baptism, he was "full of holy spirit" that motivated him to go into the wilderness.(Luke 4:1) The same was said of both Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, being "filled with holy spirit".(Luke 1:41, 67)

And at Isaiah 44, it puts water and blessings in the same context as holy spirit, that it is not a person but an unseen force, saying: "For I (Jehovah God) will pour out water on the thirsty one and flowing streams on the dry ground. I will pout out my (holy) spirit on your offspring and my blessings on your descendants".(Isa 44:3) Just as both water and blessings are not persons, neither is God's holy spirit, but rather his active force that he uses to create and empower those to whom he wishes to give it.(see Acts 5:32 as well as Acts 1:8)

 

[Barrd]

Not metaphorical at all. Matt 1:20 shows Jesus was the LITERAL son of God.

The SON is the physical manifestation/representation of God. Heb 1:3 and Col 1:19, 2:9-10

Jesus IS the WORD made flesh. Jesus didn't create anything, the WORD did. Jesus was born and that person did NOT exist until he was born.

Jesus said:[SIZE=8pt] [/SIZE]I and the Father are one.
Jesus said: If you've seen me you've seen the Father.
Jesus said: If you knew me, you would know my Father also.
Jesus said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.
Jesus said: If you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins.
Jesus said: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Jesus said: Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jesus is God because his Father, God, addressed him as "O God"- Hebrews 1:8, Psalms 45:6
Jesus is God because he, himself, says he is God: "I will be his God"- Revelation 21:7
Jesus is God because the bible says he is God: "The mighty God" - Isaiah 9:6
Jesus is God because his disciples knew he was God:
"my Lord and my God" - John 20:28
"our God and Savior Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1
"the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" - Titus 2:13
Jesus is God because the OT says Israel's Rock was God & Christ was that same Rock: Psalms 78:35, 1 Corinthians [SIZE=8pt]10:4[/SIZE]

Yes, and he had many names some of which are shown in Is 9:6;
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

One thing I have to say for you, Stan.
You may be a stubborn old coot...
But when you're right, you are right, old man.
Thumbs up on both of these great posts!

 

[Zachary]

Not metaphorical at all. Matt 1:20 shows Jesus was the LITERAL son of God.

Matthew 1:
20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

The above could also refer to Jesus being "the Son of Man".
Since God did not beget "the son of God", it is merely a name/title ...
as are multitudes of His other names/titles, such as: Messiah, Christ, Savior, etc.

"the Word" came down from heaven and became flesh.
In Revelation, Jesus is called "the Word of God".

 

[brakelite]

I'm not really sure where you garner your information from, but one of the main stays of Christianity is that Jesus IS the ONLY begotten Son of God as evidenced in Matthew and Luke.

I agree. Jesus is the only begotten Son, like I said many times previously.

The Shema tells us who God is and Jesus tells us that He is ONE with the Father, so that in itself is self evident, not to mention Heb 1:3 that clearly shows Jesus IS the EXACT representation of God's being.

The 'express image of His being" as the scriptures tell us, yes. Everything Jesus is, so also is the Father. Where in my posts have you gotten the idea that I thought something else?

This sounds like typical Arian doctrine to me, one that has been around since the early 5th century AD, and has ALWAYS been refuted and deemed heretical in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Considering there is no original works of Arius in existence, there is some doubt as to what he actually did teach. After all, all we really have as to what he taught is the word of those who killed him and destroyed his papers, the Roman church. Not a particularly reliable source methinks when one considers the many millions she murdered as 'heretics' but were simple Christians wanting to read the Bible. Another spanner in that mindset of so called 'Arianism' is the fact that Ulfilas, a missionary to the Goths, and a very successful one, was also branded as Arian by the same church, and his people, yet we do have some of Ulfilas' writings. And in his own words he ascribes deity to the Son of God, Jesus. And that is what he taught the Goths, converting them from hard-core paganism to a people who raised the morals of towns and villages wherever they went. Don't make the mistake if thinking just because one doesn't accept the trinity, it naturally follows that one doesn't accept the deity or divinity of Christ. The difference Stan is the source of the divine attributes and prerogatives, and in that sense, and that sense only, is the Son less than the Father. He inherited His divinity, much as we inherit our parents genes, so also did Jesus. God's nature, character, everything, resides as much in the Son as in the Father, but all derived from the Father. Which renders the trinity redundant. They cannot be equal on every level, any more than any son can be the equal to his father, particulary in age. esus had a beginning. The trinity teaches Jesus has no beginning, which renders the whole concept of "Sonship" useless.It can ony be one or the other. Either Jesus is a literal on, the trinity sinks, or He is a metaphorical Son, and the trinity is perhaps a little justified, though there is still the matter of the spirit.

Do I need to quote all the scripture that confirms this?

 

[Barrd]

I'm not really sure where you garner your information from, but one of the main stays of Christianity is that Jesus IS the ONLY begotten Son of God as evidenced in Matthew and Luke.

I agree. Jesus is the only begotten Son, like I said many times previously.

The Shema tells us who God is and Jesus tells us that He is ONE with the Father, so that in itself is self evident, not to mention Heb 1:3 that clearly shows Jesus IS the EXACT representation of God's being.

The 'express image of His being" as the scriptures tell us, yes. Everything Jesus is, so also is the Father. Where in my posts have you gotten the idea that I thought something else?

This sounds like typical Arian doctrine to me, one that has been around since the early 5th century AD, and has ALWAYS been refuted and deemed heretical in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Considering there is no original works of Arius in existence, there is some doubt as to what he actually did teach. After all, all we really have as to what he taught is the word of those who killed him and destroyed his papers, the Roman church. Not a particularly reliable source methinks when one considers the many millions she murdered as 'heretics' but were simple Christians wanting to read the Bible. Another spanner in that mindset of so called 'Arianism' is the fact that Ulfilas, a missionary to the Goths, and a very successful one, was also branded as Arian by the same church, and his people, yet we do have some of Ulfilas' writings. And in his own words he ascribes deity to the Son of God, Jesus. And that is what he taught the Goths, converting them from hard-core paganism to a people who raised the morals of towns and villages wherever they went. Don't make the mistake if thinking just because one doesn't accept the trinity, it naturally follows that one doesn't accept the deity or divinity of Christ. The difference Stan is the source of the divine attributes and prerogatives, and in that sense, and that sense only, is the Son less than the Father. He inherited His divinity, much as we inherit our parents genes, so also did Jesus. God's nature, character, everything, resides as much in the Son as in the Father, but all derived from the Father. Which renders the trinity redundant. They cannot be equal on every level, any more than any son can be the equal to his father, particulary in age. esus had a beginning. The trinity teaches Jesus has no beginning, which renders the whole concept of "Sonship" useless.It can ony be one or the other. Either Jesus is a literal on, the trinity sinks, or He is a metaphorical Son, and the trinity is perhaps a little justified, though there is still the matter of the spirit.

Do I need to quote all the scripture that confirms this?

You know I love ya, Brakelite. My brother in the Lord, you are...and special to me.
And I do understand the confusion.
Scholarship is not gonna help, here, obviously. This is something we need to figure out.

I would have described myself as a "trinitarian", believing that God the Father is God, God the Son is also God, and God the Holy Spirit is God as well.
However, I would not stop there. Believing God to be omnipotent, I believe that He could be whatever and as many as He chooses. If God, for whatever reason, decided that He wanted to be a herd of elephants (yes, I know, silly, right?), then God can be a herd of elephants. Who is going to say to God that He may not be any such thing?
I don't see God as a collection of persons, (or a herd of elephants ), nor do I see these different parts of God as being "co-equal". Obviously, Jesus is not equal to His Father, although He is God. He is truly the literal Son of God, of the same essence as God...He is not another, separate God, but a part of the One True God. He is the Word of God. He is seated on the right hand of God, which is the hand of power. He is the Savior. Through all of this, He does the Will of the Father.
The Holy Spirit does the Will of the Father and the Son. He is the comforter. He is the Law in our hearts and in our minds, bringing to our remembrance everything that Jesus taught (by the will of His Father) while He walked among us. He is both the least and the most important member of the "trinity".

As I have said, I prefer the term "Godhead".

Actually, don't tell anyone I said this...but I think the whole trinity thing is a bit short-sighted. After all, there is a huge universe out there. Does it contain other life? I'm pretty sure it does. And if it does, then, since the entire universe is subject to entropy, doesn't that mean they are also fallen? And in need of a Savior?
And doesn't that thought open up tremendous vistas of possibilities???

Think about it.

I guarantee, I will be criticized for this post.
Ahh, well....gotta shake 'em up from time to time...otherwise they'll remain asleep and aslumber . And shaking 'em up has always been my job...and my pleasure .

 

[StanJ]

The above could also refer to Jesus being "the Son of Man".
Since God did not beget "the son of God", it is merely a name/title ...
as are multitudes of His other names/titles, such as: Messiah, Christ, Savior, etc.

"the Word" came down from heaven and became flesh.
In Revelation, Jesus is called "the Word of God".

There's no COULD...it says what it says.
The Holy Spirit IS God so yes God begat His son by the Holy Spirit and that conception was how the WORD became flesh, John 1.
John 1 says the word WAS/IS God.