An honest inquiry into the nature of Christology by a Trinitarian

[Brakelite]

@civic @dizerner @Johann

"Today, I have begotten you".

This scripture proves that the WORD was not the Son in Eternity BEFORE Genesis.

"The WORD was Elohim" = this is our Beginning to understanding

David. God says that He sent His only begotten Son into the world. The logical and obvious conclusion one must make is that God had a Son to send

 

[Brakelite]

For Athanasius, Jesus could not be lesser than the Father in any way; Jesus had to be of the same substance and of the same eternity. Thus, the addition of the word, “eternally” to “begotten.” Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, but he has also always existed with (and as) God. He is as eternal as the Father.

Then He cannot be Son.

Are you a Adventist?

Yes. Although I have issues with the official Adventist position on the Godhead.

 

[DavidTree]

David. God says that He sent His only begotten Son into the world. The logical and obvious conclusion one must make is that God had a Son to send

Something to dwell on Revelation 13:8

"All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

What was HE BEFORE = from Eternity Past = BEFORE there ever was a world???

For one, we know this: "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with Elohim and the Word was Elohim."

How does Revelation SEE things?

 

[civic]

Then He cannot be Son.

Yes. Although I have issues with the official Adventist position on the Godhead.

Son doesn’t mean less that in the Trinity.

Is your wife less human than you?

 

[GeneZ]

Instead of human conjecture(which has it's place), how about 1st going to our FATHERS words on the matter?

So far, no one has acknowledged and accepted what the LORD said.

Once again, we only see a continual human explanation that "Adam was next to Eve" when she was deceived but when compared to the scriptures
that account is rebuffed by the LORD and the Apostle Paul.

​

1 Timothy 2:13-14

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."​

So.. it looks like Adam (who was not deceived) did not know what fruit he was being handed?
He simply walked onto the scene after the fact and thought she was simply offering him a fruit to eat?

Adam was tricked, and unlike Eve, had no clue as to what he was doing?

Never saw it that way before....

 

[GeneZ]

But then, Adam would be deceived by Eve if she handed him the fruit unawares.....

It says that Adam was not deceived.
In other words? He had to know what he was getting himself into when he ate....

Then, how could Adam not be deceived?
If he "overheard" Satan by having been within a earshot, and decided to eat?
He would know what he was doing was wrong.... Not deceived.

That is why in Adam all die, and not in the woman.

 

[Brakelite]

Son doesn’t mean less that in the Trinity.

Is your wife less human than you?

I agree that being the Son of the Father, doesn't make Him less God, in fact, being Son is the greatest evidence of His divinity. The evidence in scripture however does support the idea that God at some stage in eternity, brought forth His only begotten Son. He was begotten. Born... Brought forth...harmonizing with several self descriptive and explanatory texts from Jesus regarding His origins. I pointed those out in a previous post.
What's the alternative? Jesus Himself later as Creator, established a life time globally familiar concept of birth, with all the attending requisites of recognition of parental authority, and rank, yet all the while being equally human in value, rights, prerogatives, and attributes, and name, inheriting all of those and passing them on to their progeny. A custom and concept that is repeated throughout scripture in a spiritual and literal sense between God the Father, the Son, and today Christ's church.

 

[Wrangler]

the LORD has many Titles

Appeal to Diversion. You can’t answer a simple question that shows the fallacy of your doctrine.

Yes, many people have many titles but they have not one personal name. You cannot even recognize the fact that ‘God’ is a title of a Being who is named YHWH.

We are talking about the name of Jesus’ God, not the titles of either Being.

 

[praise_yeshua]

But then, Adam would be deceived by Eve if she handed him the fruit unawares.....

It says that Adam was not deceived.
In other words? He had to know what he was getting himself into when he ate....

Then, how could Adam not be deceived?
If he "overheard" Satan by having been within a earshot, and decided to eat?
He would know what he was doing was wrong.... Not deceived.

That is why in Adam all die, and not in the woman.

Adam wasn't deceived because he well knew what would happen. Eve did not. She was ignorant of the impact of her decision.

Knowledge is power.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Appeal to Diversion. You can’t answer a simple question that shows the fallacy of your doctrine.

Yes, many people have many titles but they have not one personal name. You cannot even recognize the fact that ‘God’ is a title of a Being who is named YHWH.

We are talking about the name of Jesus’ God, not the titles of either Being.

So you believe you've received advanced revelation and knowledge because you know a name of God?

 

[DavidTree]

​

1 Timothy 2:13-14

"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."​

So.. it looks like Adam (who was not deceived) did not know what fruit he was being handed?
He simply walked onto the scene after the fact and thought she was simply offering him a fruit to eat?

Adam was tricked, and unlike Eve, had no clue as to what he was doing?

Never saw it that way before....

You just lost my respect for being a mocker of the Word of Truth.

And your quote of scripture "not many of you should be teachers" applies directly to yourself.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree that being the Son of the Father, doesn't make Him less God, in fact, being Son is the greatest evidence of His divinity. The evidence in scripture however does support the idea that God at some stage in eternity, brought forth His only begotten Son. He was begotten. Born... Brought forth...harmonizing with several self descriptive and explanatory texts from Jesus regarding His origins. I pointed those out in a previous post.

Begotten applies to "when" exactly? Can you place share your conclusion as to when?

 

[DavidTree]

Adam wasn't deceived because he well knew what would happen. Eve did not. She was ignorant of the impact of her decision.

Knowledge is power.

Correct on Adam, not correct with Eve.

"And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”

 

[praise_yeshua]

Correct on Adam, not correct with Eve.

"And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”

Unbelief. Eve didn't believe what she was told. The "serpent" convinced her that there an alternative and she wanted to know.

Paul said very clearly that he sinned because he did so in the ignorance of unbelief.

 

[DavidTree]

Unbelief. Eve didn't believe what she was told. The "serpent" convinced her that there an alternative and she wanted to know.

Paul said very clearly that he sinned because he did so in the ignorance of unbelief.

Let us break Bread together = "Thy Word is Truth"

Genesis 3:6
"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it.

Contained within verse 6 we have three sixes (666)
v6 - "good for food" - introduction to 'Lust' of the flesh
v6 - "pleasing to the eyes" - introduction to 'Covetousness' from the Serpent
v6 - "desirable to obtain wisdom" - introduction to 'Pride' from the Serpent

1 John 2:16
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For all that is in the world—
the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life—
is not of the Father but is of the world.
And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

 

[civic]

I agree that being the Son of the Father, doesn't make Him less God, in fact, being Son is the greatest evidence of His divinity. The evidence in scripture however does support the idea that God at some stage in eternity, brought forth His only begotten Son.

So there was a time when there was no Son ?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Let us break Bread together = "Thy Word is Truth"

Genesis 3:6
"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it.

Contained within verse 6 we have three sixes (666)
v6 - "good for food" - introduction to 'Lust' of the flesh
v6 - "pleasing to the eyes" - introduction to 'Covetousness' from the Serpent
v6 - "desirable to obtain wisdom" - introduction to 'Pride' from the Serpent

1 John 2:16
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
For all that is in the world—
the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life—
is not of the Father but is of the world.
And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

I don't see evidence that contradicts what I've said.

I hold the position that Adam and Eve were both peccable (not Divine). As such, their character was capable of sin. Innocent but capable of choosing sin.

 

[DavidTree]

I don't see evidence that contradicts what I've said.

I hold the position that Adam and Eve were both peccable (not Divine). As such, their character was capable of sin. Innocent but capable of choosing sin.

I hold the position that Adam and Eve were both peccable

Your statement is 100% TRUE and was never the topic, nor was it ever disputed.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your statement is 100% TRUE and was never the topic, nor was it ever disputed.

Then you should be able to accept that unbelief is what caused Eve to be deceived. You're insisting that she knew what would happen. She didn't. There is no reason to believe she did.

Adam knew what would happen.

added - 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

[praise_yeshua]

mistake posting a duplicate
....