Trinity Questions

Hi sscot,

I am going through similar study right now.
I can see your questions are more about the deity of Jesus, than the trinity itself.
I don't have all the asnwers that you are asking, but I can humbly suggest you some solid food for meditation, that I came through:

[url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/trinity/files/trinity.html]An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity[/url] by Jonathan Edwards
[url=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/trinity.v.html]The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Explained and Vindicated[/url] by John Owen
[url=http://www.heavendwellers.com/hdt_chapter_4_koh.htm]The Holy Trinity[/url] by A.W.Tozer

I read somewhere, and I think it is good thing to have in our minds:
[b]"If you try to explain the trinity you will lost your mind, but if you deny it you will lost your soul"[/b]

So..we live because of Jesus and Jesus lives because of the Father. So without Jesus we don't live and without the Father Jesus does not live?

More I read Gospel Of John more I can see the greatness and the mistery of this holy relation - The Son of God and the Father. But not a mistery that throws me in confusion, but the one that gives me peace and freedom.

You said:

I don't like the idea of just telling people "it's a mystery but you have to believe it"

Talking with Muslims, JW's, Mormons and non-believers, I think we cannot explain them the spiritual things, they can understand this only if the Spirit reveals to them, and Christ open their spiritual eyes, otherwise they are blind spiritually. Paul says:

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now [b]we have received,[/b] not the spirit of the world, [b]but the spirit which is of God;[/b] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, [b]not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [/b]
1Co 2:14 But [b]the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:[/b] for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, [b]because they are spiritually discerned.[/b]
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Only Christ through faith can open our hearts to know Him who He is truly:

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and [b]slow of heart to believe[/b] all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [b]he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.[/b]
Luk 24:31 [b]And their eyes were opened, and they knew him;[/b] and he vanished out of their sight.

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this [b]mystery among the Gentiles;[/b] [u]which is Christ in you,[/u] the hope of glory:

I am blessed reading the Gospel of John recently.

Forgive me for not answering directly your questions, But I will also wait someone else to contribute here, and this to be fruitful discussion and for the benefit of the Body.

God bless you,
Kire

Brother Sean,

Be patient and feed on the word of God. Find Jesus in the OT.

Prov. 9:10 \t“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
\tAnd the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

The Holy One, who served as Priest of the Most High God according to the order of Melchizedeck has ministered before the foundation of this world. Before Adam was created, the Holy One reigned over creation. The Seed of the woman is salvation.

When you find the Holy One in the OT you will begin to see the Trinity as Scripture reveals Him. And knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

In Christ
Jeff

A little food for thought.

Hebrews 1v8-9, 'But to the Son He says "Your throne O God, is forever and ever, a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom".

vs9 "You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You, with the oil of gladness more than Your companions".

Here, God is calling Jesus God, one and the same.

Also consider, God is Spirit, John 4v24. Jesus was flesh and blood, God in the flesh.

At Jesus' baptism, Father, Son and Holy Spirit were present. The Father's voice, Jesus Himself, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Three, yet one.

No doubt, there is more thought and input for this subject. That's it for me.

God bless.

The Trinity is a false and man-made doctrine.

In the name of Christ,
Blake

There has been much discussion on this previously. Here's a few of the threads that you may find helpful in this matter...

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=7893&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Godhead[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1462&forum=23&post_id=&refresh=Go]Attributes of God-Tozer[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=7805&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Trinity debate[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12831&forum=35#99386]Unity of the Trinity[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=1783&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Should we believe the Trinity[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=12039&forum=34#93448]That they may be One[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=6505&forum=40&post_id=&refresh=Go]History of the Trinity[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=5951&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Trinity[/url]

In Christ,

Ron

So Blake..how do you understand God?

(Note: All scripture references taken from NAS)

Explaining the depths of God in this area is complex and abstract. How should we who are but limited beings understand a God of unlimited possibilities? In this discussion, you must remember that we can only understand God in metaphor, and though I may present words and ideas, they are insufficient for explaining this entirely. Though this is true, we can come to an understanding of God as given through the testimonies of those who have known Him. I will make an attempt to explain, and pray that the Lord might grant you understanding. Truth can only come through Him.

Before there was anything, there was God. In our earthly minds, we like to think of this as a time. I myself imagine it as the point before creation. In truth, however, this is outside of time. This is neither before nor after. It is both current and past. However, in order to explain it in terms that we might understand, I will say, “before.”

Before God created anything, before reality and existence as we know it, there was God and only God. All things were possible for God. There was no rules or reality. There was nothing but God and only God. By this, we can easily say, “God is.” The sentence is finished. There is nothing else.

As we know, God has passions and desires. He has a heart. He has a will. God has a mind with thoughts, plans, and purposes. Think for a minute of your own imagination. Almost anything is possible. As humans, our imaginations are limited. However, the imagination of God is unlimited. He can dream anything. Quite obviously, whatever you imagine is not real. It is just in your head and heart. Your dreams are yours alone. If you wished to share them, they would need to be expressed.

In the heart of God, He had an immense desire to share, express, and create. This was His desire. He chose this. Unlike God, this desire in us comes from being created in His image. However, God chose this desire in Himself. He wanted to give. And so He did.

In order to create, He first had to establish the most important thing of all. He had to first establish Himself. Who is God? Unlike you and I, God chose His own being. He chose His own person. All things are possible for God. Though this is true, God chose to be God. This means, God limited Himself to a particular nature and being.

In your own imagination, you have the ability to imagine whatever you want to be. You can imagine that you are a bird flying through the air. You could even imagine you are God. However, does this mean it is true? God had developed a sense of Himself in His heart. He set forth His will, as we might say. In His heart He knew who He was. However, in order for this to become a reality it would need to be expressed. At this point, God brought forth His Word. God spoke.

God’s Word is the perfect expression of God’s Will. The heart and mind of God are limitless. However, the Word of God obeys God’s Will exactly. The Word of God is the perfect expression of God’s person. The Word of God is the form of God.

This truth is explained in countless ways in the bible. In Genesis 1, the very first thing God does is speak saying, “Let there be Light.” When reviewing this chapter, we quickly realize that God is not speaking of physical light. The second thing God says brings about the creation of Heaven. The third brings about earth. The fourth brings about physical light. When God says, “Let there be Light,” God has brought forth His Word. The Word of God is the basis for all things.

The word “Light” here is a perfect way of describing the role of God’s Word at this point. Light provides shape and identity. When light hits a surface, the surface is given shape and form in our eyes. What was once dark becomes apparent. The universe was given shape and identity by God through His Word. It was given form and reality. In addition, we see a particular wisdom governing all things. God is not a god of confusion, but a God of order.

This idea of God’s Word being filled with wisdom is spoken of in Proverbs 8 where we also gain insight to this beginning. In Proverbs 8, it begins by speaking of Wisdom as a person. As we read, we discover that Wisdom is “better than jewels, And all desirable thing cannot compare with her.” In addition, we discover salvation comes through Wisdom. It says in verse 35, Wisdom says “For he who finds me finds life And obtains favor from the Lord.” In verse 22, we learn of the origin of Wisdom. “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established…” Wisdom spoken of in this verse is the same “Light” spoken of in Genesis 1.

In the New Testament, the apostle John makes the connection between the Word, the Son, and the Light. We read in the first verse, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.”

After knowing the above, we can now begin to understand the meaning of this scripture. God, who is greater than all things, brought forth His Word at the beginning to be the basis for all things. In my mind, I picture God sitting silently. He has many thoughts and desires that need to come to pass. His Word is with Him. His Word is in His heart and mind. He then speaks, and His Word goes forth doing the Will of God exactly. All things come into being by His Word. In other words, all things have been given a reality by light of God.

Another way we might understand all this relationship is by comparing it to a Father and Son. God the Father brought forth a Son. The Son is the perfect representation of the Father. The Son obeys the Father precisely. The Son shares everything with the Father; however, the Father will always be greater.

The danger of solely describing this relationship as Father and Son is that false doctrines such as the trinity arise. When we describe God and His Word as Father and Son, we are tempted to say they are two persons. We think of a Father as one person, and the Son as another person. This is entirely false. They are not two persons, but one person. God is one. God’s Word is the expression of God’s Will. They are one just as you are one individual and person with both a mind and voice. The bible, as shown above, describes this relationship in various ways. Let us continue to look at these.

In Colossians 1:15 Paul says, “He is the image of the invisible God…” We see here Paul continues with these concepts of light and word. An image needs light to be seen. The Son is the Light. The Son portrays perfectly the Father. He is the image of God. Additionally, the Word of God expresses the Will of God. An image is an expression. When light hits a substance, it reflects and enters our eyes. In our mind, we see an image expressing the reality of something in space and time.

Paul continues in this verse by saying, “the firstborn of all creation.” If you recall, the first thing God said was “Let there be light.” Later in Proverbs 8, we read that Wisdom was brought forth first before all things. When God set forth to create the heaven and earth, He had to first establish the basis of all things. You might say God had to setup the rules. What is good? What is pleasing to the Father? God first established what good is. He first gave birth to a Son who was pleasing in His sight. This Son is the basis for all creation. Paul establishes this truth by saying in verse 17, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”

The Son is the perfect expression of the Father. Again, this continued in the book of Hebrews in verse 1:3, “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.” The Word of God represents God exactly.

The Word of God is the form of God. Paul says in Philippians 2:6, “although He existed in the form of God.” God is greater than all things with unlimited possibility. By this, He cannot be limited by a form. Forms have boundaries and properties that become obvious when struck by light. They have characteristics unique to their being. Thus, God gave birth to a son who is the form of God. Another way to picture this is to consider your own body. Internally, you have a spirit that allows you to think and feel. This spirit is expressed in the form of your body. They are not two different or distinct beings. They are one being. Likewise, the Word of God is the form of God. The Father’s perfect being is expressed in His Son.

At this point, some might be tempted to say that this proves the Son 1) was created and 2) was not God. The Son was not created. All things were created by God through the Son. However, the Son was brought forth. God gave birth to a Son. What this implies is that the very being of God has been implanted into the Son. The Son has always existed with God for all eternity. However, the Son was with God in the beginning. It is like speaking in your head. Your words do not become a reality until they are spoken. However, your words can reside in your mind. Likewise, the Word was with God. The Word was God. And then, before anything else was created, the Word was spoken. It came forth. It brought light to darkness and God saw that it was good.

The relationship between Father and Son is unique, unlike anything we have encountered on earth. They are not two separate entities or beings. They are one. The only distinction made between the two is in the throne. This truth was highlighted in scripture through Joseph. The Pharaoh elected Joseph to manage all his affairs. He said to Joseph as recorded in Genesis 41:40 " You shall be over my house, and according to your command all my people shall do homage; only in the throne I will be greater than you." The Father is only greater than the Son in the throne. This means they are equal in all ways, except one: The Father is greater. John 14:28 "…for the Father is greater than I.”

Unlike humans, however, the Son is without error. The Son is the perfect expression of the Father. The Son does not act independently. Rather, the Son does what the Father tells Him. In John 12:49, Jesus is recorded as saying, “For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.”

God, the Father, and the Word of God, the Son, are one. In our limited human minds, we cannot fully grasp or understand this oneness. If they were one and the same, there would be no distinction whatsoever. However, a distinction has been made. Christ clearly identified having a Father whom was greater than He. At the same time, Christ established this unity by saying as it is recorded in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." How is it they are one? How should we understand this connection and relationship?

Before we can really continue, we must have an understanding of the Spirit and the Incarnation.

In John 4:24, Jesus is recorded as saying, “God is Spirit.” There very substance of God is Spirit. This is the stuff of God. Human beings are made of flesh. God is Spirit.

As we know, there are many spirits besides for God. The bible indicates that humans have a spirit. Job 32:8 says, "But it is a spirit in man…” King David said in Psalms 31:5, “Into Your hand I commit my spirit;” In addition, there are other spirits. In 1 Kings 22:21, it says "Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD…” Some of these spirits are unclean. Mark 1:26 says, “Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him.”

Spirit is the substance of God. The form of God is His Spirit. The Spirit proceeds out of the mouth of God, and is often referred to in the bible as His breath. The breath of God gives life and is the provider of life. This is also evident throughout scripture. What is not quite so evident is that all spirit is from God. In Job 34:14-15 we realize this truth when Job says, “If He should determine * to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.”

Spirit is the substance of God and He gives it in measure to give life. As we know, there are many different spirits. However, there is only one Holy Spirit. We call this Spirit Holy, because of all spirits; this Spirit has been designated as sacred. This is God’s Spirit. Though all Spirit belongs to God and is of His substance, only the Holy Spirit bears His person.

Spirit is given by God and taken away by God. He chooses whom to give the measure of His Spirit. In order to be a Spiritual being, God must give you a spirit. As beings of flesh, we are not a spirit. We have spirit, but we are not a spirit. In order to understand this, let us turn to the bible.

In Genesis 2:7, it says, “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man became a living being.” We see here that God formed man of the dust of the ground. In other words, He took matter and energy to create our physical form or body. He created for us a body. Then, God breathed life into us by the way of His Spirit. We have life because the Spirit of God sustains us. The Spirit gives us a life. As such, we have a spirit. However, we are not a spirit. Together, the combination of spirit and body, came the birth of a “living being.” The Hebrew word used here is “Nephesh.” In our modern day language, we have many different words that correlate to the Nephesh. This Hebrew word can be translated: soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, and passion. For the Hebrews, however, there was no confusion. There was one word that represented a soul. A soul was the combination of earthly dust and God’s breath. This formed a soul.

The importance of this comes in life and death. When God withdraws His breath from the body, the soul dies. In modern day, we see this come about as people age. As God’s breath slowly recedes from flesh, it decays and dies. When the breath of God leaves the body, the soul is dead. The bible speaks of both living and dead souls. Leviticus 21:1, Leviticus 21:1, Numbers 5:2, Numbers 6:6, Numbers 6:1, Numbers 9:6, Numbers 9:7, Numbers 9:10, and Ezekiel 44:25 all speak of dead “Nephesh” (translated “person” in NAS).

Since man is not a spirit, but merely flesh, we can die. Other spiritual beings, such as angels and demons cannot die. Hell was created as a place to hold demons eternally in punishment. They are immortal beings. Hell, thus, needs to be eternal to hold them eternally. Of course, they are tortured in Hell for lies and murder.

Humans, however, are fleshly souls dependent on God’s Spirit to have life. Without God’s spirit giving life, we die. We become nothing more than dust. This is illustrated in Genesis 6:3 “Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’ The word “strive” used here is the Hebrew word “Diyn” which means “to judge, contend, plead.” As we live and age, the Spirit of God is judging us for our sin and pleading with us that we should turn from our sin. We live because of God’s grace. If God did not show mercy, our death would be instant. However, because God is contending with us, we are given a short time to live. This scripture clearly indicates it will not be longer than 120 years.

In the beginning, God had created Adam and Eve. They were made of flesh. At the time of creation, the flesh was under complete subjection to man and God. As we know, however, God gave dominion of the earth and all its hosts to Adam and Eve. They were to be God’s designated authority over the earth including all flesh. They were to rule and maintain God’s representational authority. They were to care for the earth as God cared for them. However, when they sinned, they were separated from God, and they lost authority over the flesh.

All authority comes from God. We have no authority apart from God. While we under God’s authority, we too had authority. While Adam and Eve served God in the garden, all of earth obeyed their command. They had complete rule and authority. However, when they rebelled against God, they were no longer under God’s authority. Instead, they became an enemy of God. As such, they also lost authority over earth. While we do have some authority in that we can push dirt around with our hands, we are also slaves to the flesh. When Adam and Eve sinned, since we were no longer under God’s rule, the flesh also was no longer under God’s rule. This should be quite apparent in animals. They are made of flesh just the same, and their flesh is selfish. Though we train dogs as our pets, and think that they obey us, at any moment they can turn and cause immense harm.

The flesh was to be sustained by God through His Spirit. The Spirit gives life, and it was the Spirit of God that was supposed to give life to the flesh. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, the flesh was no longer under God’s subjection. Without God’s authority, we could not maintain subjection. This is our story. We attempt to be God on earth. We try to bring all things under our dominion and subjection. We do so by force, pushing and manipulating the earth and it’s hosts. We even try to maintain self-control. However, we fail and sin. We have missed the mark. We are not God who gives out of love. We are instruments of evil succumb to the Devil and our flesh.

How does all this relate to the Son of God?

The Holy Spirit conceived a Son in the womb of Mary. The father of this Son is God. The mother of this Son is Mary. The Word of God who lived in Heaven, came down to earth, and was born as a human in flesh.

Jesus Christ was born as a man in the flesh just like you or I. However, unlike you or I, Jesus was born of the Spirit from birth. As said above, man has a spirit but is not a spirit. When we were created, we were created of flesh. We have a spirit, but we are not a spirit. We are flesh. We need the flesh to have a soul. Our soul is dependent on our fleshly body to have a being. If our body dies, our spirit returns to God and we are a dead soul.

Jesus Christ, however, was born a spirit. Christ clearly made this distinction as recorded in John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Jesus was not born only in the flesh like the first Adam. Rather, Jesus was born in both flesh and spirit. Jesus was a “Nepesh”, a soul. Jesus was also a Spirit.

Christ was born in the flesh. Because of this, He could be tempted. The flesh, as shown above, was not under the authority of God. And so, because of this, Christ struggled in the flesh. His Spirit which had all authority and rule battled against His flesh which did not serve God. However, because Jesus is God, He was victorious. The flesh, though it tempted Him, could not cause Him to fall.

Christ was born in the Spirit. Christ was a spirit. Because of this, death could not hold Him. When He died, death could not keep Him in the grave. Christ was not only flesh. He was a Spirit. And so, when Christ died, He ascended to Paradise where He waited for three days until His resurrection.

Upon His resurrection, Christ was given a new spiritual body. The old fleshly body, which was no longer under the rule of God, was cast off. And so, Christ was given a new spiritual body that was completely under the rule of God. This means that Christ was no longer tempted. He was a new creation throughout. He could walk the earth and reign as King.

Along with this, it is important to recognize that the Spirit of Christ, His Spirit is the Holy Spirit. This is how Christ is both God and man. When Christ came to earth, He lived in both flesh and Spirit. The Spirit inside of Him was the Holy Spirit. The flesh, as we know, battled against His Spirit.

This is quite apparent by the words of John the Baptist. In John 3:34 (KJ) “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” The Holy Spirit was upon Jesus without measure. There was no limit. All other spirits and lives have the spirit upon them with measure. Because of this, the very words that proceeded from the mouth of Jesus were the words of God. Jesus was God incarnate. His Spirit was the Holy Spirit.

As told above, man was created in flesh. We have life, but are not a spirit. Jesus, however, was a spirit. Not only this, but all life was in Christ. The Holy Spirit was upon Christ without measure. If we return to John 1:4, it says, “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”

We were created in the image of God. I am sure you know this statement well. However, what many don’t understand is the meaning of this verse. We were created IN the image of God. We were NOT created to be the image of God. Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Word of God, IS the image of God. We were created in HIS image. We were created in the image of Christ. (Remember Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God.”)

We were to be a reflection of Christ. Jesus Christ is the light, and we were created to reflect that light. An excellent illustration of this is the moon and the sun. The sun shines and gives light so that all life on earth might exist and have form. At night, the moon reflects the light of the sun. The moon is beautiful in the night sky when it is full and illuminated because of the sunlight. However, without the sun, the moon is just a ball of dust. There is no life on the moon. It is nothing. The sun makes the moon what it is. Without Christ, the true Light, we are but dust. We are flesh.

Our light shines because it comes from the Son of God. John 5:26 says, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;” The father has bestowed life upon His Son so that all things might have life through Him. However, when we sinned we were separated from the Son. We were no longer clothed in the light. We were naked. We were exposed for the dust we are, and so we hid.

As a result of this separation, we have suffered death and decay. Our lives have been shortened and limited. We live in amidst God’s judgment where He quarrels with us.

Christ, however, came to earth to redeem and save us. He came to claim authority over all of us. Indeed, He came to claim lost Israel, but God did not merely lose Israel. He lost all mankind the moment we sinned. He so desires to bring us all back to Him. And so, whoever believes in Christ, the Word of God, may be redeemed. In John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

If we believe in Christ, we may be born again. We are born in the flesh. As said above, flesh is not spirit. We are not born a spirit. We have the spirit of life in us, but we are not a spirit. However, when we are born again, we are born a spirit. Christ clearly made this distinction as recorded in John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Before we were only flesh, after we are a spirit and flesh. In Paul says, “1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, ‘The first MAN , Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

This transformation happens on a spiritual level. We cannot see this birth in action. We can only see the results of it happening in a person. We do not fully understand it, but we know it happens by experiencing the change inside. Because we now have a spirit, we can now live on past death just as Christ did. We will ascend to Heaven upon our death. In addition, we will be raised and given a new spiritual body. But until that last day, we live in both flesh and Spirit. Like Christ before His death, we suffer the flesh and the Devil to resist. We face temptation and hardship. We struggle just as Paul describes in Romans 7.

Upon our rebirth, the Holy Spirit enters into us and we become a spirit. At this point, we have been united as one with God in Spirit. This union is essential. It is made possible by and through Christ. In John 17:11, Christ prayed, "I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.”

How is it that we should know or understand God? He is unlimited in possibilities. He is unseen and greater than all things. He is beyond our reach and grasp. His throne is above all things. We can know God, just as we know everyone else. How can we know someone else? We cannot enter their thoughts, explore their heart, or see their spirit. We learn to know someone through their words and actions, through a life of communion with them. If we are to know God, we can only know Him through His Word. The Word of God expresses God perfectly. Christ is recorded as saying in John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

The relationship between Father and Son is that of unparalleled unity. Christ does not act apart from His father. Christ obeys His father. Until Christ is commanded, He does nothing. He is nothing. His glory comes from being united as one with His father. God chose His Son to be His perfect expression and representation before the beginning of all things.

Jesus Christ is the image of God. Because of this, Christ is recorded as saying in John 14:9 “Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip ? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '”? Again, in John 12:45, Jesus is recorded as saying, "He who sees Me sees the One who sent Me.”

Jesus and the Father are one. The very name of Christ is the name of the Father. In John 17:11, Jesus says, “Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me.”

In Luke 10:22, Jesus is recorded as saying "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." And in John 5:23, Jesus is recorded as saying, “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

The important thing to realize in all this is that Christ is our all in all. The Father has bestowed all things unto Christ, and by this, we need only to seek out Christ in order to have union with the Father. We are to be one with Christ, as Christ is one with the Father. In this, we will know, honor, and love the Father.

We must be weary of any doctrine or teaching that offers distinction between Christ and the Father. It is in the distinction that evils arise. If a person does not understand that Christ is God in full and we are to surrender all to Christ, they will be lead astray. So many false religions have arisen making others, including the Father, into false Gods. They do not understand the truth where Christ says, “The only way to the Father is through me.” We can only know the Father through Christ.

In order to know God, we must come to Christ. All our prayers, worship, and love go to Christ. God has established it this way for a good reason. Jesus is the Word of God; He is the exact representation of the Father’s Will. We were created in the image of Christ, to be a reflection of God’s Word. In other words, we were created to be the bride of Christ. Together, united as one with Christ, we are complete. Only then will God be all in all.

In the name of Christ,
Blake

Blake,

I don't know. I sense there are some hints here of Sabellianism oneness. I may be wrong and totally off course here, and I am certainly not labeling you a heretic. But something just seems amiss - can't put my finger on it - with your explanations, views, theories. Especially how you keep maintaining that Jesus was a "spirit", and that there is no distinction to you (at least this was how I perceived it) between the offices of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Can you please clarify these points, and correct me? I hope I am wrong.

Humbly,

Brother Paul

I believe Blake has a JW back ground

Yes, this would certainly explain the Arian concept of Christ being a created "spirit" and coming to earth. The Russellites didn't invent anything new; they just dug up an old, previously-rejected heresy and put a few new spins on it.

Funny, how just last week I was solicited by a JW unawares. The topic of our discussion was that Jesus being "begotten" by Jehovah, meant the same as Jesus being "created" by Jehovah - Arianism. We had a gracious conversation, but neither side, of course, was won over. Her mouth was stopped, however, when I offered to delve into the Greek implications of the term [i]eternally[/i] begotten. The discussion here came to an abrupt end. Satan knows when to pull out. I didn't have to whip out all the false Watchtower prophecies to end the discussion! God is so good. The Word is truly the Sword of Truth.

Can we keep acting in love though please,

perhaps this is actually the best expression of the Trinity - that God is love.

In my personal understanding (back to the original question) I only understood the trinity as I began to witness and experience the elements of the trinity working in my life. It's not a cop-out to say that it really isn't a matter of mind but more of heart.

scott? Have you prayed about it?

Adam.

Could you explain to me "eternally begotten"?

Hi sscot,

I believe that the term "eternally begotten", though not paired together verbatim in the Bible, is clearly inferred by comparing scripture with scripture, and conducting a thorough investigation of the Greek text with the implications that arise from the terms taken in their respective contexts.

The term "begotten" in the Greek of John 1:14 indicates Jesus as the sole representive of the Being and Character of God. It does not imply the beginning of Sonship. The "begetting" in John 3:16 is irrespective of time (the "only begotten" Son of God), showing that Jesus did not become, but has always been, eternally, the Son of God in relationship. In John 1:18 "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" expresses both his eternal union with the Father and the inexpressible intimacy of loving union they both share. The Greek word for all these mentionings of "begotten" is [b]monogenes.[/b] Much of what I have written here comes straight out of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. I highly encourage you to research this word yourself, and the different implications it takes on when referring to Jesus Christ, instead of, say, the widow of Nain's son (where, for example, monogenes is translated here as simply "only").

We can go further, but this discussion will quickly morph into a study of establishing the deity of Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God - God the Son - which I am fully prepared to do, should you have any doubts. Remember, God was manifest in the flesh, seen by angels, justified in the Spirit. The mystery of God. In Jesus - God with us - the fulness of the Godhead dwells. "Before Abraham was, I AM." Jesus is God our Savior, not some created "spiritual" being.

The eternal majesty Jesus Christ shared in the bosom of the Father before the creation of time is too great a thought for me. That God would send His Eternal Son to this trashcan of rebels, forsake His dearly beloved, and bruise Him for guilty worms of dust...oh, what inexpressible bliss for men to comprehend! I put my hand to my mouth and bow my worm head to the dirt from where I was formed and confess I know nothing as I ought.

Humbly,

Brother Paul

Blake,

As I recall from a thread a couple of months ago, you expressed to Ron and I that you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, that the Bible only contains some of the words of God.

Is this still your belief, or the premise you hold your views from?

Especially how you keep maintaining that Jesus was a "spirit"

When a person is born again, they are born of the Spirit. Previously, the person was merely flesh. Afterward, the person is born as a spirit. That is why Christ was recorded as saying in John 3:6, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Quite obviously, there are people walking the earth at this moment who have experienced this rebirth. They exist in both flesh and spirit. They have been born in water which is the flesh, and in spirit which is of the Spirit.

Jesus Christ, at His birth, was born in water and spirit. This is what I mean by saying Christ was a spirit. He was born in the flesh which means He could bleed and die, but also in the Spirit which means He could perform miracles.

here is no distinction to you (at least this was how I perceived it) between the offices of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by the word "office"? What exactly are you saying by this?

In love,
Blake

Well, sscot, I thank you for the discussion. I encourage you to study the Greek for yourself. The notes I posted were directly from the New and Expanded Strong's Red-Letter Concordance (this is the good thing about posting from solid, reliable sources - no ill feelings on my part when someone disagrees).

I pray the Holy Spirit lead you into all truth, and I remain,

your friend in Christian love.

Brother Paul

I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by the word "office"? What exactly are you saying by this?

Office, meaning "role" if you will - for example, Father-Creator, Son-Redeemer, Spirit-Mentor, etc. each Person of the Triune Godhead having a certain and unique application.

Sorry for the confusion!

Brother Paul

Dear Krispy,

I wrote this by guidance of the Holy Spirit in accord with God's Will. It took me nearly 8 hours Wednesday to complete.

I believe Blake has a JW back ground, which would explain why he is still struggling with this.

I am not struggling with this. I struggled with it for a time because there was so many contradictions among people in the Church. So, I spent time praying and consulting Christ. What I have presented is the answer given to me.

This is quite contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe Jesus is the angel Michael. They believe the greatest deception created by the Devil is that Jesus is God. In fact, Jesus is merely a secondary figure in comparison to Jehovah God, the Father. They worship Jehovah believing the Father is supreme. They believe Jesus is the only way to the Father, but he is like a telephone line. He is merely the connection.

This is far from the truth. Jesus Christ is not merely the connection to God. It is Christ in whom we give all our worship, honor, praise, love, devotion, and prayers. For anyone who says differently, I can testify personally to the truth. I spent 26 years of my life believing Jesus was the Son of God and the way to the Father. I prayed to the Father every night. It was not until I prayed to Jesus that my prayers were answered and I was saved.

If you dont reveal the source, then I have to wonder what you're hiding.

Krispy, I have nothing to hide. I am merely a servant. I obey the command of my Lord.

I have not studied philosophy or theology at any university or school. I am not a well-known writer or anything of the such. I am a nobody. A little over three years ago, Christ changed my life drastically. In those three years, I have been taught and trained by no one other than Christ.

I have learned the hard way that I cannot and should not defend myself or respond in haste. If anyone chooses to question what I say, it is not my responsibility to prove or defend. God has called me to one thing: complete and total obedience. I speak when He tells me to speak, and wait on Him in all things.

Because of this, I often remain silent. If what I have offered is truly from God, then He will uphold it by His authority. If it is from me, then it will fade and become dust.

My brother, I do appreciate your eagerness to hold people accountable. If more had done this in times past, the Church would not be so far from Christ as it is now. However, I also suggest that in such instances you pray first. If God has gifted you with holding others accountable, you would be a fool to do so without His bidding.

May Christ be yours,
In love,

Blake

Yes, this would certainly explain the Arian concept of Christ being a created "spirit" and coming to earth.

Dear Paul,

Please reread the above post. It says, "The Son was not created." In addition, it quotes Proverbs 8:22-31 "The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established..."

Thank you,
Blake

Office, meaning "role" if you will - for example, Father-Creator, Son-Redeemer, Spirit-Mentor, etc. each Person of the Triune Godhead having a certain and unique application.

If it is true that "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father," as stated in Luke 10:22, then how could they each possess a different role? Would not all roles have been given to Christ?

In addition, what are we to say of this scripture where Paul speaks of Christ...

Colossians 1:16 (NAS)
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

In love,
Blake

The danger of solely describing this relationship as Father and Son is that false doctrines such as the trinity arise. When we describe God and His Word as Father and Son, we are tempted to say they are two persons. We think of a Father as one person, and the Son as another person. This is entirely false. They are not two persons, but one person. God is one.

This is the ancient heresy of Sabellianism.

God the Father brought forth a Son

And this is Arianism - the heresy that Jesus was created by God and had a beginning.

If it is true that "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father," as stated in Luke 10:22, then how could they each possess a different role?

Well, if you wrestle out this one scripture and ignore all the hundreds of others, it certainly helps fit your belief! JW's are infamous for this. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father, praying. The Holy Spirit is reproving the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. Only the Father knows the day and hour (not the Son); though God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are Three Separate Persons with different applications, all Three are One. This is evident all throughout scripture, and, admittedly, is a divine mystery. The error of Sabellianism and other cultic mindsets evolve from an effort to rationalize the mysterious union of the Triune Godhead into a box of human logic. But it can't be done! We know only in part. Great is the mystery.

Brother Paul

I prayed to the Father every night. It was not until I prayed to Jesus that my prayers were answered and I was saved.

Some cool verses

Matthew 11:10
For this is he(John the baptist) of whom it is written: ‘ Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,Who will prepare Your way before You.’

Malachi 3
1 “Behold, I send My messenger,
And he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek,
Will suddenly come to His temple,
Even the Messenger of the covenant,
In whom you delight.
Behold, He is coming,”
Says the LORD of hosts.

Heb 1
8 But to the Son He says:

“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

10 And:

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”

Isaiah 60:19
[ God the Glory of His People ] “ The sun shall no longer be your light by day, Nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you; But the LORD will be to you an everlasting light, And your God your glory.

Rev 21
22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light.

Jer 23
6 In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:

THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Did you know that the first biblical reference to 'worship' is Trinitarian?

[color=0000ff]“Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,”
(Gen 18:1-2 NKJV)[/color]

The phrase 'bowed himself' is the verb translated 'worship' in Gen 22:5 which is the first time our English bible uses the word. However the first time the Hebrew word is used is here in Gen 18.

It is a fascinating and mysterious passage. The English word 'LORD' in upper case signifies that the actual word is the proper personal name of God as revealed to the people of Israel; Jehovah.

"Jehovah appeared" in the form of three men. One God in three persons. The Bible gives no explanation but simply records with the infallible accuracy of the Holy Spirit that it was Jehovah himself who appeared simultaneously in the form of three individuals.

My reaction is the same as Abraham's! :-)

Dear Brother PaulWest,

Great is the mystery.

The Trinity is not a mystery, it is false. Anything that divides God into three parts is false. By saying God is a union of three persons, then you are saying that God is a nation of people. You are saying that God is three people united as one.

A "person" is an "individual" which is the smallest component by which something may be divided. By saying God is three persons in one, you are saying that God can be divided into three separate entities.

If this is true, then what are we to say of these scriptures:

Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Colossians 1:15
"He is the image of the invisible God"

Hebrews 1:3
"the exact representation of His nature"

John 14:9
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father;"

Philippians 2:6
"although He existed in the form of God"

As a married man, who has been united as one with another person, I would never say such things of my wife. I would never say, "If you have seen me, you have seen my wife." This speaks of something greater. Christ is the image of God. He is the face of God. No one has seen the Father, or can see the Father, except by looking upon Christ. They are not two separate people, they are one person. Christ is the visible expression of the Father who is greater than all things.

Of course, this is where many reply, "That is the great mystery of the Trinity." Such talk is mere foolishness. There is no mystery here. The Trinity was a best fit doctrine based upon a reading of the bible. It has no biblical basis whatsoever.

No where in the bible does it say God is three persons in one. No where is the word trinity used to describe God. Even the word "godhead" used in the King James bible is the greek word "Theios" which means "divinity." The Church adopted and instituted this doctrine, then imposing it upon the KJ bible.

One of the greatest threats the doctrine of the trinity imposes is this division between Father and Son. Christ never stressed His separation from the Father. Rather, He stressed continually their union.

I have encountered so many people who become confused and lead astray from God because of this doctrine. There are people who refuse to even listen to Christians because of the trinity. In their heart, they know God is one. But when they hear of the trinity where it states God is three persons, they immediately assume Christianity is false.

I have encountered Christians who become confused and fall away from Christ because they learn about the Trinity and begin to think all Christians are living in sin because they are worshiping Christ instead of the Father. I then have to take them back through a study of the book of John so they once again can see that it is Christ in whom we worship, pray, and give all our thanks. He is our Lord, there is no other.

This doctrine of the trinity that so many Christians are holding onto is not only false, but destructive. I pray that the Church will take step of faith out of the comfortable little nest created by years of academia, and once again embrace Christ in the Spirit offering her entire mind, body and soul to her Lord for His good pleasure.

If the Church is ever going to see revival, it will first have to come from rejecting everything we know, and coming face down once again to the cross of Christ. We have to surrender everything to Him, giving up everything we know, so that Christ can fill us with truth.

Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
Psalms 19:12(KJ)

I pray that the Lord raises up a new Church that worships Him in Spirit and truth. May this Church serve Him as He desires, and not by any invention of man.

In the name of Christ,
Blake

The Trinity is not a mystery, it is false. Anything that divides God into three parts is false. By saying God is a union of three persons, then you are saying that God is a nation of people. You are saying that God is three people united as one.

A "person" is an "individual" which is the smallest component by which something may be divided. By saying God is three persons in one, you are saying that God can be divided into three separate entities.

No trinitarian 'divides' God into three persons. Trinitarians 'unite' three persons in One God.

If the Church is ever going to see revival, it will first have to come from rejecting everything we know, and coming face down once again to the cross of Christ. We have to surrender everything to Him, giving up everything we know, so that Christ can fill us with truth.

“Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,”
(Gen 18:1-2 NKJV)

At first reading of this, we might think this is trinitarian. However, if we read further...

(Gen 18:22-33 NKJV)
22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord.

23 And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 So the Lord said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes." 27 Then Abraham answered and said, "Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: 28 Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?" So He said, "If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it." 29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, "Suppose there should be forty found there?" So He said, "I will not do it for the sake of forty." 30 Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." 31 And he said, "Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty." 32 Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten." 33 So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

In this passage, the men leave and Abraham is left alone with the Lord. Though there were three men, only one was the Lord in whom Abraham pleads for mercy.

---edit
Genesis 19:1 says
"Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening..."

Of the three, two were angels that left for Sodom.

In Christ,
Blake

You are inventing your own world here and your own definitions.

I can assure you I am not. This is all done in the name of my Lord, Jesus Christ. I am instrument for His use.

Please, I do not wish to argue. I have made my submission. I ask of nothing of you. I plead with Christ to make His case. If any of this has indeed come from me, then I pray it will be burned up in ashes and I be disciplined with a heavy rod. But if it has been from Christ, then I pray His will be done.

Blake

many have the same questions that you do....
one thought...the main difference in christianity from other relegions of the world is the fact that we worship one God.
you see how Catholicism has incorperated the heathen way of worship by giving there worshipers objects of affection such as saints...popes...mary etc..etc...
when witnessibng to muslims, and other relions you must keep in mind we do have only one....the one true God. and the only way to that one true God is Jesus!
the carnal mind can-not recieve the things of God. this statement is no truer then with the study of the trinity (or the Diety of Christ) to try to understand (or explain) it completley would be impossible.
keep prayin' and studying God will show you.

In this passage, the men leave and Abraham is left alone with the Lord.

I can assure you I am not. This is all done in the name of my Lord, Jesus Christ. I am instrument for His use.

I fear that in this obsession you are not God's instrument but another's.

You need not fear. Trust in Jesus, and you will see.

There is only one Lord. Jesus Christ is Lord. He is the Lord of the Old Testament, and the Lord of the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 12:3 (NKJ)
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

If indeed I was being controlled by any other spirit, then how can I say "Jesus is Lord"? However, I can say freely Jesus is Lord, because He is my Lord. He has been raised in me. I serve Him and Him alone. I have no other authority over me except for Christ alone.

Matthew 4:10(NKJ)
Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.'"

The word "only" means alone, as if there is no other. We are to serve the Lord alone. I serve Christ alone, for He is Lord.

Do you not understand that the Father is in Christ, and those who are saved, Christ is in them? It is that simple. By this, we are made one with God. Only by this, we are saved.

May Christ reveal this to you, as I cannot.

In love,
Blake

If indeed I was being controlled by any other spirit, then how can I say "Jesus is Lord"

The same way a Jehovah's Witness can say it. The same way a Mormon can say it. The same way a Romanist can say it. The same way a circumsized Judaizer can say it. Saying "Jesus is Lord" grants you no ablution from error. If that were the case, all those who say "Lord, Lord" would have nothing to fear at the judgment.

I have encountered Christians who become confused and fall away from Christ because they learn about the Trinity and begin to think all Christians are living in sin because they are worshiping Christ instead of the Father.

And, apparently, this is what has happened to you. But, make no mistake, the Trinity wasn't the cause of your falling away. It was something else. I assure you, anyone who embraces Sabellianism loses his/her unction and all the divine life and transforming purity in their ministry. We see the same thing happening with preachers who deny a literal hell. They lose all their power and beat the air as they churn out fiery yet dead homeletics. I have yet to hear of a oneness preacher whose ministry brought forth true, earth-shattering revival.

3. There are many instances in the scripture where Jesus calls the Father..His God and says the Father is greater than I. I always thought this was in reference to Jesus being a Man on earth. But you also have accounts of Jesus calling the Father His God after the resurection. He calls the Father His God when speaking to Thomas and again in Revelations. (Rev 3:12) Why is Jesus still calling the Father His God? There is also a passage that says the head of Jesus is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

4. In John 5:26 Jesus says:
26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,

Why does Jesus...the Son...need to have life within Himself granted to Him by the Father?

5. John 6:58 says:
57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.

So..we live because of Jesus and Jesus lives because of the Father. So without Jesus we don't live and without the Father Jesus does not live?

So of all that God might have revealed he has actually revealed a sub-set of information. Of his own infinite nature he has only revealed what he has chosen to reveal to the human race. There is more... much more and eternity will be too short. The reason that God has chosen to reveal what he has chosen to reveal has to do with man's creation, sin and salvation. So this subset of truth always focusses upon the relationship between the Father and the Son in terms of salvation history. There is more... much more, but this is enough for the present time.

As far as salvation history goes the nature of God is set forth in terms which are, to some degree, intelligible to human beings. He has set forth this relationship in the language of Father and Son. I have no doubt that there are other ways in which this relationship could be set forth but God has chosen to reveal himself to humankind in terms of this relationship.

Every statement we make about God has to be contradicted in the next sentence. So we say 'God is a Father' but then we have to say 'but not like any human father'. 'God is light' but then we have to add 'but not like any light we have ever seen'. Every statement has to be qualified but a degree of contradiction and yet, this revelation is a genuine communication of God to us. There is enough 'common' ground between what I understand a human father to be and the kind of being that God is to provide a bridge for understanding.

There is a sense in which the language of Father-Son is the only legitimate language for we humans to use as God has chosen to use this language in his self-revelation. However, there are other models which can be glimpsed at times and these are equally 'revealed truth' although we cannot mesh them with the idioms of Father and Son. The best known of these is 'God and the Word' which we find in John's writings. There is no point in trying to reconcile these differing idioms; they are both true but they have entirely different roots.

In salvation-history God has chosen to reveal himself in the relation of Father-Son. This is truth, absolute truth, but not all truth. There is truth beyond this truth which is does not fit into the Father-Son paradigm. All the questions quoted above come from within the Father-Son idiom and is it truth, absolute truth, but not all truth. There is more... much more.

Any figure or parable pushed to an extreme will create error and personally I am uncomfortable with some of the classical ways in which theologians have tried to create an all embracing consistency. I am referring to the what is sometimes referred to as the 'eternal sonship of Christ'. Theologians have adopted phrases like the 'eternal generation of the Son' and I have to confess that I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. They are striving for that all embracing consistency but the quotation of Ralph Waldo Emerson comes to mind "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." He is condemning pedantry not advocating inconsistency.

Personally, as regard the sonship of the Word, I regard his sonship as a voluntary choice rather than an eternal state. Some theologians will get very hot under the collar about this but I cannot read Paul's revelation in Philippians without seeing choice rather than necessity.

[color=0000ff]“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
(Phil 2:5-8 NKJV)[/color]

This passage seems to speak clearly of a self-emptying which was in preparation for incarnation and it says quite clearly, to my mind, that this was his own choice and action. He was in the 'form' of God' but 'self-emptied' himself in order to begin the work of redemption. This is part of the revelation of salvation history. He who was God chose to empty himself and then to 'take the form of a bondservant'. The double use of 'form' is key here. What 'shape' is a bondservant? What shape is God? These are relational descriptions. He was God who became man and in preparation of that becoming he self-emptied himself. We are way before history here.

The idea of a son is necessarily a relational description, however we want to safeguard it. The earlier indescribable relational description is found in...

[color=0000ff]“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
(John 1:1 NKJV)[/color]

In the beginning the Word already was and the Word was Godwards and the Word was God. He was in the 'form' of God and in preparation for incarnation he self-emptied himself and then himself took the 'form' of a bondslave. To me this self-emptying is the 'becoming the son' and as the son he submitted himself to the father. This is the measure of his love for our race.

Our God-given perspective is primarily in terms of this voluntary submission as the son. This is not an accommodation to our understanding but the God-given revelation; this is the way we are to see and understand what God wants us to understand. This is the truth that God has chosen to reveal himself in.

The consequence of this is that the whole Bible revelation is from this perspective. We cannot break earth-gravity; this is truth as God intended us to see it. But there is more... much more and we see a slight scattering of hints in places such as...

[color=0000ff]“Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”
(1Cor 15:28 NKJV)[/color]

When salvation history is completed... we have no language to describe what will follow. We have no language to describe what part we shall have in it all...

[color=0000ff]“Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”
(1John 3:2 NKJV)[/color]

and this will be the beginning not the ending. Salvation history takes us to the beginnings of glory but there is more... much, much more. In salvation history it absolute truth that 'the Father is greater than the Son' but this was chosen submission and when we begin the beginning we shall see things we never dreamed.

[color=0000ff]“And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.”
(Is 6:3 ASV)[/color]

Hi sscot, you asked:

Could you explain to me "eternally begotten"? That seems to be an oxymoron. Begotten implies a starting point from a source. Eternally begotten seems to be an expalination for something people either cannot explain or do not like what it implies. I would like to hear what your understanding of that is.

Yesterday I read good article on that, I think it would be of benefit to post part of it here.

[b]Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God[/b]

This article talks about the meaning of these words in that context.

[b]Discussion[/b]

[color=000099]For God so loveth the world,
that he hath given his only son,
that none that believe in him,
should perish:
but should have everlasting life.[/color]

[i]—John 3:16, Tyndale translation, 1534 version (modern spelling).[/i]

Perhaps you know this verse from the Bible. Notice the words [b]only son are emphasised.[/b] That is because they are the subject of this article. In the original Greek, that's [b]μονογενης υιος,[/b] or [b]monogenes huios,[/b] transliterated.

It is not generally known that ninety percent of the 1611 King James Version is from Tyndale's translation, which I quoted from above. Now, it just so happens that part of the ten percent where they differ is here in the words only son.

[color=000099]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.[/color]

[i]—John 3:16, King James Version (KJV), 1611.[/i]

The King James Version (KJV) was so influential that it became the standard translation for the next 300 years. And it is still in widespread use.

So where did this word begotten come from? The word that is being translated as only begotten by the KJV is monogenes. The KJV translators liked to translate word-for-word when it was possible. So when they came to monogenes they translated mono as only and genes as begotten. That is easy.

Can the word [b]Son[/b] have a symbolic meaning? Yes. The word [b]υιος[/b] (or [b]huios,[/b] word #5207 in Strong's Concordance) has been used in a symbolic sense in these passages, among others:

[color=000099] to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means [b]Sons[/b] of Thunder[/color]
—Mark 3:17

[color=000099] Adam, the [b]son[/b] of God.[/color]
—Luke 3:38

[color=000099] You are all [b]sons[/b] of God through faith in Christ Jesus[/color]
—Galatians 3:26

Currently the best-selling English translation of the Bible is the New International Version (NIV). Here is how the NIV renders John 3:16:

[color=000099] For God so loved the world
that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him
shall not perish
but have eternal life.[/color]

[i]—John 3:16, New International Version (NIV), 1973.[/i]

The NIV adds as a footnote,
3:16 Or his only begotten Son

So now begotten is in the footnote and not in the main text. Why?

[b]Begotten Or Not Begotten, That Is The Question[/b]

[b][u]Reasons why monogenes should not be translated as only begotten:[/b][/u]

The word monogenes also appears elsewhere in the New Testament:

[color=000099]By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.[/color]
—Hebrews 11:17-19 (NIV)

This time the NIV does not have a footnote with that only begotten as it does for John 3:16, but it's the same Greek word monogenes. To say Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son would make no sense since according to the Bible, Abraham begat Ishmael as well as Isaac. But "one of a kind", "one and only", or "unique" would fit because Isaac was special. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was too old to have a child but she nevertheless became pregnant.

Dr. James R. White notes,

The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of [i]monogenes[/i] is this: it is a compound term, combining [i]monos,[/i] meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is [i]gennasthai/gennao,[/i] to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found in [i]monogenes.[/i] This indicates that the second term is not [i]gennasthai[/i] but gignesthai/ginmai, and the noun form, [i]genos.[/i] G. L. Prestige discusses the differences that arise from these two derivations in God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1952), 37-51, 135-141, 151-156.

[i]Genos[/i] means "kind or type", [i]ginomai[/i] is a verb of being. Hence the translations "one of a kind," "one and only," "of sole descent." Some scholars see the [i]-genes[/i] element as having a minor impact upon the meaning of the term, and hence see [i]monogenes[/i] as a strengthened form of [i]monos,[/i] thereby translating it "alone," "unique," "incomparable."

An example of this usage from the LXX is found in Psalm 25:16,

[color=000099] turn to me and be gracious to me,
for I am lonely (monogenes) and afflicted: [/color](NASB)

(White, The Forgotten Trinity [Minneapolis, MN, Bethany House Publishers, 1998], pp. 201-202, fn. 27)

Note that the so-called LXX (mentioned above) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that existed in Jesus' day. Sometimes we can gain insight into Greek New Testament words by how Hebrew words were translated into Greek by the Jewish scholars. In this case, the Hebrew word for lonely was translated into Greek as monogenes. So this helps us justify that monogenes means "alone," "unique," or "incomparable."

[b][u]Reasons why [i]monogenes[/i] may be translated as only begotten:[/b][/u]

From the discussion above, we see that the seemingly obvious translation of [i]monogenes[/i] to [i]only begotten[/i] may not be the most accurate. However, the Greek word [i]monogenes [/i]does not have a single equivalent corresponding word in English.

I personally used to think that only [i]begotten[/i] was just a reference in passing to the virgin birth. That surely makes Jesus special, unique, one-of-a-kind. So in a round-about way, [i]only begotten[/i] may be as good as any other translation, [i]for those who interpret these words in the context of the Bible, without pre-conceived ideas. [/i]

*taken from [url=http://answering-islam.org/Who/jesus_monogenes.html]here.[/url]

I would also like here to add that the word "begotten" and "from only kind" is the same word in macedonian, bulgarian, russian and some other slavic languages, so when we translate [b][i]monogenes[/b][/i] we are saying "from only kind" as well - [b]Единороден[/b] There is no such difficulty in our languages.

(MKD) John 3:16 Зашто Бог толку го возљуби светот, што Го даде Својот [b]Единороден[/b] Син, та секој, кој верува во Него, да не загине, туку да има вечен живот.

(RUS) John 3:16 Ибо так возлюбил Бог мир, что отдал Сына Своего [b]Единородного,[/b] дабы всякий верующий в Него, не погиб, но имел жизнь вечную.

(BUL) John 3:16 Защото Бог толкова възлюби света, че даде Своя [b]Единороден[/b] Син, за да не погине ни един, който вярва в Него, но да има вечен живот:

(Serbian DKc) John 3:16 Јер Богу тако омиле свет да је и Сина свог [b]Јединородног[/b] дао, да ниједан који Га верује не погине, него да има живот вечни.

I just noticed that some russian translations also translate this as "the only one".

God bless you,
Kire

I found this article pretty engaging, and thought it would benefit this thread somewhat. :-)

"This (Trinitarian) doctrine cannot be fully comprehended. It can be known definitely, but not exhaustively. Only God Himself fully comprehends it. For this reason, many have discarded the truth of the Trinity. For example, some have said that it is nonsense and self-contradictory. "Does not I plus I plus I equal 3?" Trinitarians have sometimes replied that they are adding when they should be multiplying. The formula should not be "1 + 1 + 1 = 3", but rather "1 x 1 x 1 = 1". Some even suggest that it be 3 But that is only speculation.

A host of analogies have been suggested to illustrate the 3-in-1 nature of the Trinity. Among the more well-known are the following:

A three-leaf clover

Time (past, present, future)

Water (liquid, mist, ice)

Physics (matter, space, motion)

Fire (light, heat, fuel)

Personality (mind, emotions, will; or id, ego, super-ego)

Space (the 3 dimensions)

Logic (major premiss, minor premiss, conclusion)

Dialectics (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)

Degrees (simple, comparative, superlative)

A three-cord rope (cf. Eccl. 4:12), and many others. The triangle is the usual symbol of the Trinity, and has been used with many variations. Again, these are all at best speculations.

However, none of the preceding analogies are perfect. Each has a basic flaw. The point to remember is that though Nature may have threeness and oneness, there is nothing in Nature that keeps both together in the exact same way as the Trinity. Why is this so? Because the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed only in Scripture, not in Nature. It is discovered only by revelation, not science; received by faith, not by reason.

Though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible (Tertullian was probably the first to coin the word), the doctrine is everywhere. Yet we do not find a detailed explanation in any one text. Matt. 28:19 is almost certainly the most explicit verse on the Trinity in the entire Bible: "...baptizing them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Notice that "Name" is singular, but it belongs to each of the three. We see from this verse that there is one divine nature, but three Persons in God. They share the same nature, but remain different from each other in some way.

Some still appeal to the words in the KJV of I John 5:7, "There are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Obviously these words expressly teach the Trinity. However, they are not part of the original inspired text. Of the hundreds of Greek manuscripts that contain I John, only 2 or 3 contain these words, and there is reason to believe that they were inserted by scribes for wrong reasons. Moreover, those manuscripts were very late. Hence, these words are rightly omitted from most English translations and should not be appealed to regarding the Trinity.

That doesn't mean that the Bible never mentions all three members of the blessed Trinity together. As a matter of fact, there are dozens of places where all three are mentioned together in succeeding verses, even in a single verse. Among them are the following: Isa. 48:16, 61:1, 63:9-14; Hag. 2:5-6; Zech. 12:10; Luke 1:35, 24:49; John 3:34-36, 14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:7-15; Acts 2:33, 38-39; Rom. 1:1-4, 5:1-5, 14:17-18, 15:16, 30; 1 Cor. 2:10-16, 6:11, 15-19, 12:3-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22,:3:3, 13:14; Gal. 3:11-14, 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 2:18-22, 3:2-5, 14-16, 4:4-6, 30-32, 5:18-20; Phil. 3:3; Col. 1:6-8; 1 Thess. 1:2-5, 5:18-19; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:13-14; Tit. 3:4-6; Heb. 6:4-6, 10:29; 1 Peter 1:2, 4:14; 1 John 4:2; Jude 20-21; Rev. 1:4-5, 2:27-29, 3:5-6, 12-13, 21-22, 14:12-13, 22:17-18. Of these, 2 Cor. 13:14 and I Pet. 1:2 are the most explicit.

Each of the four Gospels relates the Baptism of Jesus, and in each we see all three members of the Trinity (Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-33). Reject the doctrine of the Trinity, and this event makes no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, there are places where any two of the three are mentioned together. For example, we frequently find the Father and the Son mentioned together in Scripture, especially in John's Gospel (and particularly in chapters 5 and 17) and the opening and closing benedictions of the Epistles. Likewise, wherever the Holy Spirit is mentioned, the Son is almost always mentioned just a verse or two away, and also the Father. Though this doctrine is more to be found in the New Testament, the Old Testament hints at it in a number of ways. First, the Hebrew word for God is ELOHIM. It is plural, but is often used with a singular Hebrew verb. On the other hand, sometimes it is used with

a plural verb (such as in Gen. 20:13, 35:7). Then there are the passages where God speaks of Himself as “we” or "us" (Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isa. 6:8). Next, we find all three members of the Trinity in the Old Testament, either individually or with another of the Trinity, or even all three together (Isa. 48:16; Zech. 12:10). Lastly, some feel the threefold benedictions refer to the Trinity (Num.6:24-26; Isa. 6:3. Cf. Rev. 4:8). Jesus prayed to the Father, not to Himself (John 17). When the Father spoke from Heaven to Jesus, this was indeed the Father and not Jesus using ventriloquism (Matt. 3:17, 17:5; John 12:28). Jesus, therefore, is not the Father. Also, the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26). Therefore, the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

The Father, The Son and The Spirit are Each God
The Bible is quite clear from beginning to end that there is only one God (Ex. 6:5, 20:3; Deut. 4:39; 1 Kings 8:23, 60; 1 Chron. 17:20; Neh. 9:6; Psa. 86:8, 10; Isa. 37:16, 20, 43:10, 44:6, 8, 45:5-6, 14, 18-5 21-22, 46:5, 9; Hos. 13:4; Mark 12:32; John 17:3; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17, 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25). One of the most important things which God has ever said to Man has been what the Jews call the "Shema", which is found in Deut. 6:4 and Mark 12:29, "Hear, 0 Israel. The Lord our God is one Lord." In Hebrew, it is "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." This one God is the Creator and is the God of the Bible, not the false gods of other religions. Thus, this foundational truth disproves polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, atheism and other heresies. The unity of God is absolutely essential to the Biblical theology of God.

This same Bible also says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each God. First, there is virtually no debate that the Father is explicitly called God and that God is a Father (I Cor. 1:3, 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:2-3, 3:14, 4:6; Mal. 2:10; Heb. 12:19; James 1:17; often in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and in the Gospel of John (especially chapters 5 and 17), usually in the openings and closings of the Epistles, and many more places in Scripture. But the Bible also says that Jesus Christ is God (Isa. 9:6; Heb. 1:8-12, especially vs.8; John 1:1, 20:28; I John 5:20; 2 Pet. 1:1; Tit. 2:13; Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; Matt. 1:22). He is called Lord of Lords, King of Kings and God of gods (I Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14, 19:16; cf. Deut. 10:17; Psa. 136:2-3; Dan. 2:47, 10:36). He Himself claimed to be God by using God's name "I AM" of Himself (John 8:24, 58 and the many "I AM" statements; cf. Ex. 3:14). He is the Creator (John 1:2-3, 10; Col. 1:16; I Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2, 10; Rev. 3:14) and receives worship as God (e.g., Matt. 2:2, 8, 11, 8:2, 9:18, 14:33, 15:25, 20:20, 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; John 5:23, 9:38, 20:28; Heb. 1:6, etc.). There are many, many other proofs of the deity of Jesus Christ. Among others, see Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:19, 2:9; John 10:30, 38, 14:9-10; Heb. 1:3; Acts 10:36; Mark 2:5-10.

The Holy Spirit is also God (Isa. 48:16, 63:10; Psa. 51:11; 2 Cor. 3:17-18; Acts 5:3-4; 1 Cor. 3:16, 6:11, 19, 12:4; Gen. 1:2, etc.). He is eternal (Heb. 9:14) and there is only one Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:4). The Spirit is personal, not an impersonal force as some suggest. For instance, He knows (I Cor. 2:10-13), feels (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30; Rom. 14:17), and speaks (Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2, 20:23, 21:11, 28:25; Heb. 3:7, 10:15; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22, 14:13). Personal pronouns are used of the Spirit, such as He, Him and His (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8, 13-15, etc.). Moreover, the Spirit is masculine, not feminine. He is never called "she". Contrary to liberal Feminism, the Spirit is not a Divine Mother. Their Trinity is Father, Mother and Son. This triad is found in pagan Egypt and Babylon, but not in Scripture. God condemns worshipping the Mother Goddess, the Queen of Heaven (Jer. 7:18, 44:17-19, 25; Acts 19).

So, it can be said of all three that each is God and with God (John 1:1).

- Curt Daniel

Hi sscot,

It seems to me that Philologos did a pretty good job on his post. But you're not satisfied. You weren't satisfied with what I gave you either, though I quoted from Strong's. This leads one to believe that you're really not seeking answers. I think the reason you posted these questions was to deliberately refute Trinitarianism in this thread.

So, let me ask you. Are you "oneness"? How would you define yourself, theologically? I ask this soberly, not in a spirit of strife, and there are no stones in my hands. Though you haven't come out and said it, I have a sinking feeling your mind is already made up in regards to the Trinity. You do seem very astute and quick to rebound each thrust with a smart parry, and not with the slightest hesitation to consider or ponder other scriptures that clearly indicate a Triune God. Friend, if this your bait, I cannot oblige to further engage in what seems a futile cause. Scripture admonishes us not to vainly jangle in profitless discussions.

So, what's the motive with these questions? To persuade or be persuaded? To purposefully befuddle?

Paul

sscott, I think it would be well to do for you to study the doctrines of "Hypostatic Union" and "Communicatio Idiomatum," two closely related doctrines on the nature of Christ. Many of your "problematic" verses are explained by a proper understanding of these.

I know there are many scriptures that seem to imply a Trinity

I don't think there is any [i]implication[/i] in them...they are pretty well definite. If there are hundreds of scriptures that clearly show that doctrine, don't let 5 fuzzy ones make you throw out the rest of scripture...ask why they are fuzzy, study them diligently, and harmonize them with the rest of scripture. I know you have done this, but keep doing it prayerfully until it clears up and your faith is strengthened.

BeYeDoers

Hi sscot,

You asked:

Could you explain to me "eternally begotten"? That seems to be an oxymoron. Begotten implies a starting point from a source. Eternally begotten seems to be an expalination for something people either cannot explain or do not like what it implies. I would like to hear what your understanding of that is.

Did you read the post? The article about that? Is it satisfying anwswer?

I want to ask you something.
[i]"Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?[/i] Why are you confused? Where is the root of this confusion?

They explained to me that God is a Trinity. Of course I believed it..tried [b]to wrap my mind[/b] around it and could to some extent. There were and are many verses that would point to God being a trinity but then there are others that do not seem [b]to fit[/b] into the Trinity [b]box.[/b]

Can you notice these words, "to wrap my mind", "to fit" , "box". Do you see the meaning of these words and the wrong starting point, wanting to fit God's nature in a [u]box[/u] able to be received by your mind?

Dear brother, you are called to have rest and peace in your mind, Jesus is givinig you this rest, believe Him with your heart. He has gave you the Spirit of God, not man's wisdom, but God's.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I have been taught and believed the Trinity since my conversion 8 years ago.

2Ti 3:14 [b]But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; [/b]

With love,
Kire

i really think some of you guys should reread sscott posts. he has raised some good questions. your not going to loose your salvation to ponder these things. God sees our heart in wanting to know Him.

i don't think sscott is saying that Jesus is not God.

i'm really surprise that sscott questions keep being avoided. am i a heretic to be open to hearing what he has to say. i mean, come on, we've been deceive by a lot of stuff that came fourth from the i.c.

i don't think sscott has lost his salvation because of this.

i really respect you guys, and really feel a kindred spirit with you all, but i think some of you have thrown some hard stones at sscott. calling someone a heretic, or telling them they can loose their salvation is a hefty word to share to someone who is searching, and wanting to understand the scriptures.

God bless,lisa

I read your post on "eternally begotten" I just don't agree with it. I think your explanation was trying to make the text say something it doesn't.

I would just like to reiterate that I posted from Strong's concordance, and not from my own musings. You have concluded that Strong is trying to make the text say something it doesn't. A bold accusation! Have you taken the time to analyze and look into the Greek and cross-reference scripture with equal depth and diligence? If no, then I don't really blame you!

Friend, you're just going to have to resign to the fact that not everything is going to always fit according to the light you have at this present moment. Surely, I don't have all the answers. If I, for example, were to think about an eternal hell long enough, my rationale would soon not permit me to fathom an agape God punishing a sinner in flames of fire for all eternity for a mere vapor-of-time worth of disobedience while here on this terrestial ball. However, I realize that the doctrine of hell is real - even if I can't fit it into my stream of logic and measurement of human justice. I accept it by faith, I believe the words of warning by Christ, who spoke of it, and I compare scripture with scripture and come to the conclusion that hell is real, literal, and eternal. And not accepting this or understanding it or agreeing with it will not alter the truth one iota.

Likewise, there are simply too many scriptures that point to an inexplicably Triune God. I don't know how this can be or why God is like this or to what purpose God's essence is such, but I do accept it and submit to the truth. I embrace the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, though it flees my mortal comprehension. And I well know the pitfalls of taking the path you're on now: the attempt to rationalize and fit the hidden mysteries of God into my own understanding. This is how men lose their joy and become tied down with mental burden and psychological bondage. In truth, some areas of God's glory and mystery I feel I have been permitted to grasp through a glass darkly; other things I cannot see at all. As I grow more and study God's word I anticipate more light to enter through Holy Ghost illumination on certain concepts and previously unknown wonders and mysteries. I realize that I will never fully arrive while on earth, and that some Christians simply cannot accept this resignation. I really can't express how dangerous it is to deviate from what we intrinsically know to be truth as deliniated and inferred to by scripture - such as a Triune Godhead - and begin to discard and/or adjust such vital things as the position of Christ in relation to the Father and Holy Spirit in order for it to conform to our [i]mis[/i]understanding or absence of light regarding certain scriptures. Because God has chosen to not illuminate certain aspects of His essence doesn't mean we are to jettison our foundational beliefs in solid, time-honored, God-approved, revival-conducive trinitarian theology.

I appreciate your response, and please don't be offended, but it seemed like a really long way of saying "I don't know the answer". Am I wrong in my reading of your post?

Imagine a line representing God's history. At a single point in that history the spotlight falls on salvation-history. The revelation found in that infallible history is of Father/Son relationship. My question is 'what was the relationship before this single point' and 'what will the relationship be after this 'single point' of salvation-history.

Even the verse you posted from 1 Cor 15:27-28 show that the Son will be subject to the Father so that God may be all in all. So it would appear that the Father is greater before the incarnation, during Jesus earthly life, and after His resurrection as well.

Again I think it was a partial choice. The Father commanded and the Son chose to obey. Can you find scripture to say otherwise?

I think Isaiah may have been an overheard conversation within the Godhead...

[color=0000ff]“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:
\t“Whom shall I send,
\tAnd who will go for Us?””
(Is 6:8 NKJV)[/color]
Who were the members of this conversation? Suppose One within the Godhead pre-emptied Isaiah's offer and said 'Here, am I, send me'. This is an invitation to 'be sent' so it is voluntary submission and not inherent hierarchy. The choice was made to be the 'volunteer' and the offer was accepted. So 'One' makes the choice and submits himself to another. From this point on, as far as salvation history is concerned, there is the order of Sender/Sent or Father/Son but this was an event and not part of the inherent nature of a hierarchy within the Godhead.

If you believe as you posted....namely that much of the relationship and nature of God cannot be explained or known then why do you or others hold the doctrine of the Trinity as a non negotiable of the faith. It seems odd to label people heretics because they don't embrace a doctrine that is called a mystery and cannot fully be explained.

The Bible reveals co-equality within the Godhead. It also reveals submission within the Godhead in salvation-history. I am simply trying to see how these two complementary facts can best be understood. I think the best hypothesis is the trinitarian position.

on 2006/12/9 16:31:05 sscott wrote:

So one of the foundational tenants of the Faith is a "best hyothesis" and people are heretics for not believing or accepting the "best hypothesis"?

If you genuinely want to "post my questions regarding scriptures I don't understand and get some genuine answers." then you have to be prepared to listen to the answers.

There are clear...clear scriptures that state the Son came because of the Fathers command and sending.

[color=0000ff]“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.”
(Phil 2:5-8 NKJV)[/color]The phrase 'made himself of no reputation' is the NKJV translation of the Greek verb 'kenoO'. The word 'keno' in Greek signifies 'empty' as in our word 'ceno-taph' meaning an 'empty memorial place'. This is why I continually use the phrase 'self-emptying'. The form of the verb in Philippians 2:7 is 3rd person singular Aorist active and is used in conjunction with the personal possessive pronoun ''eauton' - himself. The subject of this verb is Christ Jesus from verse 5. Christ Jesus self-emptied himself, taking a bondslaves form. The point I am trying to make in this passage is that Paul reveals to us here that Christ Jesus 'did this himself'. He is the subject of the verb. It does NOT say that the Father did this to him, but that he did this to himself. This is why I am using the word 'choice'. He chose to come as a bondslave.

The passage then switches to something which he did not Do but which happened to him. "He was made in the likeness of man". He did not 'make himself in the likeness of man'; the Father did that and you can hear the excitement in another personal testimony of Christ's...[color=0000ff]“Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:
\t“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
\tBut a body You have prepared for Me.”
(Heb 10:5 NKJV)[/color] 'Another' prepared his body but after He had voluntarily 'self emptied himself and had taken on the 'form of a bondslave'. His human body perfectly fitted his 'form as a bondslave'.

The KJV has 'being made in the likeness of men...'. This is the Greek word 'ginomai' to 'become'. This is an amazing revelation that 'God became...' It is the miracle of the incarnation. He who was 'God' (John 1:1) became 'man'. As John expresses this wonder... 'the Word (who was with God and was God) became (same word) became flesh. The Father did not become flesh, neither did the Spirit but the One whom we call 'the Son' became man.

It is absolutely true that the Father gave the Son, that the Father sent the Son. It is also plain that the Son chose this calling having emptied himself and taken upon himself the form of a bondslave.

Rightly understood John's introduction can only mean Trinity. In your view of things 'what was the One who became flesh' before he became flesh?

sscott's

I agree with you. The Father gave the Son a command...the Son willingly emptied Himself to fulfill the Fathers command/desire. It's not the other way around. The Son did not empty Himself and then the Father commanded Him to come to earth.

1. God is a Trinity..without one member of the Trinity you do not have God...because God is one..inseperable....One being..three persons. So when Jesus cries out "My God My God why have you forsaken me"....how is it possible that God forsook God? Wouldn't it be impossible? I have heard people say that the Father was forsaking the humanity of Jesus but that's non sense. If that was the case the God did not really forsake Jesus.

On earth Christ did not behave as God, he behaved as a human being. The temptation shows that Satan's plan was to get him to behave a 'God' but Christ resolutely determined to behave as a man.[color=0000ff]“And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.”
But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ””
(Luke 4:3-4 NKJV)[/color] The switch from Satan's 'if you are the Son of God' to 'it is written "man shall not live by bread alone...' is very noticeable. Christ consciously switched concepts here.

As a 'man' he lived a life in which he was 'led by the Spirit'; a life of dependence upon God's provision and leading. He had become a real man and was living as God had intended man to live. As a consequence, while on earth, he prayed, lifting up his eyes. He was God-conscious as God had intended man to be 'God conscious'. He was more than 'God conscious' he was 'Father conscious'. It seems as though his instinctive manner of prayer was to 'Abba'. [color=0000ff]“And He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will.””
(Mark 14:36 NKJV)[/color] His regular form of expression for God was 'My Father'; Matt 7:21; 10:32-33; 11:27; 12:50; 16:17; 18:10,19; 20:23; 24:36; 25:34; 26:39,42,53; Luke 10:22; 22:29; 24:49; John 5:17; 6:32,65; 8:19,28,38,49,54; 10:17-18,29-30,32,37; 12:26; 14:7,12,20-21,23,28; 15:1,8,15,23-24; 16:10; 18:11; 20:17,21 The preponderance of John in this is significant; John's gospel concentrates on the relationship between the Father and the Son.

As far as our evidence goes Christ never prayed to 'God' but always to 'Father'. However at one point in the history his prayer is 'My God, my God'. This was the point at which he experienced the loss of 'Father-consciousness'. This was apparently at the close of the 3 hours of darkness. In that darkness he bore the sins of the world and was abandoned by God. There is a frequently used verb meaning to 'hand over' which is used in the scriptures. It is the word usually translated 'betray' in the KJV. It is used of God's abandoning of the race as a result of its rejection of revelation, as seen in[color=0000ff]Rom. 1:24 ¶ Therefore God also [u]gave them up[/u] to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom. 1:26 ¶ For this reason God [u]gave them up[/u] to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

Rom. 1:28 ¶ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God [u]gave them over[/u] to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; [/color] The next use in Romans is truly amazing...[color=0000ff]“who was [u]delivered up[/u] because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.”
(Rom 4:25 NKJV)[/color]The Father gave him up, abandoned him, turned his face away... these are all phrases used to express the horror of the moment when 'he who knew no sin, became sin, for us...' It fulfilled all the ancient types of sin-bearing goats being driven away from the presence of God. Sin separated man from God and when Christ became 'Sin' he suffered that separation... as man.

You ask 'how could it be'? How can any spiritual reality be explained? Such truths can be proclaimed and illustrated but such revelation requires obedience and faith. Is 'eternal judgment' separation from God? How, if God is omnipresent? How can anyone be separated from an omnipresent God? yet the scripture says otherwise...[color=0000ff]“Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened,
\tThat it cannot save;
\tNor His ear heavy,
\tThat it cannot hear.
\tBut [u]your iniquities have separated you from your God[/u];
\tAnd your sins have hidden His face from you,
\tSo that He will not hear.”
(Is 59:1-2 NKJV)[/color]A man may be separated from all consciousness of God even though he is 'not far from each one of us'. (Acts 17:27) On the cross Christ experienced 'hell' for us; Calvary was a truly 'God-forsaken' spot.

On earth Christ did not behave as God, he behaved as a human being. The temptation shows that Satan's plan was to get him to behave a 'God' but Christ resolutely determined to behave as a man.

If that is so, what do you make of Christ's miracles? Is walking on water an act of man or God?

Satan's temptation was for Christ to use His powers selfishly. Christ could do anything. He could forcefully make the entire earth bow to Him. Instead, Christ used His power always in love, not seeking His own, instead giving. Even when Christ walked on water, this was not for His benefit, but for the benefit of His disciples who would grow in faith because of it.

Something to think about, you might disagree.

In love,
Blake

I can't find one. Though the Son being the Word of God was surely aquainted with the mind of the Father.

Here is an interesting parallel that comes to mind.
[color=0000ff]“David was then in the stronghold, and the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. And David said with longing, “Oh, that someone would give me a drink of the water from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate!” So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the LORD.” (2Sam 23:14-16 NKJV) [/color]This was not a command but the simple expression of a desire but the love that David's companions bore for him was quickly converted into action.

I see a very clear parallel with the Isaiah reference. If we just interpret it as refering to Isaiah who was God speaking to when he said 'Who will go for us?' If that initial question had been directed as Isaiah surely God would have spoken to Isaial rather that Isaiah just hearing the question.

As it transpires Isaiah volunteered and was then commanded. It is important in the literal story of Isaiah to see that God did not command Isaiah until Isaiah had expresses his willingness to be sent. Only THEN did God say 'Go'. I am saying that the Word's willingness preceded the command, just as did Isaiah's. If there is no choice there is no virtue.

The commands that listed are all the consequences of the Word's submission to the Godhead.

You posted earlier that the Word was God. Now I need to ask you what 'kind of God' was he exactly the same 'kind of God' as the first phrase in Genesis 'in the beginning God created...'? If the Father is God and the Son is God and the Spirit is God are they they same 'kind of God' or is one 'God' superiour to the others? Are the Father, Son and Spirit equally 'God' or is one more 'God' than the others?

If that is so, what do you make of Christ's miracles? Is walking on water an act of man or God?

It is the act of a man reliant upon God. It is vital in our understanding of Christ's mission to see that he lived the life of a real human being. This was not God pretending to be man, but genuine flesh and blood man.

Here is the question that matters when it comes to consideration of the Scriptures noted in the original post: Do these Scriptures preclude the doctrine of the Trinity? The answer is an unequivocal "no."

As it regards the question of the cry of Jesus Christ on the Cross, it would be supremely negligent to disregard the original intention of these words as spoken by David in prophetic utterance in Psalm 22. This psalm is without question a prophecy of the crucifixion of the Son of God. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, knows this as no other man knows it when He utters this cry in prayer unto the Father. The authors of the New Testament hearkened back to these words when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to express that eternally consequential work of redemption wrought on the Cross. See Matthew 27:43 and Hebrews 2:12. And it would be noteworthy to recall the promise of God that He will never leave, nor forsake us (Deut. 31:8, Heb.13:5), which words most assuredly apply to Christ the Son of Man, if they apply unto us His saints in any real way. To say that Christ was utterly forsaken in complete measure by the Father is to reject His own words when He says in John 16:32, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me." Art Katz says, "The cry, “My God, my God, why has Thou forsaken Me?” is not the statement of the momentary lapse of the Father, but the supreme moment of the Son’s sonship in an obedience that did not falter whether [the Father is] present or absent." The point is well heeded, if we remember the fact that the Son and the Father are eternally one and that the essential nature of God's very being is holiness, whilst we simultaneously take into account the revelation that in His death on the Cross Christ became sin for us. Thus, in His death Christ took upon Himself the punishment for sin in its unmitigated fullness, ultimately expressed in His ostensible estrangement to some mysterious degree from the felt presence of the Father. To dismiss this cry as merely an expression of human weakness is to disregard the true nature of Jesus Christ as both God and Man. However, to reject the notion that sin cannot abide in the Presence of God is to severely misunderstand His holiness. Was the Son of God forsaken? In measure, yes, from the felt presence of the Father. Could His nature be cleaved insomuch that He is no longer God, because the Father has cut Him off from Himself? No, and the words of the Lord Jesus bear witness to this fact.

It is suggested in the original post that God cannot be tempted to sin. From whence is this idea derived? Surely not from Scripture, at least as it pertains to God the Son as both the Son of God and the Son of Man. The temptation to Jesus was in essence to take a short cut to the fulfillment of the purpose of God--to do God's will His own way. Jesus Christ repudiated this idea, stating very clearly, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me" (John 6:38). To venture into conjecture about what would have happened had Christ sinned is to head into a path of endless speculation and fleshly contention. For Christ, the faithful and merciful High Priest, the Last Adam Who took on Himself the nature of the seed of Abraham, did not sin when tempted, thus prevailing in the purpose for which He was manifested--"to destroy the works of the devil" (Heb. 2:16-18, John 3:8). (Please note as well that the context of this verse in John deals with sin.)

Indeed Christ the eternal Lord declared that the Father is greater than He. But does this require a subordination or inferiority as it pertains to the nature of Christ within the Godhead? No. If a man were to speak of his earthly father as greater than himself, does this mean that the earthly father is either something other than a man, or that the son is anything less than a human being? No. Both are human beings, sharing the same nature as sons of Adam, men created in the image of God. In the same way, cannot the Son by His own desire and holy humility speak of His Father as greater than Himself in some mysterious manner within the Godhead, while remaining equal in nature and "substance" and "form" with the Father and the Holy Spirit? Indeed He can and He does. For the Holy Spirit speaks quite clearly that Christ Jesus was "in the form of God" and "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phil. 2:6). It would be superfluous for me to delineate here any further regarding the fact that Jesus Christ is God, as we know full well that the Word of God declares Him so to be. What of the query as to why Christ speaks of the Father as His God? When He came to earth Jesus Christ was placed into the womb of His own creation by the Father through the Holy Spirit. He became a Man, as fully human as any man to ever walk the earth. When He prayed, He did so as both God and Man. When He arose from the dead Jesus Christ did not relinquish His humanity, but rather in the consummation of redemption's work, He became the firstfruits from the dead. He is to this day, "the one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus;" indeed He ever lives to intercede for us as the Great High Priest Who alone can stand between God and man as both God and Man(1Tim. 2:5). Thus, it is incalculably important and appropriate for God the Son to refer to His Father as both God and Father both before and subsequent to His death and resurrection.

The Father, as God, can most definitely commit unto the Son that which most pleases Him, and the Son can likewise receive whatsoever He wills from the Father. As the Father and the Son are eternally one, They may give what is of Themselves to one another, can they not? You ask why the Son would need to receive from the Father. I ask why the Son should not receive from the Father? Do I reason as a man? You have brought the matter to this level. The fact of giving and receiving amidst the Godhead what is already in possession from all of eternity does not preclude the equality of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. A man may give unto his wife what is already hers, and she may reciprocate the gift back unto her husband, making both husband and wife recipient and giver. Consider also the prayer of the Lord in John 17, when He asks the Father "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was" (John 17:5). Christ was asking the Father to give unto Him what He had already possessed in His primordial glory and eternal existence with the Father. Remember, the Son has willingly submitted Himself as both God and Man unto the Father, thus speaking, teaching, and giving only what He receives from the Father. Does the Father give commandments to the Son? Yes. Does this diminish the Deity of the Son in the least? No. For Jesus has yielded Himself wholly unto the Father as an obedient Son, even unto the requisite death on the Cross (Phil. 2:5-11, Heb. 5:5-10). To receive a command does not require obedience. One may well choose to obey or choose to disobey. To voluntarily submit oneself and to obey a command in true love is an act of ultimate humility, and does not in any way cast away the possibility of free and willful choice. "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour" (Eph. 5:1-2). Jesus Christ gave Himself over unto the Father to do whatsoever His good pleasure dictated, and we would do well to follow Him in such surrender.

It is not necessary to contend for the only hope of life we have being in the Son of God. Only in eating His flesh and drinking His blood do we find life. However, the answer to the question of whether Jesus can live without the Father is one of elementary fact. As the Father is God and Jesus Christ the Son is God, one cannot live without the other, as without the Son, or without the Father, or without the Holy Spirit, God would cease to be Who He is. God is by nature Who He is, and to be anything other would bring an end to His being, which is impossible. Thus, Christ cannot exist without the Father, neither can the Father exist without the Son. "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (1John 5:11-12).

Let us conclude with this instruction from the Holy Spirit through the Apostle John, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son," for to have God is to have both the Father and the Son (2John 1:9).

Beenblake's: If that is so, what do you make of Christ's miracles? Is walking on water an act of man or God?

This is man empowered by the Holy Spirit. Even as Phillip:

And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:39)

Satan's temptation was for Christ to use His powers selfishly. Christ could do anything. He could forcefully make the entire earth bow to Him. Instead, Christ used His power always in love, not seeking His own, instead giving. Even when Christ walked on water, this was not for His benefit, but for the benefit of His disciples who would grow in faith because of i

I think the term would be 'to grasp' the power to be God. But Christ made Himself of no reputation (Philippians 2). Being found as a 'man' (v8). He did always those things that He saw the Father doing. This is how Christ is our example in all things. It is what makes Him our ensample. He became us to show us how to live like Him. This does not work if the circumstances are greatly different between what He became and what we now are. The truth that was in Him can and must become the truth that is in us.

The miracles and signs gave witness that He was the 'One' (Matthew 11:3). God bore Him witness. The question in our times to us is not a lot different than it was for Him. Paul said in I Corinthians that when He came he would not know the speech of them that were puffed up- but the [i]power[/i]. This is God bearing witness and Paul being sensitive to what that witness was. The spirit's of the prophets are subject to the prophets, but I cannot see man weilding the power of God. The Holy Spirit is leading us- not we Him. This is the message Balaam had to learn. He could not 'curse' unless God allowed it.

For our Lord to function as He was teaching us to function it required responding to the revelation of God's will by the Spirit. This is not Lone Ranger spirituality. This is being led of the Spirit in all things.

However, to reject the notion that sin cannot abide in the Presence of God is to severely misunderstand His holiness. Was the Son of God forsaken?

I think it is worth noting here that sin upon the conscience in the presence of God is a most horrendous thing. In this sense sin certainly cannot abide in the presence of God. Isaiah cried out in Isaiah 6 and the angel took a coal from the altar upon his lips- but that, like the blood of bulls and of goats and ashes of an heifer could not make the comer (Isaiah) thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience as a remembrance of sin was still made for him also every year. Only the blood of Jesus Christ can purge the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

I have never heard this factored into the equation as it pertains to our Lord 'becoming sin' for us. The weight of our sin upon His conscience. This in itself would create a tremendous sense of estrangement from the Father. Adam sought to hide from God. Isaiah cried WOE IS ME! And our Lord cried out, "MY God My God... why hast thou forsaken me?" I don't know how it all plays out, but there has to be a very real sense of what Isaiah felt- if in His humanity He has suffered in our place.

wilhelm42 posted

As it regards the question of the cry of Jesus Christ on the Cross, it would be supremely negligent to disregard the original intention of these words as spoken by David in prophetic utterance in Psalm 22.

I really appreciate your comprehensive post, many thanks. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy and Psalm 22 is certainly 'the testimony of Jesus'. The references to 'pierced hands and feet' mkae this plain and this was certainly never 'the testimony of David'; neither was the casting of lots over his clothes.

It seems to me that David 'heard' this testimony and recorded it. This could take us deep into the wonders of inspiration but I am expressing this conviction here because I think that this may be 'David quoting Jesus' rather than the cross utterance being an occasion of 'Jesus quoting David'.

As you rightly say, this passage is clearly Messianic and then we just have to explore what 'the cry of dereliction' signifies. As regards...

To say that Christ was utterly forsaken in complete measure by the Father is to reject His own words when He says in John 16:32, "Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me."

I have also often wondered who the 'thou' is in Isaiah 12 [color=0000ff]“And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.”
(Is 12:1-3 KJVS)[/color] This passage speaks clearly of identifiable states and I think it may be significant that the personal pronoun changes from the singular to the plural in v3, a switch which is hidden in the more modern translations.

Hey Ron,

Great Post.

""It seems to me that David 'heard' this testimony and recorded it. This could take us deep into the wonders of inspiration but I am expressing this conviction here because I think that this may be 'David quoting Jesus' rather than the cross utterance being an occasion of 'Jesus quoting David'.""

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

A small understanding I might add. When Jesus in the garden saw in the cup the sin of the whole world, His manhood forced, by the seeing of what He had to take in His body, forced great drops of Blood through the surface of His skin. Being all God, He accepted it and said, "not my will but Yours be done. Wow!

That part Jesus Christ on the Cross that God the Father could not accept into His Kingdom and share the Throne with Him had to completely die and the life of the flesh which is in the blood was completely shed on the ground and Christ laying down His life in the flesh, that part of Christ was separated from the Father and like the Garden He felt that separation in the flesh, but in the Spirit He claimed, " It is finished"
The Christ of God was then released and fulfilled, "O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me," not at the Christ, but at the Jesus the man that had the sin of the whole world in His Body that He drank in the garden. Then that body changed like ours will be on resurrection morning, He Rose and was glorified and now sits at the right hand of the Father in His Fathers House. Amen.

The Rest of the Story; "thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.”"

The Living Water we are born again with Jesus Christ Himself, and the Spirit of Christ and believers being Baptized into One Spirit by The Holy Spirit.

Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Christ Himself will come flowing our of us, which makes "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", truly wonderful in its light and warmth of the Father's Love.

In Christ: Phillip

Hi Ron B.,

Using the verse you quote "Isa 59:2
Isaiah 59:2 (KJV) [b]But your iniquities have separated between you and your God[/b]and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

God got separated/abandoned Jesus; can we equally say that "Jesus died spiritually" which the same case as Adam & Eve when they sinned? They died spiritually & eventually physically.

This is a teaching I heard using that very passage.

Anyone can answer this question too.

Roman

God got separated/abandoned Jesus; can we equally say that "Jesus died spiritually" which the same case as Adam & Eve when they sinned? They died spiritually & eventually physically. I get a bit nervous when we begin to try to divide Christ's experiences into human and/or divine. The Son of God became the man Jesus and was fully God and fully man. What theologians usually call 'the hypostatic union' has been an area of great controversy down the years. I take refuge in the verse [color=0000ff]“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.” (Psa 139:6 KJVS)[/color] and as some of those wise old Quakers used to say 'we do not seek to be wiser than what is written'.

When we speak of God becoming man he did not do so in watertight compartments but became true man and chose to live as man while remaining God. To answer your question as simply as I can I would say that 'Jesus Christ' was forsaken. The Greek word translated 'forsaken' is a very strong one. It has built into it the prefix 'kata' which means 'thoroughly' and the verb 'leipO' which already means to forsake, so this is an extremely intense expression of 'abandonment'. The word is used elsewhere in the NT and following its use will show its strength of expression; Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34; Acts 2:27; Rom 9:29; 2Cor 4:9; 2Tim 4:10,16; Heb 10:25; 13:5

The person that God became in Christ was forsaken/abandoned; the whole person was abandoned. How could that be? Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, but God has revealed it was so and I am content to believe him. I don't know how the Holy One of God could become Sin either, but again I am content to believe it.

There is another verse which chills my backbone and leaves me worshipping...[color=0000ff]“And the God of the peace, who did bring up out of the dead the great shepherd of the sheep — in the blood of an age-during covenant — our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good work to do His will, doing in you that which is well-pleasing before Him, through Jesus Christ, to whom [is] the glory — to the ages of the ages! Amen.” (Heb 13:20-21 YNG)[/color] I have quoted it here from Youngs LIteral Translation to make my point. Is this saying that it was 'through the blood of the everlasting covenant' that God raised Christ? I think it is. If so, Christ's own death was the basis upon which God raised him from the dead. That is to say that if Christ's blood had not been a full, perfect and sufficient satisfaction for the world's sin he could not have been raised. I don't want to trivialise the concept but Christ was first to put his death to the test and while still upon the cross he knew that the work was finished. This is seen too in the later section of Psalm 22 where 'while still upon the horns of the wild auroch he cries 'thou hast heard me'. The work was finished on the cross and the remainder of the psalm is in strong contrast to the first half; the first half being dark and brooding while the second half is full of hope and expectation.

The forsaking had been borne and with confidence he commits his spirit to the Father. What if.... Oh I daren't think but I know that this was no theatrical gesture but a real plunge into that death of which physical death is only a pale shadow.

God got separated/abandoned Jesus; can we equally say that "Jesus died spiritually" which the same case as Adam & Eve when they sinned? They died spiritually & eventually physically.

When certain members of the faith movement began to take the scriptural revelation to conclusions of their own logic a problem developed in which they assumed that Christ both went to hell for us and also had to be born again. Ron has rightly noted that it was on the cross that our Lord declared "It is finished". And because certain have taken this too far others such as Hank Hanagraff have taken a posture that denies the deriliction all together as it has been historically known. This is an unfortunate over-reaction to error. This is another way that error can beget error.

To say that Christ was forsaken of the Father on the cross is not the same as stringing certain other passages together with this and saying He descended into hell to suffer and become fallen and in need of regeneration. I have heard certain teachers then conclude that the 'burnt offering' was a picture of Christ in hell. I think this is completely wrong. A burnt offering speaks of absolute consecration. A burnt offering cannot be eaten as was the Passover. It was reserved totally to God. It was completely God-ward. Man could not benefit from this offering in the sense of eating it after the sacrifice was made. He was left to gather the ashes. these ashes were used in the Temple service occasionally, but this was certainly different than, lets say, a Passover meal comprised of the sacrifice.

I will try to find and post some of a list of quotes I once had found that deals with many respected and famous writers dealing with Psalm 22 and the Deriliction. It demonstrates that the concept as Ron presents it is well documented in Church history.

From Calvin's commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke:

46.And about the ninth hour Jesus cried. Though in the cry which Christ uttered a power more
than human was manifested, yet it was unquestionably drawn from him by intensity of sorrow. And
certainly this was his chief conflict, and harder than all the other tortures, that in his anguish he
was so far from being soothed by the assistance or favor of his Father, that he felt himself to be in
some measure estranged from him. For not only did he offer his body as the price of our
reconciliation with God, but. in his soul also he endured the punishments due to us; and thus he
became, as Isaiah speaks, a man of sorrows, (53:3.) Those interpreters are widely mistaken who,
laying aside this part of redemption, attended solely to the outward punishment of the flesh; for in
order that Christ might satisfy for us, 285 it was necessary that he should be placed as a guilty person
at the judgment-seat of God. Now nothing is more dreadful than to feel that God, whose wrath is
worse than all deaths, is the Judge. When this temptation was presented to Christ, as if, having God
opposed to him, he were already devoted to destruction, he was seized with horror, which would
have been sufficient to swallow up a hundred times all the men in the world; but by the amazing
power of the Spirit he achieved the victory. Nor is it by hypocrisy, or by assuming a character, that
he complains of having been forsaken by the Father. Some allege that he employed this language
in compliance with the opinion of the people, but this is an absurd mode of evading the difficulty;
for the inward sadness of his soul was so powerful and violent, that it forced him to break out into
a cry. Nor did the redemption which he accomplished consist solely in what was exhibited to the
eye, (as I stated a little ago,) but having undertaken to be our surety, he resolved actually to undergo
in our room the judgment of God.
283
“Leur foreenerie noun, doit blen estonner, et nous faire dresser les cheveux en la teste;” — “their madness ought greatly to
astonish us, and to make our hair stand on end.”
284
“Plus aisément on l’eust laissé passer sans enquerir la signification;” —”it would more easily have been allowed to pass
without inquiring into its meaning.”
285
“A fin que Christ fist la satisfaction et le payment pour nous;” — “in order that Christ might make satisfaction and payment
for us.”
196

But it appear absurd to say that an expression of despair escaped Christ. The reply is easy.
Though the perception of the flesh would have led him to dread destruction, still in his heart faith
remained firm, by which he beheld the presence of God, of whose absence he complains. We have
explained elsewhere how the Divine nature gave way to the weakness of the flesh, so far as was
necessary for our salvation, that Christ might accomplish all that was required of the Redeemer.
We have likewise pointed out the distinction between the sentiment of nature and the knowledge
of faith; and, there ore, the perception of God’s estrangement from him, which Christ had, as
suggested by natural feeling, did not hinder him from continuing to be assured by faith that God
was reconciled to him. This is sufficiently evident from the two clauses of the complaint; for, before
stating the temptation, he begins by saying that he betakes himself to God as his God, and thus by
the shield of faith he courageously expels that appearance of forsaking which presented itself on
the other side. In short, during this fearful torture his faith remained uninjured, so that, while he
complained of being forsaken, he still relied on the aid of God as at hand.
That this expression eminently deserves our attention is evident from the circumstance, that the
Holy Spirit, in order to engrave it more deeply on the memory of men, has chosen to relate it in the
Syriac language; 286 for this has the same effect as if he made us hear Christ himself repeating the
very words which then proceeded from his mouth. So much the more detestable is the indifference
of those who lightly pass by, as a matter of jesting, the deep sadness and fearful trembling which
Christ endured. No one who considers that Christ undertook the office of Mediator on the condition
of suffering our condemnation, both in his body and in his soul, will think it strange that he
maintained a struggle with the sorrows of death, as if an offended God had thrown him into a
whirlpool of afflictions. John CalvinComm on Mat,Mar,Luk (V3)

Lord Jesus, I pray you will shut mouths of those who speak in err, and that by this prayer they will come to see their own sin.

In the name of Christ,
Amen

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm info

To answer your question as simply as I can I would say that 'Jesus Christ' was forsaken.

Was Christ forsaken on the cross? If Christ was forsaken why would have Christ died and be resurrected? To be forsaken is to be left alone without hope.

When Christ called out, He did so in the form of a question. Christ did not say, "You have forsaken me." Rather, Christ asked, "Why have you forsaken me?" Since Christ did not make a statement, we must be cautious to assume that His question implies that He was forsaken.

The greek word used in both Mt 27:46 and Mr 15:34 according to Smith and Sayer's dictionary is "Egkataleipo" which means:

1. abandon, desert
a. leave in straits, leave helpless
b. totally abandoned, utterly forsaken
2. to leave behind among, to leave surviving

Let us look at this word as it is used in other scriptures:

Ac 2:27 (NAS) Because Thou wilt not ABANDON my soul to Hades, Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.

Ac 2:31 (NAS) he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither ABANDONED to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay.

In both these verses, we can clearly see that Christ was not forsaken. Rather, Christ has been raised.

Why then would Christ make such a plea if He was not forsaken?

Many years prior to Jesus, King David cried these same words as recorded in the book of Psalms. In verse 22:1, David cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?" and in verse 42:9, David says, "I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

In Psalms 22 verses 3 and 4, David says "Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them." We see that after his cry, the tone begins to change. David refutes his own cry to God saying, "yet," and then introducing the trustworthiness of God. In the past, David's descendent's trusted in God and He delivered them. Would not God deliver David also?

Later in the chapter, David says, "For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help." Here it is quite obvious that David is referring to Jesus in later years. David speaks of "the suffering of the afflicted one." In addition, it says that God has listened to his cry for help.

Who has suffered much and died that God has saved and redeemed? It is Jesus, the son of God. While on the cross, Jesus cried out to His father. However, His pleas were heard. Though Christ died, He was resurrected. Christ was not forsaken. His body was not left to rot and decay. Rather, God redeemed Him from the earth and raised Him to a new glorious state. Jesus was not forsaken. Christ was raised.

Jesus knew He would be raised. He predicted His death and resurrection. Why then would Christ cry out and say, "Why have you forsaken me?"

This is made obvious in Psalms 42:10-11 which says, "My bones suffer mortal agony as my foes taunt me, saying to me all day long, 'Where is your God?' 11 Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God."

We see at this point that the soul of Christ was at odds with Him. He was a human born of flesh. His cry was a sign of His mortality. Christ, though He was God in full, felt the weakness of being flesh born as a man. If we remember earlier in the garden at Gethsemane, Jesus said, "The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." This truth reached it's full climax on the cross when Jesus cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The cry of Jesus was the cry of His fleshly soul. It is all our cries when we suffer. We are at odds with a weak body.

This was again spoken of by the prophet Isaiah in regards to Israel. In Isaiah 49:13-15, "Shout for joy, O heavens; rejoice, O earth; burst into song, O mountains! For the Lord comforts his people and will have compassion on his afflicted ones. But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.''Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!'"

It is because Christ was not forsaken, but instead raised from the dead that Paul would later say using the same Greek word:

2 Corinthians 4:7-10 (NAS)
But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.

In the name of Christ,
Blake

Many years prior to Jesus, King David cried these same words as recorded in the book of Psalms. In verse 22:1, David cried, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?"

As Ron Bailey pointed out earlier, this is not Christ quoting David, but David quoting Christ [i]prophetically[/i]. The new deriliction teaching is that our Lord was merely drawing attention to Psalm 22, but the psalm is certainly Messianic. It is more than merely 'drawing attention'- it is the fulfillment of the prophecy from verse 1.

Lord Jesus, I pray you will shut mouths of those who speak in err, and that by this prayer they will come to see their own sin.

This is a highly presumptous prayer I think. There is a long list of God fearing believers who hold to some form or another the traditional view of the dereliction.

Charles. H. Spurgeon
Treasury of David
An Excerpt from Psalm 22:

"Why hast thou forsaken me?" We must lay the emphasis on every word of this saddest of all utterances. "Why?" what is the great cause of such a strange fact as for God to leave his own Son at such a time and in such a plight? There was no cause in him, why then was he deserted? "Hast:" it is done, and the Saviour is feeling its dread effect as he asks the question; it is surely true, but how mysterious! It was no threatening of forsaking which made the great Surety cry aloud, he endured that forsaking in very deed. "Thou:" I can understand why traitorous Judas and timid Peter should be gone, but thou, my God, my faithful friend, how canst thou leave me? This is worst of all, yea, worse than all put together. Hell itself has for its fiercest flame the separation of the soul from God. "Forsaken:" if thou hadst chastened I might bear it, for thy face would shine; but to forsake me utterly, ah! why is this? "Me:" thine innocent, obedient, suffering Son, why leavest thou me to perish? A sight of self seen by penitence, and of Jesus on the cross seen by faith will best expound this question. Jesus is forsaken because our sins had separated between us and our God.

When Christ called out, He did so in the form of a question. Christ did not say, "You have forsaken me." Rather, Christ asked, "Why have you forsaken me?" Since Christ did not make a statement, we must be cautious to assume that His question implies that He was forsaken.

This sounds illogical. Can you imagine yourself crying out this very "question" to your earthly father wherein you are not really forsaken by him?
I cant imagine anyone crying out to be forsaken (even in a question form) wherein he/she was not forsaken. It's illogical.

Was Christ forsaken on the cross? If Christ was forsaken why would have Christ died and be resurrected? To be forsaken is to be left alone without hope.

Is it not possible that the person who forsook another can come back and be reunited to that very person he/she forsook?

These arguments are in the natural understanding of things but certainly logical.

Some ask [u][i]"Nothing is impossible to God, can He make a square circle?" Of course not, it is illogical - have you seen a square circle.[/i][/u] I CANT EVEN IMAGINE HOW IT LOOKS. God is not illogical.

[b]We can not totally comprehend God but definitely He is NOT ILLOGICAL.[/b]

When Christ called out, He did so in the form of a question. Christ did not say, "You have forsaken me." Rather, Christ asked, "Why have you forsaken me?" Since Christ did not make a statement, we must be cautious to assume that His question implies that He was forsaken.

This doesn't make sense. The question was 'why have you forsaken me?' not 'have you forsaken me?' We have a saying over here "when you are in a hole, stop digging". It's time for you to recognise that Christ believed himself to have been forsaken on the cross. If I have to choose between your conviction and Christ's I won't find that a difficult choice to make.

Can you imagine yourself crying out this very "question" to your earthly father wherein you are not really forsaken by him?

Don't you see. That is the whole point. In His soul, Christ felt forsaken. David felt forsaken in the psalms, but was he? No he wasn't. That is why David said in Psalms 42:11 "Why are you downcast, O my soul?" It was David's fleshly soul that cried out. Likewise, it was Christ's fleshly soul that cried out.

Don't you see that this cry is representative of Christ being a man? It is the cry of His people Israel. That is why it says in Isaiah 49:13-15, "Shout for joy, O heavens; rejoice, O earth; burst into song, O mountains! For the Lord comforts his people and will have compassion on his afflicted ones. But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.''Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!'"

Is it not possible that the person who forsook another can come back and be reunited to that very person he/she forsook?

No. To be forsaken is to be abandoned. If Christ had been abandoned, He would not have been resurrected. He would have been forgotten.

In love,
Blake

This doesn't make sense. The question was 'why have you forsaken me?' not 'have you forsaken me?' We have a saying over here "when you are in a hole, stop digging". It's time for you to recognise that Christ believed himself to have been forsaken on the cross. If I have to choose between your conviction and Christ's I won't find that a difficult choice to make.

The point I was trying to make is that Christ was not giving us a statement. This question was a cry or plea. It was not the same as saying, "It is finished." If Christ had said, "The father has forsaken me," that would have been different.

If you notice, when Christ made the plea, it was recorded by both Mark and Matthew in the Jewish Language. (Whether Aramaic or Hebrew I do not know.) This was done because the expression was the cry of Israel. When Christ called out, it was not because the father had indeed forsook Christ, but because Christ felt forsaken.

In His soul, Christ felt forsaken. David felt forsaken in the psalms, but was he? No he wasn't. That is why David said in Psalms 42:11 "Why are you downcast, O my soul?" It was David's fleshly soul that cried out. Likewise, it was Christ's fleshly soul that cried out. It was Christ's mortal bones battling against Him.

Don't you see that this cry is representative of Christ being a man and a seed of David? It is the cry of God's people. That is why it says in Isaiah 49:13-15, "Shout for joy, O heavens; rejoice, O earth; burst into song, O mountains! For the Lord comforts his people and will have compassion on his afflicted ones. But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.''Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!'"

In love,
Blake

Don't you see that this cry is representative of Christ being a man? It is the cry of His people Israel.

This reminds me of something one of my Messianic Instructors once said. He said that to read the psalms is to read of the suffering of the people Israel (as opposed to the suffering of the Messiah). I think that if we blur the two (Messiah and Israel) we will lose sight of what is actually happening. The Psalm is a picture as Christ as our sin bearer. It is here that our sins were carried away.

Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889)
'The Life And Times Of Jesus Of Nazereth'

But to return from this painful digression. The three hours’ darkness was such not only to Nature; Jesus, also, entered into darkness: Body, Soul, and Spirit. It was now, not as before, a contest - but suffering. Into this, to us, fathomless depth of the mystery of His Sufferings, we dare not, as indeed we cannot, enter. It was of the Body; yet not of the Body only, but of physical life. And it was of the Soul and Spirit; yet not of them alone, but in their conscious relation to man and to God. And it was not of the Human only in Christ, but in its indissolube connection with the Divine: of the Human, where it reached the utmost verge of humiliation to body, soul, and spirit - and in it of the Divine, to utmost self-exinanition. The increasing, nameless agonies of the Crucifixion6139 were deepening into the bitterness of death. All nature shrinks from death, and there is a physical horror of the separation between body and soul which, as a purely natural phenomenon, is in every instance only overcome, and that only by a higher principle. And we conceive that the purer the being the greater the violence of the tearing asunder of the bond with which God Almighty originally bound together body and soul. In the Perfect Man this must have reached the highest degree. So, also, had in those dark hours the sense of man-forsakenness and His own isolation from man; so, also, had the intense silence of God, the withdrawal of God, the sense of His God-forsakenness and absolute loneliness. We dare not here speak of punitive suffering, but of forsakenness and loneliness. And yet as we ask ourselves how this forsakeness can be though of as so complete in view of His Divine consciousness, which at least could not have been wholly extinguished by His Self-exinanition, we feel that yet another element must be taken into account. Christ on the Cross suffered for man; He offered Himself a sacrifice; He died for our sins, that, as death was the wages of sin, so He died as the Representative of man - for man and in room of man; He obtained for man ‘eternal redemption,’6140 having given His Life ‘a ransom,6141 for many.’ For, men were ‘redeemed’ with the ‘precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot;’6142 and Christ ‘gave Himself for us, that He might “redeem” us from all iniquity;’6143 He ‘gave Himself “a ransom” for all;’6144 ‘Christ died for all;’6145 Him, Who knew no sin, God ‘made sin for us;’ ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us’ - and this, with express reference to the Crucifixion.6146 This sacrifice, vicarious, expiatory, and redemptive character of His Death, if it does not explain to us, yet helps us to understand, Christ’s sense of God-forsakenness in the surpreme moment of the Cross; if one might so word it - the passive character of His activeness through the active character of His passiveness. It was this combination of the Old Testament idea of sacrifice, and of the Old Testament ideal of willing suffering as the Servant of Jehovah, now fulfilled in Christ, which found its fullest expression in the language of the twenty-second Psalm. It was fitting - rather, it was true - that the willing suffering of the true Sacrifice should now find vent in its opening words: ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ - Eli, Eli, lemasabachthanei?6147 These words, cried with a loud voice6148 at the close of the period of extreme agony,6149 marked the climax and the end of this suffering of Christ, of which the utmost compass was the withdrawal of God and the felt loneliness of the Sufferer.

The point I was trying to make is that Christ was not giving us a statement. This question was a cry or plea. It was not the same as saying, "It is finished." If Christ had said, "The father has forsaken me," that would have been different.

If you notice, when Christ made the plea, it was recorded by both Mark and Matthew in the Jewish Language. (Whether Aramaic or Hebrew I do not know.) This was done because the expression was the cry of Israel. When Christ called out, it was not because the father had indeed forsook Christ, but because Christ felt forsaken.

With this kind of reasoning you would have to attribute all the Aramaic quotations to your dispensational prejudices. This is not exposition, it is juggling.

Hebrews 13:5-8 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Can we when we die say the same thing Jesus said,
"Why have you forsaken me?"

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put [Him] to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see [His] seed, He shall prolong [His] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

Grief; 2470. chalah
Search for H2470 in KJVSL
hlx chalah khaw-law'

a primitive root (compare 2342, 2470, 2490); properly, to be rubbed or worn; hence (figuratively) to be weak, sick, afflicted; or (causatively) to grieve, make sick; also to stroke (in flattering), entreat:--beseech, (be) diseased, (put to) grief, be grieved, (be) grievous, infirmity, intreat, lay to, put to pain, X pray, make prayer, be (fall, make) sick, sore, be sorry, make suit (X supplication), woman in travail, be (become) weak, be wounded.

Do you think maybe this is why Jesus said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?", that is it was the grief that God put Him to, that He might know death as all humans must.

If Jesus will never leave us, He who has made us son's of God, but will let us go through death, with the same capacity to say the same thing Jesus said and feel the same way He felt, especially after He had been beaten for hours and took all the world and Satan and including God the Father could throw at Him, in that weakness Cry out this one time, to fulfill the scriptures.

Just thoughts form reading and considering this thread.

It is finished. Psalms 37:31-33 The law of His God is in His heart; none of His steps shall slide. The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay Him. The LORD will not leave Him in his hand, nor condemn Him when He is judged.

H=Jesus and the Father for effect only

In Christ: Phillip

Do you think maybe this is why Jesus said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?", that is it was the grief that God put Him to, that He might know death as all humans must.

Adam died two deaths. The first was immediate as he ate the forbidden fruit, the second was over 900 years later. That first death was the ultimate death and the second the inevitable consequence of the first.

If Jesus will never leave us, He who has made us son's of God, but will let us go through death, with the same capacity to say the same thing Jesus said and feel the same way He felt, especially after He had been beaten for hours and took all the world and Satan and including God the Father could throw at Him, in that weakness Cry out this one time, to fulfill the scriptures.

sscott,

I would like to answer your questions directly. I have not read any of the other posts, so I apopogize ahead of time if my answers are old hat.

1. It was possible for God to forsake His Son because Jesus was, as the Scriptures say, 'made sin.' He wasn't a sinner, but He was made sin, that we might be made righteous. He became like us, so that we could be made like Him.

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

2a. Jesus did not sin, but was tempted in every way that we are.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

2b. The fact that Jesus did not sin showed His faithfulness. It wasn't that He wanted to abandon the Father's will, but the Spirit constrained Him, it was, I believe, His flesh that didn't want to die, of which had a God-given desire to survive, that Jesus constantly had to struggle with, just as we do. He was faithful in that He did those things that please the Father. His flesh, I say, did not want to be hung by those nails (I mean, who would), but nevertheless He did the Father's will. That would take some faith.

I think that the biblical definition of faith is not just believe, like 'believe in the literal existance of something,' but more of a Hebrews 11 faith. Faith that stops the mouths of lions, raises the dead to life, subdues kingdoms; faith that endures, faith that marches to war, etc. Not just believing in the existance of something, but willing to die for something.

3. The very essence of God reflects His desire to be with us. While He does not depend on us or require us for anything, His nature is to be parent to His children. So in the very personal characterisic of God, you see the Father/Son relationship. Just as we see the relationship of Christ and the church in marriage, we see this closeness even between the persons of God. The Father/Son relationship, the Father being head of Christ, shows his desire to have heirs as not just being a decision He made, but an intrinsic part of God from the foundation of the world.

4. Jesus was cursed by God on the cross. The Father could have drawn Jesus' body, spirit, and soul directly to heaven once the debt was paid, and then had Him descend to complete His work from there, but I believe that Jesus was forsaken and allowed to die completely to show God's hatred for sin. So in complete and true death, God had to breathe life into Jesus by the Spirit and raise Him once again. Jesus did not breathe the Holy Ghost on the disciples until after the resurrection. I don't think He was given this ability prior to the cross, as He was not yet glorified.

Jesus had to have the Spirit descend upon Him, from the Father before He began His ministry, so that we would have an example. As well, after death on the cross He had to have life breathed into Him (by the Spirit from the Father) in order to show what we will be like in the resurrection.

1 Cor 15:
[20] But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
[23] But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

This "death before God-breathed life" was what was demonstrated in the sacrificial animals in the OT; before the power of God will descend, whether it be bringing eternal life or eternal power, there must be the end of one's will, the death of what man wants, before God can get what He wants. Your life ends for Him, His life begins in you.

5. Yes, Jesus is our link to the Father. He acts as the messenger for God, and prior to the cross, left much of His glory and ability behind, in order to be like us. This done so that He can show us that in His faith He is empowered by the Spirit, risen from the dead by the Spirit, and ultimately glorified, to show us that in our faith we can be empowered by the Spirit, and risen from the dead by the Spirit, and ultimately glorified.

So while I don't believe that we should 'just believe it', I have no problem with people that do, but I believe the Scriptures answer all your questions. It seems that Christ being the example of what we are like through Him, as well as what we are going to be like in Him is the link you are desiring.

I believe that Jesus is at the right hand of God, but I also believe He is what is referred to as the hand of God. He is part of God, an extension of God, an expression of God, but still recognizable as different from the Father, and still absolutely 100% God Himself.

Exodus 4:
[6] And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
[7] And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.

Ps 74:11 Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom.

Or maybe you have an explanation of how God could be separated and forsaken and still be God?

I have no 'explanation' of new birth other than that given to Nicodemus... the Holy Spirit.

I have no 'explanation' as to 'how the Son was separated from the Father' (not God from God but Father from Son) but I have the plain revelation of the scripture that the 'Word was God' and the revelation of Christ's cry of dereliction.

I have no 'mathematical or space/time explanation of how such events took place, but I have the revelation of the scripture and am therein.. content.

Your reasoning would also make it impossible for Christ, as God, to have died. If that is your position we are back to a very straightforward conversation about the nature of the Word who was God and became flesh. How do you currently understand the revelation of John 1 summarised in that last sentence?

That is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. God is One Being made up of three persons. Without One of them you do not have God because God is one made up of Three.

so now his becoming Sin was followed by utter separation from His Father in The Death.

That is incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. God is One Being made up of three persons. Without One of them you do not have God because God is one made up of Three.

This is the doctrine of Hank Hanegraaff. In his zeal to prove the faith teachers as heretics he has taken up a position that would render:

Augustine
Calvin
Luther
Matthew Henry
Edershiem
Spurgeon
Watchman Nee
Wesley
G. Chadwick
John Gill
G. Campbell Morgan
Albert Barnes
Chuck Smith (One of Hanagraaff's 'mentors')
R.C Sproul
John MacArthur

And a long list of others as heretical. I have listed just a handfull of quotes from some of these men on Psalm 22. I can list many more. Hank has created (or has propogated) his position and tried to take some sort of 'high ground'. But understand that the back of this is almost certainly a zeal to take down the faith teachers. Their teachings on Jesus being separated from the Father and going to hell, etc. is one of the primary points he makes in rendering them heretical. I admit that they may well take this too far, but in taking Hank's position it puts even the likes of Spurgeon outside the pale of orthodoxy (at least Hank Hanagraaff's definition). Imagine the implications of that! It would make Chuch Smith of Calvary Chapel a heretic and he is the man who ordained Hank. Folk need to do their homework here and see what's going on. Everything Hank Hanagraaff says is [i]not[/i] infallible. I am using him because he is the prime promoter of this new view of Psalm 22. Other writers I have found are taking Hank's work and not looking at historical precedence because they assume he has. After all, he's the Bible 'Answer' Man, right? I have followed his ministry for 15 years. I even fell into his position on Psalm 22 for several years. That is, until I started doing some checking. i even taught his position once. I have a good friend who was taught it at bible college and I have no idea what's going to turn his mind around.

You may ask, what's the big deal? It is a BIG deal. Because so much of the revelation of the Gospel depends on a right apprehension of the dereliction.

Albert Barnes on Matthew 27:46 makes a good point if we look closely:

We have reason to think that there was still something more than all this that produced this exclamation. [i]Had there been no deeper and more awful sufferings, it would be difficult to see why Jesus should have shrunk from these sorrows, and used such a remarkable expression.[/i] Isaiah tells us, Isaiah 53:4,5 "He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." He hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Galatians 3:13 he was made a sin-offering, 2 Corinthians 5:21 he died in our place, on our account, that he might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, which caused his intense sufferings. It was the manifestation of God's hatred of sin to his soul, in some way which he has not explained, that he experienced in that dread hour. It was suffering, endured by him, that was due to us; and suffering by which, and by which alone, we can be saved from eternal death.

*****

You will notice that Barnes has rightly pointed out that (in effect) many have suffered on crosses. Our Lord was not the first and was not the last. Yet His cry of dereliction seemed to be well beyond what was noted by those who had suffered a similar fate. The thieves were mocking and jesting on the cross. The one in particular, though the other repented. Contrast "If thou be the Son of God- save thyself!"- with- "My God My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Are we to suggest that our Lord was weaker than other men and ill equipped to suffer the pains of any other man? He was a stonemason (so have said, i.e. carpenter). These were rugged men. Our Lord was a man's Man. He had not cried this out as if He were less than a man. The cry spoke to the exceptional suffering He suffered above and beyond what the others had suffered. This is evident on the cry itself.

John Lightfoot on Matthew 27:46,

[Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani.] I. All the rout indeed and force of hell was let loose at that time against Christ, without either bridle or chain: he calls it himself, the power of darkness, Luke 22:53. God who had foretold of old, that the serpent should bruise the heel of the promised seed, and now that time is come, had slackened the devil's chain, which, in regard of men, the Divine Providence used to hold in his hand; so that all the power and all the rancour of hell might, freely and without restraint, assault Christ; and that all that malice that was in the devil against the whole elect of God, summed up and gathered together into one head, might at one stroke and onset be brandished against Christ without measure.

II. Our most blessed Saviour, therefore, feeling such torments as either hell itself, or the instruments of hell, men conspiring together in villainy and cruelty, could pour out upon him, cries out, under the sharpness of the present providence, "My God! my God! why hast thou delivered me up and left me to such assaults, such bitternesses, and such merciless hands?" [u]The Talmudists bring in Esther using such an ejaculation, which is also cited in the Gloss on Joma: "Esther stood in the inner court of the palace. R. Levi saith, When she was now just come up to the idol-temple, the divine glory departed from her: therefore she said, Eli, Eli, lamma azabhtani."[/u]

That last line seems to indicate Lightfoot's position. Why else bring this to the minds of men who otherwise had not known of it?

John Wesley on Psalm 22:1

My God - Who art my friend and father, though now thou frownest upon me. The repetition denotes, the depth of his distress, which made him cry so earnestly. Forsaken - Withdrawn the light of thy countenance, the supports and comforts of thy spirit, and filled me with the terrors of thy wrath: this was in part verified in David, [u]but much more fully in Christ.[/u] Roaring - My out-cries forced from me, by my miseries.

On Matthew 27:46;

About the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice - Our Lord's great agony probably continued these three whole hours, at the conclusion of which be thus cried out, while he suffered from God himself what was unutterable. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Our Lord hereby at once expresses his trust in God, and a most distressing sense of his letting loose the powers of darkness upon him, [u]withdrawing the comfortable discoveries of his presence, and filling his soul with a terrible sense of the wrath due to the sins which he was bearing.[/u] (see Psalms 22:1.)

More speculation. You obviously know better than Christ what was happening! He thought he had been forsaken, but you know better!?!

Ron, I am sorry if I have upset you. I do not mean to cause contention. I was fearful of even typing anything at all because I feared it would come to this.

I will admit that I could be wrong. Who am I? I have written what I felt was divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit. But I am not perfect. I have been wrong before.

I hope, however, that you realize I could say the same above quote to you. How do you know what really happened spiritually on the cross? The cry of Jesus was not a factual statement. It was a plea. This plea could have very well been the cry of His soul in conflict with His Spirit. Due to His suffering, He may have felt forsaken when in reality, He was not. What are we to say concerning Gethsemane? It is obvious the soul of Christ was resisting the cross. Was He separated from the Father then as well?

Someone could argue, "Well Christ must have been separated from the Father, because He bore all sin. He became sin, and so, He had to be separated. This is the only way we could be redeemed, by the exchange of our sin for His life."

Someone else could argue, "Christ did not literally become sin. He did not become sin itself, rather He bore the offense of sin. Christ was not separated from the Father for if He was then He could not have been raised. He would have been filled with sin and doomed to Hell without hope. Rather, Christ paid the debt of sin. However, since Christ was sinless, death could not hold Him."

And what are we to say about this scripture:

John 2:19-21 (NKJ)
19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

Did Christ raise Himself as it says, "I will raise it up?" How is it that Christ was able to raise Himself?

And what about this scripture:

Mark 14:58 (NKJ)
"We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.'"

If by the temple, Christ was referring to His body, what are we to say about this passage? Was the body of Christ man made, and when resurrected, made by God?

Would this not coincide with this verse:

John 3:6 (NKJ)
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Could it be that Christ was born to both a virgin and the Holy Spirit? Could it be that Christ was both born of the Spirit and born of the flesh (whereas we are only born of the flesh until we are born again)? Could He have been both a root and descendant of David as it says in Revelation 22:16? Could Christ have been both God and Man, both the Son of God and the Son of Man?

This coincides with the testimony I gave in the beginning. I did not want to post it because I knew it would not be well received. However, it explains in full how God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It could very well that this entire debate is foolishness. I do not know. Is not Christ most important in all this? If we believe in Him is not the Father glorified?

Your posts end with a statement that say, "I know in part." I would have to agree. We all know in part.

I think in this we have become obsessed with answers of God rather than Christ Himself. Should we not accept that we know in part? This is humility. We just don't know.

And yet here we are seeking answers for questions we don't know, and debating as if we do know.

Sure, there are many theories and doctrines, but how do we know if one person's interpretation is right or not? Have we not all sinned?

The righteous will walk by faith. Let us believe in Jesus. We don't understand all the mysteries of God and we will not until Christ returns. We know in part. What part do we know? If we have been saved, we know Christ. Let us share Christ and leave the rest to Him.

With love,
Blake

Sean's original quote: "These are just a few questions. I hope this turns into a good discussion. Please don't go and quote John 1:1 or some other verse to prove the Trinity. I know there are many. I am looking for explanations to verses that I don't understand how they fit into the Trinity Doctrine. I don't like the idea of just telling people "it's a mystery but you have to believe it"".

Blake's: It could very well that this entire debate is foolishness. I do not know. Is not Christ most important in all this? If we believe in Him is not the Father glorified?

There is an occassion in the Old Testament when Sampson's parents asked an angel his name, to which he replied, [i]Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?[/i] The word here for secret is [i]pilly[/i] and it means [u]incomprehensible[/u]. The angel said to them that his name was beyond their comprehension. Can we get our head around that? He would have maybe told his name, but why bother because they would not have comprehended it anyway. Maybe he did not want to give rise to speculations and attempts at the unfathomable? So he kept it to himself.

for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable; (Romans 1:20)

What do we find in the creation apart from its awesome wonder and majesty? We find a simple revelation. All of the tangible universe boils down to three things:

Space, Matter, Time (This is a trinity)

Space consists of Length X Width X height (this is a trinity)

Length is not width. Width is not height. Height is not length. But they are all [u]space[/u].

Matter consists of Solid, Liquid, Gas (This is a trinity)

Solids are not liguids. Liquids are not gasses. Gasses are not solids. But they are all [u]matter[/u].

Time consists of past, present, future. (This is a trinity)

Past is not present. Present is not future. Future is not the past. But they are all [u]time[/u]

From this illustration we can apprehend how it is possible that God is a Trinity logically. Notice I did not say we can [i]comprehend[/i] the Trinity, but what we can understand is that it is not only possible, but it is the format God has chosen to pattern this world after Himself. God could have created the world with four dimensions of space, four states of matter, and four deminsions of time- but He did not. He chose to make things in the form of a trinity.

The cry of Jesus was not a factual statement. It was a plea.

There is a hermeneutical principal that states [i]if the plain sense makes good sense seek no other sense[/i]. When the verbs, prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions and nouns cease to be such, language is nonsense. There is no reason to believe from the text that the words of our Lord are meant to be taken any other way than they were written. [i]Why[/i] is a word that denotes a question and requests an answer. When Peter asked Ananias and Sapphira, "Why has Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" it was a statement and a question at the same time. The fact in the case is that Satan had filled their heart. We assume this from the question itself. Why did he do it? They gave no answer. Our Lord said "Why hast thou forsaken me?" Whether it be a statement or a question we cannot skirt the difficulty by blurring the meaning and plain sense of the language. This was not a parable and it was not to be meant as a metaphor. It was a 'plain sense' statement in the form of a question infused with the facts of the case.

Ron, I am sorry if I have upset you. I do not mean to cause contention. I was fearful of even typing anything at all because I feared it would come to this.

The cry of Jesus was not a factual statement. It was a plea. This plea could have very well been the cry of His soul in conflict with His Spirit. Due to His suffering, He may have felt forsaken when in reality, He was not. What are we to say concerning Gethsemane? It is obvious the soul of Christ was resisting the cross. Was He separated from the Father then as well?

The self-consciousness of Christ in this passage is truly amazing. [color=0000ff]“But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” (Psa 22:6 KJVS)[/color] This is He whom angels worshipped who has become 'no man'. HIs agony is displayed in every verse of the first half of this psalm. You may now understand my horror at any questioning that he was mistaken.

Someone else could argue, "Christ did not literally become sin. He did not become sin itself, rather He bore the offense of sin. Christ was not separated from the Father for if He was then He could not have been raised. He would have been filled with sin and doomed to Hell without hope. Rather, Christ paid the debt of sin. However, since Christ was sinless, death could not hold Him."

Mark 14:58 (NKJ)
"We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.'"

If by the temple, Christ was referring to His body, what are we to say about this passage? Was the body of Christ man made, and when resurrected, made by God?

Well Ron and Robert, I still stand by what I said. Christ was not forsaken on the cross. The doctrine of the Trinity is false. I have made my case.

As I said, it could be that I am wrong. However, I will continue to teach this until Christ changes me. I follow Him.

Though we disagree, I love you both just the same. And I do hope the best for you, deeply and sincerely. This truth cannot be expressed over a forum adequately. I beginning to see why preaching is best done in person.

And though we do disagree, I believe we are on the same side. We have a common enemy. May we stay united as one in Christ, so as to stand strong against our enemy.

In love,
Blake

How can anyone suggest that he was not 'forsaken' in the light of his self-conscious expression of abandonment?

I just wanted to comment on this one thing because it relates to my life personally in my current struggles. Since I have been saved, I have had moments like this of Christ on the cross where I have felt abandoned. There have been moments where I have suffered and I have cried "My god, why have you forsaken me?" The words were not exactly the same, but the connotation is. Though I had not experienced separation and knew God had not left me, I felt abandoned. Haven't you ever experienced this? Haven't you ever cried out, "Where are you God? Why have you left me here?"

To be Christian is to suffer as Christ did. We live in the Devil's domain. And as such, we will face moments like this where our soul feels forsaken. But does that mean God has abandoned us?

When we think of it like this, the verse in Isaiah makes sense. In Isaiah 49: 14-15(NIV), it says, " But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.' 'Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!'"

Christ was a man with a soul of flesh. He was tempted just as we are tempted. Is it not possible that Christ felt abandoned in His soul, though He knew the Father had not left Him?

I don't need to hear your answer. I leave this question with you.

For me personally, this moment really shows Christ's humanity. In those moments when I am facing immense trials and tribulations, I can trust that God will not abandon me. He did not forsake His own son on the cross. So long as I am in Christ, I will not be forgotten. I have hope in Christ. He is my Savior.

I have nothing more to say.

In love and In Christ,
Blake

sscott, I am going to reiterate something Ron said earlier. Jesus being forsaken is NOT "part" of God being forsaken by another "part" of God. The way you state it, you are correct that it is not compatible with that doctrine as you state it. BUT that is not the Trinity doctrine. God is not "made up" of anything. He is not Father + Son + Holy Spirit. He is not a sum of parts. The way you seem to understand the Trinity is somewhat like the way the JWs and oneness people do (please note that I am NOT calling you either one of these). They see the Trinity as being Tritheism. But the two are RADICALLY different. I think this all stems back to the fact that you do not understand what the Trinity doctrine actually says, and also you misunderstand the Hypostatic Union. Like Ron said earlier, we have to START with taking God at His word in how He reveals Himself in scripture and be content with that. We know that Father is God and Son is God (refuting Arianism) and Holy Spirit is God, but we also know that there is only ONE GOD (refuting tritheism). We know that all three exist "simultaneously" and "individually" if you will (refuting modalism). We know that Jesus is man. And we know that Jesus CLEARLY understood Himself as being forsaken (Psalm 22 is David looking at Christ, not the other way around). We have to start with accepting all that as being 100% true. When we start debating these doctrines, we must all have that as our base. Jesus cry on the cross is not contrary to the aforementioned truths. It can't be. They are all true. Now, starting with that foundation, we try to come to a fuller comprehension of God so we can glory in Him even more, hence things like the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed, and what Ron and Robert have done an excellent job of here in this discussion.

Have you read Tozer's [i]Knowledge of the Holy[/i]? He does a magnificent job of showing the unity and consistency of God, without confusing all the truths we know about Him in a way that makes Him "made up of" anything. I reccommend reading it and also reading Abraham's encounter with YHWH in Genesis 18 in the King James Version paying specific attention to the transitions between singular (I/Thee/Thou) and plural (Ye/You). I believe this passage alone sought with much prayer may help you understand God's nature (as attempted to be explained by Trinitarian theology) much better.

Grace to you,
denver

Since I have been saved, I have had moments like this of Christ on the cross...

Christ did not cry out 'where are you?' he cried 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'. There are only two possible explanations to this. Either Christ was mistaken or you are mistaken.

You will not find it hard to guess who I think was mistaken. If this does not fit into your theory it is time to change your theory or do not pretend to being a bible-believer.

It would be torture beyond thinking for an angel to be separated from God, for the Son to be separated from the Father is truly ineffable.

[i]Very[/i] well spoken, brother. This is a shattering concept, and true to the core.

If this does not fit into your theory it is time to change your theory or do not pretend to being a bible-believer.

Painful, but true as well.

they both agree with this:

Trinity Diagram

So what are you saying?

Hi guys-- actually that triangle type diagram is taught in many bible colleges as a way to explain the Trinity, but it has to be noted that God is more than 2 demensional. But in theory you can't have a triangle with any of the points gone or missing. I've heard others illustrations along the same lines, water, vapor, ice, ect... But I have to admit the whole subject of trinity/triune God is a difficult one and one in which very few are able to grappel with and keep thier intellengence and faith intact. :-o

for the Son to be separated from the Father is truly ineffable.

It is impossible for the Son to be separated from the Father. If Christ had been separated from the Father on the cross, how is it that they were joined together again? How is it that Christ was able to raise Himself? How could the Son who was separated from the Father have authority to raise Himself as He says in John 10:18 (NAS), "I have authority to take it up again?"

Sscott is correct in his thinking. Your two doctrines are incompatible. You cannot say this: "He is not a sum of parts," and then say, "the Son was separated from the Father." That is nonsense. How could the Son be separated from the Father if they are one?

The theology I have presented does not have holes like this. It does not because it was not created by men. What I have presented comes from God. I know you do not believe this. I know this is difficult to believe.

What I can't understand is why you think so highly of yourself to question not merely my teachings, but my faith as well? Sscott has stated that he disagrees with me, but not once has he called my faith into question. But you say things like "I fear that in this obsession you are not God's instrument but another's." Whether what I say is right or wrong, it is not your place to question my relationship with God.

Either Christ was mistaken or you are mistaken.

Is it possible that you are mistaken and your interpretation is incorrect? Are you absolutely positive that Christ was saying for a fact that He was forsaken by the Father?

If this does not fit into your theory it is time to change your theory or do not pretend to being a bible-believer.

This is not my theory. I have told you that this is what God has given to me.

Ron, who is pretending to be a bible believer? Why do you not listen to these verses:

1 Thessalonians 5:20 (NKJ) "Do not despise prophecies."

Proverbs 9:12 (NKJ)
"If you are wise, you are wise for yourself, And if you scoff, you will bear it alone."

I am not pretending to be a bible-believer. I have said plainly, I believe in Jesus Christ. I have surrendered everything to Him. Because of this, He has revealed to me truth in scripture. I believe the bible and understand it because of Jesus Christ.

However, there are people (and I am not saying you are one as I do not know) who believe in God because of the bible. They are trying to come unto God through the bible. And yet, Christ was recorded as saying in John 10:1 (NKJ), "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber."; and in John 10:7 "Then Jesus said to them again, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.'" Jesus is the only way.

If a person believes in Christ, they will naturally come unto the bible with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

But there are many who come unto the bible without Christ. They are not seeking Christ first, but rather, are trying to come through a different door. These have developed man-made theories based upon academic and intellectual reasoning. They have depended on their own understanding first, and then tried to interpret scripture accordingly. They do not interpret scripture by the Spirit, but rather by their own intellectual understanding.

I tell you now by the authority of Christ that is what you are doing with this verse. You are saying "Either Christ was mistaken or you are mistaken." But you are not humble enough to question your own intellect. Is it possible that you are not seeing this verse in the proper light? Are you depending on your own understanding? Have you truly consulted Christ in humility open to any possibility so that He can direct you?

I have prayed over every word of yours and mine. I have not despised your teachings and have taken them to heart. I have stated what Christ has given me. I have even said that I could be wrong in unseen tears. I have tried to show you the truth in light of other scripture. I have prayed over you and over this, but you still continue to attack me. Why? What are you afraid of?

Ron, it is okay if we disagree on this. Quite obviously, Christ will judge us both for every word we speak as teachers and preachers. I am not your judge, and I do not want to be. I have made a submission in accord with Christ. The rest is between you and God. I am merely a servant.

I don't know what else to say. I don't want to debate with you. I want to be reconciled as brothers in Christ. I have offered myself to you in love. I have apologized. The rest is in your hands.

In love,
Blake

"It is impossible for the Son to be separated from the Father." beenblake

"My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me" Jesus Christ.

Guess who I am going to believe?

Ron, who is pretending to be a bible believer? Why do you not listen to these verses:

mm? I keep getting
403 Forbidden
You must supply a local referer to get URL '/shield-trinity-english.gif' from this server. from your link.

OK I managed to get to it by another route. I have no desire to refute it. Certainly my own understanding would fit into that shape but so would tri-theism. As has been said anything which can be reduced to two dimensions is going to have severe limitations when applied to an all-dimensional God.

What's tri-theism?

What's tri-theism?

As has been said anything which can be reduced to two dimensions is going to have severe limitations when applied to an all-dimensional God.

I think this is one of our more important considerations. God created the framework by which we experience and comprehend. He is NOT His creation. We can learn about Him from the creation in many ways and even sufficient ways. In other words the revelation is sufficient for the purpose. We may not be content with what we know, but surely we cannot know more than God has chosen to reveal. It may come off as a cop-out to say that, but I would argue back that at some point a person has to be content with what God has revealed. Discontentment can sometimes be an synonym for rebellion. If I am looking for a reason to sin- I will find an excuse.

Another point to consider is what it really means to 'understand'. I have often said that understanding is the point at which one is content not to ask any more questions. If I am content with what I have heard and comprehended I have a sense that I 'understand'. But so long as I keep wanting to ask questions I never have a sense that I fully understand. Sometimes we just have to say- 'well enough'. I understand [i]well enough[/i] for the purpose or task at hand. You don't have to understand electricity on a quantum physical level to be a lineman or an electrician. We only need to understand well enough to function in our 'job'. God has revealed Himself well enough to accomplish His purpose. We cannot know more than He has chosen to reveal. He has chosen to allow an element of mystery surrounding Himself. That was His choice. But we must be faithful to take hold of the FULL revelation and be willing to allow for that element of mystery and not INSIST that we fit God into our finite and even beggarly understanding. Who would dedicate their life to a God that they could readily explain? If that was all the greater God was, we would despair even of life.

Would you, in your opinion, say those who do not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity are outside of the Christian faith?

I would have to answer that question with a few similar questions; "Which member of the Godhead is [u]not[/u] God?"

God the Father?
God the Son?
God the Holy Spirit?

If one says that God the Father is not God are they still a Christian?

If one says that Jesus Christ is not God are they still a Christian?

If one says that the Holy Spirit is not God are they still a Christian?

Philologos wrote

To me this self-emptying is the 'becoming the son' ...

Some theologians will get very hot under the collar about this ...

Mike

Philologos wrote

I see this passage as referancing a return to a previous 'state' within the Godhead.

1) Having mediated recently on the sacrifice the Word/Son/Christ had to make to take human form, and, from what we can see, maintain an enhanced human form (able to pass through doors, but still apparently limited by space) after the cross, I am awestruck by the amount of this sacrifice. To relinquish omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-presence for us is truly a remarkable sacrifice, perhaps almost equal to the sacrifice of the cross. If, however, He will once again take on the full qualities of the Godhead the sacrifice is less, because giving these things up even for say 3,000 years (today plus a millennium) or even a million years compared to eternity is still a short time.

2) If there is a change in the Son’s existence/format/status/etc, what happens to us as the bride of Christ? Do we end up widowed, or abandoned without a heavenly bridegroom?

Mike

I would like to ask whether you had have the opportunity to submit your ideas to any what might be recognised as prominent and respected, evangelical, fundamental, Pentecostal, or charismatic theologians of our day for comment or discussion.

Arius held that the Son was created, while those of Alexander’s camp, believed that He was eternal. Whereas Arius held that Jesus was in some way created, not pre-existing and therefore lesser than the Father. You are modifying his view by adding that the Word/Son/Christ was pre-existing and of the same substance as the Father, but the Son, as currently revealed to us in salvation history, was created from the Word and by the actions of the Word and the Father.

I am not, at all, saying that the Son was created in any sense; either 'out of the Word' or otherwise. I saying, and I shall probably get into trouble for this too, that The Son is a mode of the Word. (Please note everyone this is not Modalism) The language which expresses this 'mode' of Son is the language of 'begotten' and not 'created'.

I have heard this view expressed before, but it leaves me a little uncomfortable. The following verse was probably behind much of the debate at the Council of Nicea, when the Trinity definition was formalised. Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

If there is a change in the Son’s existence/format/status/etc, what happens to us as the bride of Christ? Do we end up widowed, or abandoned without a heavenly bridegroom?

philologos wrote:

and this one I can answer without fear of contradiction

"The Father is God"
"The Son is God"
"The Holy Spirit is God"
"God is the Father"
"God is the Son"
"God is the Holy Spirit"
"The Father is not the Son"
"The Son is not the Father"
"The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
"The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
"The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

Where does that leave the Man Jesus. Our spirit, soul and body are separated in scripture and being so, when this body dies where does the soul and spirit go? Like Jesus when the Body was crucified and died where did the Soul and Spirit of God go? God breathed life into a breathing soul and gave life, Christ has been birthed in us and a quickening Spirit He is.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

The Spirit of Christ is God, All God. The Body was all Man. The Man Christ also was a living Soul as all men from Adam. The Spirit of Christ is eternal and the Spirit of God is. Jesus Said, "The Father and I are One, if you have seen me you have seen the Father. What part of Christ was the Father? Was it the Flesh? No, it was the Spirit of God which the trinity was and is. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

The Flesh is what God turned His back on, because that perfect body provided to Him by Mary contained the sin of the world in it. That was the cup He had in the garden, but He drank and became sin for us. That sacrifice was the only sacrifice God could accept for the sin of the World and that Cup of sin poured into Jesus is what God had to turn His back on.

Christ never ceased to be God in His Spirit and His resurrected Body is now the same Body we will have in the resurrection of the believers the "Body of Christ" the "Church", "His Church".

God is perfect in His plan, He has and had it all worked out so the Cross would do exactly what He programmed it to do. Christ would die, His body would be dead and the Blood which is the life of the Flesh would be shed for sinners lost. What did God turn His back on, it was the sin that was in the flesh of Christ by the cup He drank, The Life of the Flesh is in the Blood. It was that Blood that was shed that saves us.

Mark 14:33-36 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Jesus was not afraid to die, He new who He was and that He would never die, He and His Father were One. He was so heavy because of the cup, the sin of the world, even He was "sore amazed"
Then It became so bad, even an angle came to comfort Him, and He was so agitated by the sin He became for us, it became so bad, he sweat great drops of Blood.

Luke 22:42-44 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

His agony here was much more than the Cross. This agony of becoming sin for the World was much more to Him, who was a perfect Man, having to take the sin of the world into Himself which He had never done, this was what God the Father had to turn His back on. God is One, But at this time this perfect human man Jesus was sin for us and God The Father could not even watch.
This was His suffering and obedience even unto death that is the death of the Cross being sin Himself. If this does not make even His "not my will by Yours" the most important tears of our life knowing what He did to purchase us, your heart is stone and dead.

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

2 Corinthians 4:8-11 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

In Christ: Phillip

I have wondered if the account of Adam and Eve is somewhat a picture of the Father and the Son.

He sleeps: and from His open side
The mingled blood and water flow;
They both give being to His bride,
And wash His church as white as snow.

True principles of life Divine,
Issues from these the second Eve,
Mother of all the faithful line,
Of all that by His passion live.

O what a miracle of love
Hath He, our heavenly Adam, showed!
Jesus forsook His throne above
That we might all be born of God.

'Twas not a useless rib He lost,
His heart's last drop of blood He gave;
His life, His precious life it cost
Our dearly ransomed souls to save.

And will He not His purchase take,
Who died to make us all His own,
One spirit with Himself to make,
Flesh of HIs flesh, bone of his bone?

He will, our hearts reply He will:
He hath even here a token given,
And bids us meet Him on the hill,
And keep the marriage feast in heaven.

philologos wrote

Arius held that the Son was created, while those of Alexander’s camp, believed that He was eternal. Whereas Arius held that Jesus was in some way created, not pre-existing and therefore lesser than the Father. You are modifying his view by adding that the Word/Son/Christ was pre-existing and of the same substance as the Father, but the Son, as currently revealed to us in salvation history, was [b]created[/b] from the Word and by the actions of the Word and the Father.

I am not, at all, saying that the Son was [b]created[/b] in any sense; either 'out of the Word' or otherwise. I saying, and I shall probably get into trouble for this too, that The Son is a mode of the Word. (Please note everyone this is not Modalism) The language which expresses this 'mode' of Son is the language of 'begotten' and not 'created'.

In the beginning the Word already was and the Word was Godwards and the Word was God. He was in the 'form' of God and in preparation for incarnation he self-emptied himself and then himself took the 'form' of a bondslave. To me this self-emptying is the [b]'becoming the son'[/b] and as the son he submitted himself to the father. This is the measure of his love for our race.

The passage then switches to something which he did not Do but which happened to him. [b]"He was made in the likeness of man"[/b]. He did not 'make himself in the likeness of man'; the Father did that and you can hear the excitement in another personal testimony of Christ's...

[color=003399]“Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.”
(Heb 10:5 NKJV)[/color]

'Another' prepared his body but after He had voluntarily 'self emptied himself and had taken on the 'form of a bondslave'. His human body perfectly fitted his 'form as a bondslave'.

Perhaps to use a human example, I am a man, I am also a husband, and a father. I can switch instanteously between each of these modes (continuing to avoid any reference to modalism)depending upon whom I am interacting with: a stranger, my wife, or my children. However, I went through three processes to arrive at each of these: growing up, courtship and marriage, and... well never mind..., respectively. I have not always been a father, a husband, or grown up.

It would be helpful if you could clarify for me, if your view is that the Word went through a process to become the Son, or that the Son is co-eternal with the Father as both the Word and the Son and that no process was involved?

Mike

t would be helpful if you could clarify for me, if your view is that the Word went through a process to become the Son, or that the Son is co-eternal with the Father as both the Word and the Son and that no process was involved?

The scriptures gives us, I think, a very small window on eternity. God has revealed what is relevant to us in our present state. There will be much more 'truth' and revelation for us at a future time.

The problem with your analogy is that it is not reversible but just one way. I am not suggesting any change in the character, person or deity of the Word, but I am suggesting a change in relationship.

To me 'begetting' speaks of an 'event'. Perhaps if we recall the Colossian phrase...[color=0000ff]“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Col 1:15 NKJV)[/color]The NKJV here has opted for a preposition 'over' but this is an interpretation and not a translation. I suspect that it has been added to provide a defence against the JW's claim that this makes Christ part of the creation.

The KJV is more literal here...[color=0000ff]“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Col 1:15 KJVS)[/color]The phrase 'of every creature'is better translated 'of all creation'. a good translation might be 'all creation's firstborn one'. Our immediate reaction is to see 'firstborn' as a verb speaking of a becoming in the sense of generation, but this verse is not speaking of a biological firstborn. The 'firstborn' is a title which expresses relationship NOT pedigree. The 'role' of the 'firstborn' one in the OT sometimes passed from the biological firstborn to another member of the family. Jacob and Joseph are both examples of this. This term 'firstborn' expresses the relationship of Christ to the creation and is not speaking of physical connection.

The term 'adoption' is a similar case. Some modern versions opt for 'Sonship' rather than adoption. 'huithesia' is literally the placing of a son, rather than the begetting of one. Roman custom was that a child was publically acknowledged as a man's heir. 'Adoption' biblically has nothing to do with the adoption of babies but is the kind of adoption that Julius Caesar did to Augustus. He publicaly acknowledged him as his heir. Physical 'sonship' was irrelevant; it was a public statement of inheritance.

The references to the day in which the Father 'begot' the son are similar. The term is used to describe the resurrection of Christ; Acts 13:33. While the two references in Hebrews refer to the accession/coronation of Christ; Heb 1:5; 5:5. Although we can tie these into events they are really expressions of the honour that the Father has given to the Son. The resurrection honour is seen in [color=0000ff]“concerning his Son (come of David’s seed according to flesh, marked out Son of God in power, according to [the] Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of [the] dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;” (Rom 1:3-4 DRBY) [/color]

So the Word's voluntary submission to the Father is again a metaphor of relationship and not a family tree. The imagery of 'only begotten' speaks of honour and heir-ship. Christ as the 'heir'is another familiar NT metaphor.

I am trying to steer very carefully between Scylla and Charybdis here. I am determined to hold the Word as co-equal and co-substantial in every sense with the Father and the Spirit. And, I am determined to hold the truth that the Word became fully man. For me, the Word proceeding 'out of the Father' does not do justice to this co-equality and co-substantiality. I know that the Word as the Son came 'out FROM the Father' but I cannot use the language of 'out of the Father'and, as I have said elsewhere, the phrase 'eternal generation' and 'eternally begotten' have no meaning that I can take hold of.

I have no doubt that the Word having become man, He will remain both man and God always. What will transpire when 'God is all in all' (1 Cor 15:28) I cannot even begin to imagine; it would be an impertinence to try.

Becoming a son' and 'being made in the likeness of a man' imply a process, which if you prefer a different term from 'created', certainly imply a formation by a process.

Was the investiture of the Prince of Wales a 'process' or an event. It was a public declaration of a monarch's decision. He was the same person as ever but now with a prescribed role. It seems to me that the Word voluntarily submitted to the 'Father' was 'designated' the Son. The Prince of Wales is a role. His family connections and relationship to the monarch remains unchanged but he will now behave differently in his new role. So the Word and the Father are unchanged in nature and remain co-equal and co-substantial but in His role as 'Son' he behaved differently in that he took on humanity.

I think I have question you enough on these ideas for the time being, and it has been illuminating and thrilling; I think we should all keep in mind the phrase you have used regularly "but there is more... much more ". I fear we get so caught up in the defence of our creeds of faith, we never let our minds explore whether they limit our understanding in their efforts to resist error. I wonder if the devil manages to get us so focused on the minutiae of the differences between trinitarians and unitarians and miss the 'much more'.

It is interesting to think of what changes might come in eternity. We often glibly talk about heaven and hell without giving too much thought to them. I am not at all convinced that hell is the eternal destiny of the unsaved. From my elementary reading, hell seems to be temporary, the lake of fire (Gehenna or the valley of Hinnon) seems to be the eternal fate of such. But perhaps we talk about heaven as well without giving it enough thought. If there are ages to come (Eph 2:7; 3:5, 21; Col 1:26), not just a static heaven, then we could be in for a hum-dinger of a ride throughout eternity, full of exciting changes and variety. Perhaps that will be one aspect to the terror of those in the lake of fire, apart from everything else, they will be bored for eternity, only ever burning. I have always been taken by the verse in Song of Songs Ch2v8 "The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills." A very differnet picture from the one we so often portray of the Lord. Perhaps eternity will be something like a day at Disneyland with no queues/lnes for any of the rides. Or am I being too frivolous????

Since we have talked about some of these ideas, based on some glimpses we see in the New Testament, perhaps they (in NT times) talked much more about them, than we ever do. Perhaps a fuller view of eternity than we have, was uppermost in Paul's mind when he wrote:

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

'Oh children,' said the Lion, 'I feel my strength coming back to me. Oh, children, catch me if can!' He stood for a second, his eyes very bright, his limbs guivering, lashing himself with his tail. Then he made a leap high over their heads and landed on the other side of the Table. Laughing, though she didn't know why, Lucy scrambled over it to reach him. Aslan leaped again. A mad chase began. Round and round the hill-top he lead them, now hopelessly out of their reach, now letting them almost catch his tail, now diving between them, now tossing them in the air with his huge and beautifully velveted paws and catching them again, and now stopping unexpectedly so that all three of them rolled over together in a happy laughing heap of fur and arms and legs. It was such a romp as no one has ever had except in Narnia; and whether it was more like playing with a thunderstorm or playing with a kitten Lucy could never make up her mind.

Mike

Romans 8:10-18 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

The word "shall" is not the revealing of what Paul is speaking of. Shall should be; (through the idea of expectation); to intend, i.e. be about to be, do, "sufferings of this present time"; a primary particle of present time; "now"
What is revealed in us? It is the life of Christ revealed in us, now, which does not even come close to comparing of what we are going through now in our new creation race of Christ-ones, son's of God.

"Revealed in us" What is this? Colossians 1:24-28 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 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: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

A new dispensation of of God, given to Paul. Paul never waivers in his theme, that is,"Christ in you the Hope of Glory". Paul uses this thought, "Christ in you" 146 times, look up how many times Paul makes this statement to be our life, our new life of God in Christ Jesus.
IN CHRIST, how many of us know what this means?
The most important revelation of all time, which was given to Paul By Jesus Christ Himself, and we all say, oh yes I know Christ is in us. Then why do we say in the Church, The presence of the Lord is in this place. Not, The presence of the Lord is in the People that are in this place, by the birthing of, "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", The presence of the Lord is in every believer, The Spirit of Christ, or we are none of His. Rom 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. No man has seen God, for God is Spirit, right? Paul is saying that we have this God now living in us. Think on this!

Our birth because we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, makes us son's of God. All heaven's creatures, which are created beings, not birthed being as we are new creatures in Christ, which heavens created beings are waiting for the manifestation of a new creation race of God the Father's family of born again son's of God, birthed not created.

What are we missing here? It looks to me that we don't really understand the birthing of The Seed Christ in the new believer. Paul speaks loud and clear, but we just don't understand what he is saying, for we cannot see that we are what Paul calls a new creature in Christ Jesus.
How can this be? Do we go back into our mother's womb and become born again? Wow! That sounds familiar.

Paul says this fulfills the word of God? That is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory".

Christ in me and me in Christ: Phillip