Diserner
Well-known member
That's a good way of putting it.
Defective Christology
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
That's a good way of putting it.
Brakelite
Active member
Yes, such as in the Catholic version of the trinity in saying the Son is being eternally begotten in an ongoing process. I forget the actual wording, but it over complicates a simple biblical concept... Begetting.
In other words, it's merely metaphorical?
KJV 1 John 4:9-10, 14-15
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in
God.
John wrote the gospel and his letters in order to refute heretical concepts creeping into the church, denying the literal Father and Son concept. There are about a dozen more verses in John's letters that exalt the Father and the Son, particularly in the context of the Father sending His Son into the world. He didn't send some other member of the trinity... What was that member before becoming a son... In order to become a son.
The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.
The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 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 [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
civic
Well-known member
I said relationally since they are eternal . God has no beginning. The Son is God in every way the Father is God. They share the same exact attributes as God. There was no time when the Son was not in existence. He is Eternal in the same way the Father is Eternal without beginning.
civic
Well-known member
MONOGENÊS
BAGD: "In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).
Louw & Nida: "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'"
Moulton & Milligan: "Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'"
Grimm/Thayer: "Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").
NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."
Newman: "Unique, only."
LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).
TDNT: defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:
hope this helps !!!
BAGD: "In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).
Louw & Nida: "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'"
Moulton & Milligan: "Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'"
Grimm/Thayer: "Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").
NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."
Newman: "Unique, only."
LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).
TDNT: defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:
hope this helps !!!
Diserner
Well-known member
It's logical order rather than temporal.
Like the way 2+2=4 does not happen within time, yet it has internal dependencies of one thing leading to another logically.
Rockson
Well-known member
I totally believe this theologically.....but trying to envision this is like trying to comprehend infinity. It sure does make the mind go tilt.
civic
Well-known member
There is nothing greater to the mind then contemplating our Glorious God. I can't wait until we are on the other side of Glory to see with our eyes and our faith is fully realized/complete. When faith and hope are done away with and there is only Love. The greatest of them all.
101G
Well-known member
101G read the previous posts also. "the Son, eternal like his Father?"... nonsense. the problem many think and believe that Father and Son are carnal .... like us Human. ERROR, Son here in God's Title simply means "character", or "characteristics". Vines's definition clearly states, "SON", [ 1,,G5207, huios ] primarily signifies the relation of offspring to parent (See John 9:18-John 9:20; Gal 4:30. It is often used metaphorically of prominent moral characteristics (See below). It is used in the NT of (a) male offspring, Gal 4:30; (b) legitimate, as opposed to illegitimate offspring, Heb 12:8; (c) descendants, without reference to sex, Rom 9:27; (d) friends attending a wedding, Matt 9:15; (e) those who enjoy certain privileges, Acts 3:25; (f) those who act in a certain way, whether evil, Matt 23:31, or good, Gal 3:7; (g) those who manifest a certain character, whether evil, Acts 13:10; Eph 2:2, or good, Luke 6:35; Acts 4:36; Rom 8:14; (h) the destiny that corresponds with the character, whether evil, Matt 23:15; John 17:12; 2Thess 2:3, or good, Luke 20:36; (i) the dignity of the relationship with God whereinto men are brought by the Holy Spirit when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom 8:19; Gal 3:26. ...
and this is backed up by scripture. Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
here "Express IMAGE" of his person means the exact same character or person as the ECHAD of the same one person.
Express Image means:
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image
BINGO, there it is in definition #3, "character", the Lord Jesus is "GOD" Almighty manifested in Flesh.
the Titles "Son" and "Father", express the "character" of God in and out of Flesh, of the ONE person in the ECHAD of God.
101G.
Brakelite
Active member
So what you are saying is that in order to execute the plan of salvation, the 3 members of the trinity, all coequal, coeternal, chose to take on roles? One the role of father, another the role of son, the third, the role of spirit? Okay, they were all spirit, but you know what I mean. They were play acting these roles in order for humans to better appropriate the gospel. Right? In other words, they were all pretending to be something they aren't. Except the holy Spirit.
And then they even inspired John to write things like this...
KJV 1 John 2:22-25
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life....
KJV 1 John 4:14-15
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
And then the Father told Jesus to say...
KJV John 17:3
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
But they're not a father and son at all according to you. They're just actors in a grand play and we are merely following the script, is that right? But we aren't following the script at all. The true script is mystical... Metaphorical... Not at all they way it reads, no, it's real spiritual understanding is hidden?
You aren't the first and only person claiming and believing the above.
civic
Well-known member
yes it is oneness/modalism.
There is I think a sense in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each-other... In that they are interchangeable in description.. such as in Revelation. And together they are one being, God.
But they are still distinct. Not sock puppets. Jesus talking to the Father isn't Jesus talking to Himself.
But they are still distinct. Not sock puppets. Jesus talking to the Father isn't Jesus talking to Himself.
civic
Well-known member
Yes one in nature, essence , being , attributes yet distinct from each other as “ persons “.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Sure...if the divine attributes, omnipotence, omniscience etc, of three divine people form a UNITY such that it is correct to call that unity ONE GOD, it is wrong to call them three gods.
101G
Well-known member
GINOLJC, to all.
first there is no three members. get that nonsense out of your head. God is an ECHAD of himself in flesh.
second, there is no role playing, that's modalism, which is the reverse of trinitarianism, another false doctrine.
the only one who have eternal LIFE is "JESUS", the Lord. 1 Timothy 6:14 "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:" 1 Timothy 6:15 "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;" 1 Timothy 6:16 "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."
now is King of kings, and Lord of lords? answer, Revelation 19:11 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war." Revelation 19:12 "His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself." Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God." Revelation 19:14 "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean." Revelation 19:15 "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Revelation 19:16 "And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."
Saviour of the world? Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" two persons here? Great "God" and "our Saviour Jesus Christ" is not our Saviour Jesus Christ is the Great God? Titus 3:4 "But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,"
if JESUS is not the Gret God then one has two Gods.
father and son how? biologically NO. ...... (smile).
no...... (smile).
spiritual understanding is hidden? did not 101G say God is an ECHAD of himself..... anything else is a LIE. now if you have any mystical... Metaphorical. or some kind of other spiritual understanding that is hidden, please put it on the table for examination.
101G.
Our Lord as ECHAD long before HIS appearance as a man... so what was unified in Moses's day???
101G
Well-known member
NOTHING, in Moses days, nor Isaiah days either, they all foretold of his coming. only visions and the similitude of him.
101G.
Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ECHAD.
GEN 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be UNITED to his wife, and they will become ECHAD flesh.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Who said anything about three Gods?
