Jesus - God or not?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Airaux

New Member
Jul 17, 2016
4
1
3
65
Aberdare, Britain
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I've spent many years with people of many denominations - trinitarians and unitarians - desperately trying to establish the biblical stance of many issues and am still uncertain.
Would anyone like to discuss the nature of Christ from a scriptural point of view?
 
B

brakelite

Guest
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1 Cor. 8:6 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.

1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Airaux said:
I've spent many years with people of many denominations - trinitarians and unitarians - desperately trying to establish the biblical stance of many issues and am still uncertain.
Would anyone like to discuss the nature of Christ from a scriptural point of view?
There are only two things in existence in the heavens and the earth, and they are either created, or not created, there is no in-between. It is stated in plain English that Jesus Christ is not a created being, and the only thing not created spoken of in the Bible is God. In the beginning was the word, the word was God, and was with God, and it became flesh. Before we came to know him as Jesus, he was the alpha and omega, and it was by him as the spoken word, the actionable aspect of the triune God, the will of the Father in heaven, that all was created, and its by him, and him alone that all things consist. This is why Jesus Christ stated that if you've seen me, then you've seen the Father in heaven. Likewise, if you've experienced the Holy Spirit, then you've also experience the Father in heaven, because they are all one and the same. So if Jesus Christ is not essentially God, then you are not saved, because no created being can atone for the sins of the world, reconciling all things created unto God for redemption except God.



(Isaiah 43:8-13) "¶ Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears. {9} Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. {10} Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Dcopymope said:
....because they are all one and the same.....
We must be careful here to not insert our own understanding into the plain revelation of God's word. John 3:16,17 says clearly that God sent His only Son into the world. It must be concluded then from even just this one clear revelation of truth, that if God sent His only begotten Son into the world, then He had a Son to send. This Son was a literal Son. Not a manifestation or a symbol of sonship, nor a metaphor. And if the Father created all things through this Son, then it must also be concluded that this Son was begotten before creation. As you said, not a created being, but a natural born begotten Son of the Father. A Son in the truest sense of the word. This in fact is so important, it is so imperative that we accept this, it is a salvational issue.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
brakelite said:
We must be careful here to not insert our own understanding into the plain revelation of God's word. John 3:16,17 says clearly that God sent His only Son into the world. It must be concluded then from even just this one clear revelation of truth, that if God sent His only begotten Son into the world, then He had a Son to send. This Son was a literal Son. Not a manifestation or a symbol of sonship, nor a metaphor. And if the Father created all things through this Son, then it must also be concluded that this Son was begotten before creation. As you said, not a created being, but a natural born begotten Son of the Father. A Son in the truest sense of the word. This in fact is so important, it is so imperative that we accept this, it is a salvational issue.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Well, he's the firstborn of every creature, but for some reason, there are people who confuse this to mean 'created'. You can't have it both ways, he's either the alpha and omega, the first and the last, or he's not. He's either God incarnate, or he's not. This isn't rocket science, this is basic doctrine that should be perfectly understood by even the most laymen Christian out there. Unfortunately, like never before in the history of the faith, even the deity of Jesus Christ is put into question, so Satan is doing his job very, very well.
 

0bed

New Member
Feb 21, 2010
127
3
0
Jesus is God with us in the flesh:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Yes, Jesus is God manifested in the flesh, the image of the invisible God. Yet He also declared His Father as His God. And after His return to heaven, the admonition from His apostles was to confess that very fact...that Jesus is the Son of God. Nowhere are we admonished to acknowledge Jesus AS GOD. Yet of course He IS GOD, but how? By being co-eternal and co-existent eternally with the Father? Then how could Jesus be a Son? It is the very fact that Jesus IS the Son of God which gives Him His deity...His Sonship is the very thing by which virtue He may be designated as God. By nature...by inheritance...and by declaration from His Father.
 

0bed

New Member
Feb 21, 2010
127
3
0
brakelite said:
Yes, Jesus is God manifested in the flesh, the image of the invisible God. Yet He also declared His Father as His God. And after His return to heaven, the admonition from His apostles was to confess that very fact...that Jesus is the Son of God. Nowhere are we admonished to acknowledge Jesus AS GOD. Yet of course He IS GOD, but how? By being co-eternal and co-existent eternally with the Father? Then how could Jesus be a Son? It is the very fact that Jesus IS the Son of God which gives Him His deity...His Sonship is the very thing by which virtue He may be designated as God. By nature...by inheritance...and by declaration from His Father.
Jesus is God with us, Immanuel. Jesus is God in the flesh. God became flesh 2000 years ago, but as the creator who created all things is heaven and earth Jesus has always existed as God. He has a dual nature, he is both man and is YHWH with us.

[SIZE=12pt]Colossians 1:16-18 — For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the pre-eminence.[/SIZE]
 
B

brakelite

Guest
If Jesus has always existed as God, then how can He therefore be God's Son?
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
brakelite said:
If Jesus has always existed as God, then how can He therefore be God's Son?
He wasn't referred to as his 'son' before we came to know him as Jesus. In the old testament, we only knew him as "the word" or "Lord", and as "the word", he always has existed. If he is not an eternal being, then he logically cannot claim to be the alpha and omega, the first and the last, and henceforth cannot claim to be God in the flesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0bed

0bed

New Member
Feb 21, 2010
127
3
0
brakelite said:
If Jesus has always existed as God, then how can He therefore be God's Son?
What Dcopymope said, but just to add that God is spirit and the spirit or the Word, became flesh on earth. This means that Jesus is the mediator between man and God because he is both man (flesh) and God (spirit).
 
B

brakelite

Guest
So, therefore, because of your understanding of the trinity, you are saying that God did not send His Son into the world, but that Jesus merely became a son when he became flesh?
 

justaname

Disciple of Jesus Christ
Mar 14, 2011
2,348
149
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
brakelite said:
So, therefore, because of your understanding of the trinity, you are saying that God did not send His Son into the world, but that Jesus merely became a son when he became flesh?
I see this as a false dilemma.

God did send His only begotten Son into the world when He took on flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the eternal Logos that became incarnate.
 

0bed

New Member
Feb 21, 2010
127
3
0
justaname said:
I see this as a false dilemma.

God did send His only begotten Son into the world when He took on flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the eternal Logos that became incarnate.
I'm saying what the Bible says which is that the Word existed in the beginning. The Word was God and verse 14 tells us the Word became flesh.

Joh 1:1-14 ASV
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.
9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
 
B

brakelite

Guest
justaname said:
I see this as a false dilemma.

God did send His only begotten Son into the world when He took on flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the eternal Logos that became incarnate.
There are two vital questions which we need to ask ourselves. The first one is, Who was this Person that God sent? This question is critical because if the sending of this Person is the key factor in the revelation of God's love, then it must be clear that the key question is, "What was the RELATIONSHIP between this Person & God?"

Let me illustrate my point. If John 3:16 had read, "God so loved the world that He gave an angel whom He created…." or, "God so loved the world that He gave His friend…." Would the action really have impressed us with the fact that God's love for us is very great? Men would have understood if God had claimed to have given an angel. We would have comprehended it if God had claimed to have given His friend, but would this really have revealed God's love for man? The plain fact is, God's consistent testimony is that He gave HIS SON. In the very words of that Son, "His only begotten Son." How great is God's love for us? The answer to that question pivots around the issue of Who Jesus really was. ONLY AS WE CAN DISCERN THE TRUE IDENTITY OF CHRIST CAN WE APPRECIATE THE ENORMITY OF THE SACRIFICE WHICH GOD MADE FOR MAN, & THEREFORE THE MAGNITUDE OF HIS LOVE FOR US.

A relevant question is, "WHY does the Bible call Jesus the "Son of God." Is this term one that was coined by the gospel writers, was it a FIGURATIVE term, was it a TITLE like the term "prophet (as some have suggested)?" The plain fact of the matter is that God Himself in the presence of a multitude of people proclaimed, "This is my beloved SON (Matt. 3:17)." Again, Jesus Himself over and over declared that He was the SON OF GOD, & MORE THAN THAT, "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." (John 3:16) The testimony of these two Beings none dare contradict, or ascribe to tradition, custom or misunderstanding. Surely, God knew the identity of Jesus & Jesus Himself must have known His own identity. Let us then make note of the fact that in seeking to convey to human minds the relationship between God & Jesus, both Jesus & God have used the word "Son" & "Father". ANY HUMAN BEING THEREFORE IS GUILTY OF THE GREATEST PRESUMPTION IF HE CONCLUDES THAT JESUS IS ANYONE OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD.

DID GOD MERELY USE HUMAN TERMINOLOGY WHEN HE REFERRED TO JESUS AS HIS "BELOVED SON," SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND HOW HE FEELS ABOUT JESUS? Was this an attempt on the part of God to mislead us, or to enlighten us? Does God want us to believe something is so, even though it isn't? IF GOD WANTS US TO THINK OF JESUS AS HIS SON, WHY SHOULD WE THINK OF HIM AS BEING GOD HIMSELF? Are we wiser than God? When God says, "this is my beloved Son," how can we be so presumptuous as to say, "He was NOT really God's Son, but that He was God Himself!!" Let us be certain of this: God has given us the information which we need & what He tells us is what He expects us to believe & to receive. Furthermore, the only safety in this world lies in believing & receiving that word.

The second vital question which we must ask is, WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? This question is a critical one because God's love for us is revealed in the gift of His Son. Yet, God could NOT have loved Christ as a Son UNTIL He became His Son. Does this sound logical? God's love for His Son must be measured from the time when He had a Son. If Jesus had existed before He became God's Son, then God may have loved Him as a brother, as a friend, may even have been said to love Himself, if as some say, Jesus was God Himself. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT HAVE LOVED HIM AS HIS SON UNTIL HE BECAME HIS SON.
***WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? Strenuous efforts have been made to prove that God NEVER had a Son BEFORE Jesus came to earth. Such efforts have come from all quarters, but all of them fail in the light of the plain simple word of God. Was there a time when God said, "Son, you may go?" 1 John 4:9 says that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. WHEN did this happen? Was it BEFORE Jesus came into the world or was it AFTER He came into the world? Did God first send Jesus into the world & then AFTER His arrival here, say, "Son, you may go into the world?" These questions may seem ridiculous, but they need to be asked in order that it may become clear how unreasonable is the position that Jesus NEVER became God's Son until AFTER He had come into the world. BASIC LOGIC SHOULD TELL US THAT IF GOD SENT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD (John 3:17; 1 John 4:9) THEN HE MUST HAVE HAD A SON TO SEND (Mark 12:6). He did not send Himself to become His Son, He did not send His friend to become His Son, He did not send a part of Himself to become His Son. AT THE MOMENT WHEN JESUS WAS SENT, HE WAS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD. ***

To believe that Jesus was NOT God's Son UNTIL He was conceived in Mary's womb would present the ridiculous idea that Jesus arrived BEFORE He was sent. Or that God sent His Son BEFORE He had a Son.

TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
There are several verses in the Old Testament which clearly reveal the truth that God had a Son LONG BEFORE Jesus ever came to the earth.

"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?" (Prov 30:4)

Which TWO beings was this verse speaking of? One of them is clearly the Creator of all things, the One who "bound the waters in a garment" & "established all the ends of the earth." However, there is another person mentioned. HERE LONG BEFORE CHRIST WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM THE QUESTION IS ASKED, "WHAT IS HIS SON'S NAME?" If God did NOT have a Son at that time what is the meaning of the question?
Again when we look at Proverbs 8:22-31 it is difficult for us to misunderstand the meaning of the passage. Of Whom is this passage speaking? The first few verses of the chapter indicate that it is speaking of "wisdom." However, as often happens with Old Testament prophetic or poetic passages the subject changes from a GENERAL application to A SPECIFIC application to someone in particular. IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE VERSES MUST BE SPEAKING OF A PERSON, RATHER THAN THE ABSTRACT QUALITY OF WISDOM BECAUSE IT STATES THAT "I WAS BROUGHT FORTH" (v 24, 25). If we were to conclude that this refers to the quality of wisdom, then we would also have to conclude that there was a time, BEFORE God brought forth wisdom, when wisdom did NOT exist & that therefore at one point, God was NOT wise. THIS PERSON MENTIONED IN VERSES 22-31 HAS SOME VERY PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS WHICH COULD APPLY TO ONLY ONE BEING IN THE UNIVERSE.
Let us look at some of these specifications:

1. The person was "brought forth" (born, begotten. v 24, 25) The term "brought forth" is translated as "given birth" in the NIV & also in the BBE (Bible in basic English). In the NLT & the NJB as "I was born." Nearly every other version translates it as "brought forth."

2. the Person was "set up"(born) BEFORE anything was created. A period referred to as "everlasting" (v 23)
3. The Person was PRESENT during all the creative acts of God (v 27-29)
4. The companionship of this person with God was constant & brought "delight" to God (v 30)
Who is it that the Bible says was "begotten" by God (John 3:16) from the days of "everlasting" (Micah 5:2) Who was present & active during the creation of the entire universe (Eph 3:9; Gen 1:26), & Who brought delight to the heart of God (Matt 3:17)? Only ONE Being in the entire universe fits the description. THIS PASSAGE IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, WHO, ACCORDING TO 1 COR 1:24 IS THE WISDOM OF GOD.

"…the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting. . . . When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30.

Those who deny that Jesus is truly the Son of God have two problems with this passage. FIRSTLY, they see clearly that IT SPEAKS Of A STARTING POINT FOR CHRIST. A time when He was "brought forth." Regardless of the fact that this time is so far back in eternity as to be referred to as "everlasting," they have a problem because they feel that Jesus is God Himself & as such could not have had a beginning. SECONDLY, they feel that the term "brought forth" implies creation & of course, if Jesus was created then He could not have been a divine being & it would not have been possible for Him to have paid the price for man's redemption.

BORN OR CREATED?
Yet, the Scriptures are greater than the opinions, the fears, the misconceptions & the biases of men. ACCEPTING WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY AS THEY SIMPLY READ WOULD BRING UNDERSTANDING & WOULD CLEAR UP THE DIFFICULTIES. Let us examine the second objection first. Are we suggesting that Jesus was CREATED if we accept that He was BORN of God? Let us be reasonable. IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE WHERE "BORN" MEANS "CREATED" OR VICE VERSA? This matter is very simple. Creation has to do with forming, or bringing something into existence using materials which are NOT a part of myself or without the use of pre-existing materials. BEGETTING, OR THE BIRTH PROCESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN BIRTH, THE NEW ENTITY WAS ONCE A PART OF THE ORIGINAL & IS COMPOSED OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE & POSSESSES THE SAME QUALITIES AS THE ORIGINAL. The new entity may even be said to have existed BEFORE he was born in the sense that his life was already present in his parent's life (Heb 7:9,10). THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY EVERYWHERE CONCERNING CHRIST IS THAT HE WAS BORN OF GOD, NOT CREATED BY GOD.

The other objection has to do with the question, could Christ truly be God if He had a beginning? Well, first of all Jesus could NEVER be God (Himself). There is only ONE Being in the Bible Who bears the title "God" and this is the Father (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Rev 21:22). However, the relevant question is, could Jesus be a DIVINE being, could He possess the qualities of God if He had a beginning?

When a child is born, what qualities is he born with? Apart from the fact that his development is not complete, does he come short of his parents in any way? OBVIOUSLY, IF JESUS WAS BORN, BEGOTTEN, BROUGHT FORTH BY GOD, THEN HE MUST POSSESS ALL THE QUALITIES OF GOD! It is evident that He is NOT inferior to God in any way, but possesses in His NATURE every attribute which by nature belongs to God. HOW DOES THE FACT THAT HE HAD A BEGINNING TRILLIONS OF YEARS AGO NEGATE HIS DIVINITY? This is like saying that because a human son is not as old his father, he is not as human as his father! THE KEY QUESTION, IS WHETHER JESUS WAS BORN OR CREATED. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that He was created. Trinitarians say He was neither born nor created. THE BIBLE HOWEVER, TEACHES THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN OF GOD WAY BACK IN THE DAYS OF "EVERLASTING". This is the only conclusion which fits all the facts of Scripture.
ENLIGHTENED OR CONFUSED?
Many & varied are the ways in which the enemy of all truth has sought to obliterate this truth. Another group of Christians, zealous for the traditions of past centuries have speculated (and pushed these speculations on others) that Jesus, Who was God Himself, decided billions of years ago to ACT in the ROLE of a son, while God Himself (another one) would ACT in the ROLE of a Father. At the same time God Himself (still another one!) would ACT in the ROLE of Holy Spirit. This decision was taken by God Himself Who was not three Gods, but one God ACTING IN THREE ROLES!! When theories such as these have been embedded into the minds of simple people it is no wonder that when they are asked simple questions such as "Who is God?" Or "was Jesus the true Son of God?" All they can do is stammer & stutter & give a blank stare. Is this what God was trying to tell us when His son made the following simple, straightforward, but sublime statement?

(John 3:16-17) 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. {17} For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
UNPOPULAR TRUTH
Why is the devil so fiercely opposed to the truth that Jesus IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD? It is not difficult to find the answer to this question. The Bible declares that God's love is revealed in the fact that God gave His Son to die for mankind (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10). How can we understand & appreciate the wonder of that love if we fail to discern the IDENTITY of the One Who was sent? If we fail to grasp the value of the gift that was given & what it cost God to give it? It is only as we understand Christ's IDENTITY that we shall love God as we should (1 John 4:19). Therefore our love for God & our victory over sin are linked to the truth that Jesus IS the Son of God. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5)?" No wonder the devil hates this truth!

What is difficult to understand is why Christians should so determinedly oppose the plainest statements of the word of God. WHY SHOULD PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO LOVE GOD & TO DESIRE HIS GLORY SO STUBBORNLY OPPOSE THE ONE TRUTH WHICH REVEALS THE LOVE OF GOD MORE FULLY THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE? This truly is a mystery almost as great as the so-called Trinity!
Hundreds of years ago during the fourth century AD the spirit of compromise, the desire for worldly popularity combined with the influence of paganism, brought the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian faith. Since that time it has become so deeply ingrained into the traditions of Christendom that it has become the foundation doctrine of MOST Christian denominations & it is considered blasphemy to speak against it, but why do Christian men & women cling so tenaciously to the error? Why, in the light of the plain statements of Scripture, do they continue to embrace a Trinitarian God? The answer is popularity. No church will be accepted today (this has been true for the past 1500 years) unless it professes belief in the trinity. A denial of the trinity will result in a church instantly receiving the label of CULT. Therefore, this doctrine which is entirely founded upon the TRADITIONS of men rather than the word of God has risen to such universal prominence that when one simply expresses the Biblical truth that Jesus is the Son of God, he is accused of heresy.

THE APOSTLE'S TESTIMONY Did the apostles believe in a trinity? Apart from the books of Luke & Acts the entire New Testament was written by men who had been personally taught by the Lord Jesus. Even the apostle Paul, though he never knew Jesus personally while He was on earth testifies that he was taught personally by Christ (Galatians 1:11,12). Did Jesus reveal a Trinitarian God to these apostles? Did He teach them this doctrine which was so radically different from the Old Testament concept of God? If He did, why didn't they proclaim it as forcefully & as clearly as they proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God? Why is it that this doctrine "is not EXPLICITLY TAUGHT in the New Testament (Encarta Britannica)" but is rather "INFERRED" from certain passages? Is this the way that God reveals important truths? Merely giving HINTS & leaving us to FORMULATE our conclusions? Why is it that the statements of the New Testament consistently declare that there is only ONE GOD & that this one God is the Father (1 Cor. 8:4-6; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6)? Didn't these apostles know the truth about God? How can we conclude that their writings suggest that God is a Trinity when they themselves proclaimed Him to be an INDIVIDUAL? Do we have the contradictory situation where Christ's appointed depositories of His truth HINTED that God was a Trinity, but DECLARED that He was a single Person? Why would they do this? Is it that they were suggesting something which they weren't sure of & which they left to later generations of "theologians" to properly work out? DO YOU SEE HOW CLEARLY THIS FITS INTO THE TEACHINGS & PRINCIPLES OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM? The Roman Church teaches that the revelations of the Scriptures are NOT a complete revelation, sufficient to reveal the way of salvation. They claim that the TRADITIONS & teachings of the "church" are a continuing source of revelation & therefore, they take the position that the teachings of the church are ABOVE the Bible. For them, it does not pose a problem that the Trinity is NOT taught in the Bible. It is enough that the Church accepted the doctrine & that for many centuries it has been a teaching of the Church. This for a Roman Catholic is enough to make the doctrine truth. Protestants, however, insist that the Bible contains all the truth which is necessary for salvation, hence the protestant principle of "sola Scriptura," (The Bible only). When Protestants take the position that a doctrine which is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures, but was developed gradually during the years subsequent to the time of Christ & the apostles, is to be accepted as truth, this is a dangerous precedent. In taking this position they have stepped onto the ground of Roman Catholicism & have thereby opened the door to the acceptance of all the other unscriptural & even anti-scriptural teachings of Rome, particularly in light of the fact that Rome herself boasts that the trinity doctrine is the very foundation of all her other teachings and dogma.
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
brakelite said:
There are two vital questions which we need to ask ourselves. The first one is, Who was this Person that God sent? This question is critical because if the sending of this Person is the key factor in the revelation of God's love, then it must be clear that the key question is, "What was the RELATIONSHIP between this Person & God?"
Let me illustrate my point. If John 3:16 had read, "God so loved the world that He gave an angel whom He created…." or, "God so loved the world that He gave His friend…." Would the action really have impressed us with the fact that God's love for us is very great? Men would have understood if God had claimed to have given an angel. We would have comprehended it if God had claimed to have given His friend, but would this really have revealed God's love for man? The plain fact is, God's consistent testimony is that He gave HIS SON. In the very words of that Son, "His only begotten Son." How great is God's love for us? The answer to that question pivots around the issue of Who Jesus really was. ONLY AS WE CAN DISCERN THE TRUE IDENTITY OF CHRIST CAN WE APPRECIATE THE ENORMITY OF THE SACRIFICE WHICH GOD MADE FOR MAN, & THEREFORE THE MAGNITUDE OF HIS LOVE FOR US.

A relevant question is, "WHY does the Bible call Jesus the "Son of God." Is this term one that was coined by the gospel writers, was it a FIGURATIVE term, was it a TITLE like the term "prophet (as some have suggested)?" The plain fact of the matter is that God Himself in the presence of a multitude of people proclaimed, "This is my beloved SON (Matt. 3:17)." Again, Jesus Himself over and over declared that He was the SON OF GOD, & MORE THAN THAT, "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD." (John 3:16) The testimony of these two Beings none dare contradict, or ascribe to tradition, custom or misunderstanding. Surely, God knew the identity of Jesus & Jesus Himself must have known His own identity. Let us then make note of the fact that in seeking to convey to human minds the relationship between God & Jesus, both Jesus & God have used the word "Son" & "Father". ANY HUMAN BEING THEREFORE IS GUILTY OF THE GREATEST PRESUMPTION IF HE CONCLUDES THAT JESUS IS ANYONE OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD.
DID GOD MERELY USE HUMAN TERMINOLOGY WHEN HE REFERRED TO JESUS AS HIS "BELOVED SON," SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND HOW HE FEELS ABOUT JESUS? Was this an attempt on the part of God to mislead us, or to enlighten us? Does God want us to believe something is so, even though it isn't? IF GOD WANTS US TO THINK OF JESUS AS HIS SON, WHY SHOULD WE THINK OF HIM AS BEING GOD HIMSELF? Are we wiser than God? When God says, "this is my beloved Son," how can we be so presumptuous as to say, "He was NOT really God's Son, but that He was God Himself!!" Let us be certain of this: God has given us the information which we need & what He tells us is what He expects us to believe & to receive. Furthermore, the only safety in this world lies in believing & receiving that word.

The second vital question which we must ask is, WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? This question is a critical one because God's love for us is revealed in the gift of His Son. Yet, God could NOT have loved Christ as a Son UNTIL He became His Son. Does this sound logical? God's love for His Son must be measured from the time when He had a Son. If Jesus had existed before He became God's Son, then God may have loved Him as a brother, as a friend, may even have been said to love Himself, if as some say, Jesus was God Himself. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT HAVE LOVED HIM AS HIS SON UNTIL HE BECAME HIS SON.
***WHEN DID JESUS BECOME THE SON OF GOD? Strenuous efforts have been made to prove that God NEVER had a Son BEFORE Jesus came to earth. Such efforts have come from all quarters, but all of them fail in the light of the plain simple word of God. Was there a time when God said, "Son, you may go?" 1 John 4:9 says that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. WHEN did this happen? Was it BEFORE Jesus came into the world or was it AFTER He came into the world? Did God first send Jesus into the world & then AFTER His arrival here, say, "Son, you may go into the world?" These questions may seem ridiculous, but they need to be asked in order that it may become clear how unreasonable is the position that Jesus NEVER became God's Son until AFTER He had come into the world. BASIC LOGIC SHOULD TELL US THAT IF GOD SENT HIS SON INTO THE WORLD (John 3:17; 1 John 4:9) THEN HE MUST HAVE HAD A SON TO SEND (Mark 12:6). He did not send Himself to become His Son, He did not send His friend to become His Son, He did not send a part of Himself to become His Son. AT THE MOMENT WHEN JESUS WAS SENT, HE WAS ALREADY THE SON OF GOD. ***
To believe that Jesus was NOT God's Son UNTIL He was conceived in Mary's womb would present the ridiculous idea that Jesus arrived BEFORE He was sent. Or that God sent His Son BEFORE He had a Son.

TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
There are several verses in the Old Testament which clearly reveal the truth that God had a Son LONG BEFORE Jesus ever came to the earth.
"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?" (Prov 30:4)

Which TWO beings was this verse speaking of? One of them is clearly the Creator of all things, the One who "bound the waters in a garment" & "established all the ends of the earth." However, there is another person mentioned. HERE LONG BEFORE CHRIST WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM THE QUESTION IS ASKED, "WHAT IS HIS SON'S NAME?" If God did NOT have a Son at that time what is the meaning of the question?
Again when we look at Proverbs 8:22-31 it is difficult for us to misunderstand the meaning of the passage. Of Whom is this passage speaking? The first few verses of the chapter indicate that it is speaking of "wisdom." However, as often happens with Old Testament prophetic or poetic passages the subject changes from a GENERAL application to A SPECIFIC application to someone in particular. IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE VERSES MUST BE SPEAKING OF A PERSON, RATHER THAN THE ABSTRACT QUALITY OF WISDOM BECAUSE IT STATES THAT "I WAS BROUGHT FORTH" (v 24, 25). If we were to conclude that this refers to the quality of wisdom, then we would also have to conclude that there was a time, BEFORE God brought forth wisdom, when wisdom did NOT exist & that therefore at one point, God was NOT wise. THIS PERSON MENTIONED IN VERSES 22-31 HAS SOME VERY PARTICULAR SPECIFICATIONS WHICH COULD APPLY TO ONLY ONE BEING IN THE UNIVERSE.
Let us look at some of these specifications:
1. The person was "brought forth" (born, begotten. v 24, 25) The term "brought forth" is translated as "given birth" in the NIV & also in the BBE (Bible in basic English). In the NLT & the NJB as "I was born." Nearly every other version translates it as "brought forth."

2. the Person was "set up"(born) BEFORE anything was created. A period referred to as "everlasting" (v 23)
3. The Person was PRESENT during all the creative acts of God (v 27-29)
4. The companionship of this person with God was constant & brought "delight" to God (v 30)
Who is it that the Bible says was "begotten" by God (John 3:16) from the days of "everlasting" (Micah 5:2) Who was present & active during the creation of the entire universe (Eph 3:9; Gen 1:26), & Who brought delight to the heart of God (Matt 3:17)? Only ONE Being in the entire universe fits the description. THIS PASSAGE IS CLEARLY REFERRING TO JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, WHO, ACCORDING TO 1 COR 1:24 IS THE WISDOM OF GOD.
"…the Son of God declares concerning Himself: "The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting. . . . When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him." Proverbs 8:22-30.

Those who deny that Jesus is truly the Son of God have two problems with this passage. FIRSTLY, they see clearly that IT SPEAKS Of A STARTING POINT FOR CHRIST. A time when He was "brought forth." Regardless of the fact that this time is so far back in eternity as to be referred to as "everlasting," they have a problem because they feel that Jesus is God Himself & as such could not have had a beginning. SECONDLY, they feel that the term "brought forth" implies creation & of course, if Jesus was created then He could not have been a divine being & it would not have been possible for Him to have paid the price for man's redemption.
BORN OR CREATED?
Yet, the Scriptures are greater than the opinions, the fears, the misconceptions & the biases of men. ACCEPTING WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY AS THEY SIMPLY READ WOULD BRING UNDERSTANDING & WOULD CLEAR UP THE DIFFICULTIES. Let us examine the second objection first. Are we suggesting that Jesus was CREATED if we accept that He was BORN of God? Let us be reasonable. IS THERE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE WHERE "BORN" MEANS "CREATED" OR VICE VERSA? This matter is very simple. Creation has to do with forming, or bringing something into existence using materials which are NOT a part of myself or without the use of pre-existing materials. BEGETTING, OR THE BIRTH PROCESS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN BIRTH, THE NEW ENTITY WAS ONCE A PART OF THE ORIGINAL & IS COMPOSED OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE & POSSESSES THE SAME QUALITIES AS THE ORIGINAL. The new entity may even be said to have existed BEFORE he was born in the sense that his life was already present in his parent's life (Heb 7:9,10). THE BIBLICAL TESTIMONY EVERYWHERE CONCERNING CHRIST IS THAT HE WAS BORN OF GOD, NOT CREATED BY GOD.

The other objection has to do with the question, could Christ truly be God if He had a beginning? Well, first of all Jesus could NEVER be God (Himself). There is only ONE Being in the Bible Who bears the title "God" and this is the Father (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Rev 21:22). However, the relevant question is, could Jesus be a DIVINE being, could He possess the qualities of God if He had a beginning?
When a child is born, what qualities is he born with? Apart from the fact that his development is not complete, does he come short of his parents in any way? OBVIOUSLY, IF JESUS WAS BORN, BEGOTTEN, BROUGHT FORTH BY GOD, THEN HE MUST POSSESS ALL THE QUALITIES OF GOD! It is evident that He is NOT inferior to God in any way, but possesses in His NATURE every attribute which by nature belongs to God. HOW DOES THE FACT THAT HE HAD A BEGINNING TRILLIONS OF YEARS AGO NEGATE HIS DIVINITY? This is like saying that because a human son is not as old his father, he is not as human as his father! THE KEY QUESTION, IS WHETHER JESUS WAS BORN OR CREATED. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that He was created. Trinitarians say He was neither born nor created. THE BIBLE HOWEVER, TEACHES THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN OF GOD WAY BACK IN THE DAYS OF "EVERLASTING". This is the only conclusion which fits all the facts of Scripture.
ENLIGHTENED OR CONFUSED?
Many & varied are the ways in which the enemy of all truth has sought to obliterate this truth. Another group of Christians, zealous for the traditions of past centuries have speculated (and pushed these speculations on others) that Jesus, Who was God Himself, decided billions of years ago to ACT in the ROLE of a son, while God Himself (another one) would ACT in the ROLE of a Father. At the same time God Himself (still another one!) would ACT in the ROLE of Holy Spirit. This decision was taken by God Himself Who was not three Gods, but one God ACTING IN THREE ROLES!! When theories such as these have been embedded into the minds of simple people it is no wonder that when they are asked simple questions such as "Who is God?" Or "was Jesus the true Son of God?" All they can do is stammer & stutter & give a blank stare. Is this what God was trying to tell us when His son made the following simple, straightforward, but sublime statement?
(John 3:16-17) 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. {17} For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
UNPOPULAR TRUTH
Why is the devil so fiercely opposed to the truth that Jesus IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD? It is not difficult to find the answer to this question. The Bible declares that God's love is revealed in the fact that God gave His Son to die for mankind (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9,10). How can we understand & appreciate the wonder of that love if we fail to discern the IDENTITY of the One Who was sent? If we fail to grasp the value of the gift that was given & what it cost God to give it? It is only as we understand Christ's IDENTITY that we shall love God as we should (1 John 4:19). Therefore our love for God & our victory over sin are linked to the truth that Jesus IS the Son of God. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5)?" No wonder the devil hates this truth!
What is difficult to understand is why Christians should so determinedly oppose the plainest statements of the word of God. WHY SHOULD PERSONS WHO CLAIM TO LOVE GOD & TO DESIRE HIS GLORY SO STUBBORNLY OPPOSE THE ONE TRUTH WHICH REVEALS THE LOVE OF GOD MORE FULLY THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE? This truly is a mystery almost as great as the so-called Trinity!
Hundreds of years ago during the fourth century AD the spirit of compromise, the desire for worldly popularity combined with the influence of paganism, brought the doctrine of the trinity into the Christian faith. Since that time it has become so deeply ingrained into the traditions of Christendom that it has become the foundation doctrine of MOST Christian denominations & it is considered blasphemy to speak against it, but why do Christian men & women cling so tenaciously to the error? Why, in the light of the plain statements of Scripture, do they continue to embrace a Trinitarian God? The answer is popularity. No church will be accepted today (this has been true for the past 1500 years) unless it professes belief in the trinity. A denial of the trinity will result in a church instantly receiving the label of CULT. Therefore, this doctrine which is entirely founded upon the TRADITIONS of men rather than the word of God has risen to such universal prominence that when one simply expresses the Biblical truth that Jesus is the Son of God, he is accused of heresy.

THE APOSTLE'S TESTIMONY Did the apostles believe in a trinity? Apart from the books of Luke & Acts the entire New Testament was written by men who had been personally taught by the Lord Jesus. Even the apostle Paul, though he never knew Jesus personally while He was on earth testifies that he was taught personally by Christ (Galatians 1:11,12). Did Jesus reveal a Trinitarian God to these apostles? Did He teach them this doctrine which was so radically different from the Old Testament concept of God? If He did, why didn't they proclaim it as forcefully & as clearly as they proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God? Why is it that this doctrine "is not EXPLICITLY TAUGHT in the New Testament (Encarta Britannica)" but is rather "INFERRED" from certain passages? Is this the way that God reveals important truths? Merely giving HINTS & leaving us to FORMULATE our conclusions? Why is it that the statements of the New Testament consistently declare that there is only ONE GOD & that this one God is the Father (1 Cor. 8:4-6; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6)? Didn't these apostles know the truth about God? How can we conclude that their writings suggest that God is a Trinity when they themselves proclaimed Him to be an INDIVIDUAL? Do we have the contradictory situation where Christ's appointed depositories of His truth HINTED that God was a Trinity, but DECLARED that He was a single Person? Why would they do this? Is it that they were suggesting something which they weren't sure of & which they left to later generations of "theologians" to properly work out? DO YOU SEE HOW CLEARLY THIS FITS INTO THE TEACHINGS & PRINCIPLES OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM? The Roman Church teaches that the revelations of the Scriptures are NOT a complete revelation, sufficient to reveal the way of salvation. They claim that the TRADITIONS & teachings of the "church" are a continuing source of revelation & therefore, they take the position that the teachings of the church are ABOVE the Bible. For them, it does not pose a problem that the Trinity is NOT taught in the Bible. It is enough that the Church accepted the doctrine & that for many centuries it has been a teaching of the Church. This for a Roman Catholic is enough to make the doctrine truth. Protestants, however, insist that the Bible contains all the truth which is necessary for salvation, hence the protestant principle of "sola Scriptura," (The Bible only). When Protestants take the position that a doctrine which is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures, but was developed gradually during the years subsequent to the time of Christ & the apostles, is to be accepted as truth, this is a dangerous precedent. In taking this position they have stepped onto the ground of Roman Catholicism & have thereby opened the door to the acceptance of all the other unscriptural & even anti-scriptural teachings of Rome, particularly in light of the fact that Rome herself boasts that the trinity doctrine is the very foundation of all her other teachings and dogma.
Jesus Christ was the first born of every creature the moment the Father spoke, not created, or "made". When it says that Jesus Christ is the creator of all things, that is Paul stating quite clearly that Jesus Christ is God. He cannot be both creator and created. Understand this simple observation and the Gospel will become much clearer to you. If he's from everlasting, then that means that his existence cannot be defined by time. When it says he is the alpha and omega, it simply means that he has no beginning or end, as his existence goes back into eternity. At no point is anything else in existence spoken of in this manner but God himself, because Jesus Christ is not a created being. This is why nothing in existence can claim to be begotten of the Father. As John said, he was God from the very beginning as "the word", the actionable aspect of the Father, who manifested himself in the flesh as his son. When the Father in heaven speaks, that speech, which came directly from the father, is Jesus in action. One cannot be separated from the other. Two plus two does not equal six.
 

Thorwald

Member
Apr 7, 2011
81
1
8
74
Thunder Bay
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Airaux said:
I've spent many years with people of many denominations - trinitarians and unitarians - desperately trying to establish the biblical stance of many issues and am still uncertain.
Would anyone like to discuss the nature of Christ from a scriptural point of view?
Airaux said:
I've spent many years with people of many denominations - trinitarians and unitarians - desperately trying to establish the biblical stance of many issues and am still uncertain.
Would anyone like to discuss the nature of Christ from a scriptural point of view?
Isaiah 44:6: Thus saith the King of Israel, and His redeemer, The Lord of Hosts, "I am the first and I am the last and beside me, there is no god."
 

Dcopymope

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2016
2,650
800
113
36
Motor City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thorwald said:
Isaiah 44:6: Thus saith the King of Israel, and His redeemer, The Lord of Hosts, "I am the first and I am the last and beside me, there is no god."
Which is also why it is stated that beside God there is no savior. Man cannot redeem itself and save itself from the wrath of God. So, as reason dictates, it means that under that meat suit of the man named Jesus was " the word" itself, who always was God from time everlasting.
 

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
0bed said:
Jesus is God with us in the flesh:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa 9:6)
I dont remember Jesus having a government on His shoulders.
 

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
who was Jesus praying to all the time?

if Jesus was the Lord Most High, why would Satan try and tempt Him. the Most High is over all things so who was he trying to turn Him from? the Father would never bow down to Satan, we know that, Satan is smarter than us, he would know this as well.