There Are Many Scriptures That Disprove The Trinity
- Thread starter Swingalong
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
By oldhermit
Hebrews 1:5 - Jesus is the SON of GOD. “You are My Son; today I have begotten you.” This is a quote from Psalms 2:7 which finds its fulfillment in Jesus. The Psalmist presents Jesus as God's appointed King whom he has installed upon the holy hill of Zion. Just as the Psalmist said, Jesus would be inaugurated to heaven's throne even in the midst of great resistance The nations conspire against him. The people plot in vain. The kings of earth and the rulers take their stand against the Lord's anointed but, with all their combined power they cannot rob Christ of his throne. The rejected him, scorned him, crucified him, and put him in a sealed tomb. In Acts 2:22-36 Peter binds the fact that Jesus is the heir of David's throne and that God has raised him, set him at his right hand, made him to rule over his enemies, and made him both Lord and Christ – Anointed ruler. He now stands as King over all king and Lord over all Lords, Revelation 19:16.
1. It is his designation as “SON” which distinguishes him from the angels.
a. SON – Υἱός – is most often used to define the nature, actions, or character of a person as in Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls James and John “sons - υἱοὶ - of thunder;” Not because they were literally the offsprings of a natural phenomenon but, because of their violent and explosive nature. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus calls the Pharisees the υἱοὶ of hell because their character reflected the nature of darkness. Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, bears the same nature, action, and moral character of God.
b. Jesus is God, not only by nature but also by promise – 2 Samuel 7:14, by decree – Psalms 2:7, and by resurrection – Acts 13:33.
c. By nature, angels are creature, not creator. They were created by him and for his purposes, Colossians 1:16. They are HIS angels, 7.
2. He is “begotten” of God. “Today I have begotten you.”
a. “Today” is considered by many scholars and commentators to refer to what is called “the eternal generation of the Son" and his eternal sonship and cannot in any way speak of his humanity. Origen, believed that “today” is that timeless ever-present, eternal day which Christ inhabits. That since time has no boundries with God, it is thus always “today.” While Jesus is indeed the eternal self-existing One without beginning and without end, this is not the point made by the Hebrew writer in verse five. The context of verse five is not to establish the eternal existence of Jesus but to declare through the Psalmist the enthronement of Zion's King. “Today” does not speak of Jesus timeless, eternal existence but points to a definitive point in linear time. Verse five is not presenting Jesus as God in eternity but as man in his mediatorial role. A.W. Pink in his “Exposition of Hebrews” pp. 50-51 properly regards “today” as a fixed point in linear time but then misapplies the point of time. Pink points to the virgin birth as the “today” in which Jesus was called begotten. He then appeals to Luke 2:11 which reads “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior which is Christ the Lord.” But, as in all cases, it behooves us to allow scripture to interpret its own terminology. In Acts 13:31-38, Paul addresses the Jewish officials in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch and shows that Jesus is the divinely appointed King who is David's heir to the throne. The fact that Jesus is raised from the dead is the fulfillment of Psalms 2:7, “Today I have begotten you.” So, “today,” according to Paul's inspired interpretation, refers not to Jesus' eternal sonship, not to his incarnation but, to his resurrection from the dead. “God has fulfilled this...in that he RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD as it also says in the second Psalm 'Today I have begotten you.'” If Paul confirms “today” as the specific point in time this renders all other interpretations to the contrary null and void. “Today,” in the context of Hebrew chapter one points to the four temporal indicators which overturn all other speculations about the understanding of the term “today.” After Jesus accomplished all these things by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, the declaration is made by the Father, “You are my Son, Todayhave I begotten you.”
b. “Begotten”- γεγέννηκά – a metaphor meaning to engender, to cause to rise. As we saw in our exposition of the word “today,” this refers to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Jesus is not begotten by virtue of creation but by virtue of his victory over sin and death.
Hebrews 1:5 - Jesus is the SON of GOD. “You are My Son; today I have begotten you.” This is a quote from Psalms 2:7 which finds its fulfillment in Jesus. The Psalmist presents Jesus as God's appointed King whom he has installed upon the holy hill of Zion. Just as the Psalmist said, Jesus would be inaugurated to heaven's throne even in the midst of great resistance The nations conspire against him. The people plot in vain. The kings of earth and the rulers take their stand against the Lord's anointed but, with all their combined power they cannot rob Christ of his throne. The rejected him, scorned him, crucified him, and put him in a sealed tomb. In Acts 2:22-36 Peter binds the fact that Jesus is the heir of David's throne and that God has raised him, set him at his right hand, made him to rule over his enemies, and made him both Lord and Christ – Anointed ruler. He now stands as King over all king and Lord over all Lords, Revelation 19:16.
1. It is his designation as “SON” which distinguishes him from the angels.
a. SON – Υἱός – is most often used to define the nature, actions, or character of a person as in Mark 3:17 where Jesus calls James and John “sons - υἱοὶ - of thunder;” Not because they were literally the offsprings of a natural phenomenon but, because of their violent and explosive nature. In Matthew 23:15, Jesus calls the Pharisees the υἱοὶ of hell because their character reflected the nature of darkness. Jesus, who is the υἱὸν θεοῦ – Son of God, bears the same nature, action, and moral character of God.
b. Jesus is God, not only by nature but also by promise – 2 Samuel 7:14, by decree – Psalms 2:7, and by resurrection – Acts 13:33.
c. By nature, angels are creature, not creator. They were created by him and for his purposes, Colossians 1:16. They are HIS angels, 7.
2. He is “begotten” of God. “Today I have begotten you.”
a. “Today” is considered by many scholars and commentators to refer to what is called “the eternal generation of the Son" and his eternal sonship and cannot in any way speak of his humanity. Origen, believed that “today” is that timeless ever-present, eternal day which Christ inhabits. That since time has no boundries with God, it is thus always “today.” While Jesus is indeed the eternal self-existing One without beginning and without end, this is not the point made by the Hebrew writer in verse five. The context of verse five is not to establish the eternal existence of Jesus but to declare through the Psalmist the enthronement of Zion's King. “Today” does not speak of Jesus timeless, eternal existence but points to a definitive point in linear time. Verse five is not presenting Jesus as God in eternity but as man in his mediatorial role. A.W. Pink in his “Exposition of Hebrews” pp. 50-51 properly regards “today” as a fixed point in linear time but then misapplies the point of time. Pink points to the virgin birth as the “today” in which Jesus was called begotten. He then appeals to Luke 2:11 which reads “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior which is Christ the Lord.” But, as in all cases, it behooves us to allow scripture to interpret its own terminology. In Acts 13:31-38, Paul addresses the Jewish officials in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch and shows that Jesus is the divinely appointed King who is David's heir to the throne. The fact that Jesus is raised from the dead is the fulfillment of Psalms 2:7, “Today I have begotten you.” So, “today,” according to Paul's inspired interpretation, refers not to Jesus' eternal sonship, not to his incarnation but, to his resurrection from the dead. “God has fulfilled this...in that he RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD as it also says in the second Psalm 'Today I have begotten you.'” If Paul confirms “today” as the specific point in time this renders all other interpretations to the contrary null and void. “Today,” in the context of Hebrew chapter one points to the four temporal indicators which overturn all other speculations about the understanding of the term “today.” After Jesus accomplished all these things by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, the declaration is made by the Father, “You are my Son, Todayhave I begotten you.”
b. “Begotten”- γεγέννηκά – a metaphor meaning to engender, to cause to rise. As we saw in our exposition of the word “today,” this refers to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Jesus is not begotten by virtue of creation but by virtue of his victory over sin and death.
My question was directed at Trinitarians and their theology.
It has nothing to do with believing or not believing.
You didn't answer my question unless you were saying a believer must believe in the teaching of eternal sonship too.
But whatever you do, don't give me that Marie Harf treatment
Reporter to State Department: 'You're Unable To Give A Straight Answer' - YouTube
It has nothing to do with believing or not believing.
You didn't answer my question unless you were saying a believer must believe in the teaching of eternal sonship too.
But whatever you do, don't give me that Marie Harf treatment
Reporter to State Department: 'You're Unable To Give A Straight Answer' - YouTube
1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1, continuously = one in Father. Christ was a representative in perfection to Father for us to also be one in perfection to Father, and not ever of or from ourselves are we to be perfect, only by and through Christ are we made, to be one in him also:
My question was directed at Trinitarians and their theology.
It has nothing to do with believing or not believing.
You didn't answer my question unless you were saying a believer must believe in the teaching of eternal sonship too.
But whatever you do, don't give me that Marie Harf treatment
Reporter to State Department: 'You're Unable To Give A Straight Answer' - YouTube
It has nothing to do with believing or not believing.
You didn't answer my question unless you were saying a believer must believe in the teaching of eternal sonship too.
But whatever you do, don't give me that Marie Harf treatment
Reporter to State Department: 'You're Unable To Give A Straight Answer' - YouTube
Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God
[h=3]Hebrews 7[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
7 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; [SUP]2 [/SUP]to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; [SUP]3 [/SUP]without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: [SUP]6 [/SUP]but he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. [SUP]7 [/SUP]And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. [SUP]8 [/SUP]And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. [SUP]9 [/SUP]And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. [SUP]10 [/SUP]For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? [SUP]12 [/SUP]For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. [SUP]13 [/SUP]For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. [SUP]14 [/SUP]For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
[h=3]Hebrews 7:15-19[/h]Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, [SUP]16 [/SUP]who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Christ lives forever, He is the high priest that lives forever, being in him,. I too live forever with him and Father, thanks, and you to and all that beleive God and have received God's Mercy are Justified in Spirit never in flesh
1 Corinthians 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
A
The Trinity doctrine is a logical, Bible based teaching. Many who reject the doctrine of the Trinity are confused by falsehood... and as a result do not feel close to God; or feel real love or real connection to God because of their erroneous non-Trinitarian teaching. Many verses in the Bible prove the Trinity doctrine.
The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one.
The Trinity is biblical | Doctrine of Trinity? | God is Trinity of Persons | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
There I fixed swingalong's, who was banned for poor behavior, original post. It's correct now.
The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of scripture, not a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God, not three, and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. An analogy would be time. Time is past, present, and future. But, there are not three times, only one.
The Trinity is biblical | Doctrine of Trinity? | God is Trinity of Persons | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
There I fixed swingalong's, who was banned for poor behavior, original post. It's correct now.
As I read chapters 4 and 5 of Revelations, I see this:
God = "him that sat on the throne" (5:1)
Jesus = "the Lamb" (5:6)
John sees God is sitting on his throne. He is to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone (which is like a brilliant diamond) and around Him are four and twenty Elders and 4 beasts full of eyes in front and behind. Before the throne was a sea of glass like unto crystal (Revelations chapter 4)
In the right hand of God (him that sat on the throne), is a book (5:1) and there is only 1 in the universe that is worthy to open the book and that is Jesus (the Lamb). (5:6-7).
Now notice there positions:
God is sitting on the throne with a book in his right hand.
The Lamb is standing in front of the throne and reaches out and takes the book out of the right hand of God.
The Father, Son and Spirit are not occupying the singular Throne.
The Father is on the throne, the Son is standing in front of the throne and the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, but I'm sure he is there.
There may be passages in other chapters of Revelations that are not as crystal clear as chapter 5, but in chapter 5 we see a definite separation of the 2 entities, God (sitting on the throne) and Jesus, (the Lamb standing in front of the throne and taking a book out of the right hand of God).
God = "him that sat on the throne" (5:1)
Jesus = "the Lamb" (5:6)
John sees God is sitting on his throne. He is to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone (which is like a brilliant diamond) and around Him are four and twenty Elders and 4 beasts full of eyes in front and behind. Before the throne was a sea of glass like unto crystal (Revelations chapter 4)
In the right hand of God (him that sat on the throne), is a book (5:1) and there is only 1 in the universe that is worthy to open the book and that is Jesus (the Lamb). (5:6-7).
Now notice there positions:
God is sitting on the throne with a book in his right hand.
The Lamb is standing in front of the throne and reaches out and takes the book out of the right hand of God.
The Father, Son and Spirit are not occupying the singular Throne.
The Father is on the throne, the Son is standing in front of the throne and the Holy Spirit is not mentioned, but I'm sure he is there.
There may be passages in other chapters of Revelations that are not as crystal clear as chapter 5, but in chapter 5 we see a definite separation of the 2 entities, God (sitting on the throne) and Jesus, (the Lamb standing in front of the throne and taking a book out of the right hand of God).
M
What I'm reading is that even if you disagree with the trinity idea, you are still analyzing others as though you know their hearts. One thing is to dispute your point of the Trinity, but another is to psychoanalyze and spiritually diagnose the alleged effects of believing in the Trinity. So what if the word or idea is not in the bible? The trinity still exists. It's like an atheist preaching that there is no God and yet every time they write down the current year they are living in or refer to a date of history or topic, they are still declaring the year of the Lord. How stupid are they, huh?
The fact that there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit is still the point of being 3 persons in ONE and if the humbling spirit within a person is bowing down to the Father it's only because of the indwelling and prompting of the Holy Spirit whom first glorifies the Son, Jesus. You can't have one without the other. If the action of the 3 persons can be given a name so as to point to the 1 head of deity then make up any name you want, but as long as you understand that you cannot bow down to the Father unless it is of the Holy Spirit that prompts one to do so. The living spirit of God in 3 persons still does not change and there is nothing in scripture that one can use to dispute the idea of Trinity. It would be counter active of God's purpose of His very living being. Besides, to spend the time to search how to dispute the trinity by using God given biblical text is not from the prompting of the Holy Spirit but of self superior intellect and that's why there is scripture pointing to what happened to Lucifer. Now, that we can believe.
Mike
The fact that there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit is still the point of being 3 persons in ONE and if the humbling spirit within a person is bowing down to the Father it's only because of the indwelling and prompting of the Holy Spirit whom first glorifies the Son, Jesus. You can't have one without the other. If the action of the 3 persons can be given a name so as to point to the 1 head of deity then make up any name you want, but as long as you understand that you cannot bow down to the Father unless it is of the Holy Spirit that prompts one to do so. The living spirit of God in 3 persons still does not change and there is nothing in scripture that one can use to dispute the idea of Trinity. It would be counter active of God's purpose of His very living being. Besides, to spend the time to search how to dispute the trinity by using God given biblical text is not from the prompting of the Holy Spirit but of self superior intellect and that's why there is scripture pointing to what happened to Lucifer. Now, that we can believe.
Mike
E
lol. actually it is quite the opposite.
people who do not believe in a triune God could not possibly feel close to God.
And here is why.
1. God (the father) so loved the world he gave his only son in our place
2. God (the son) proved his love by becoming man, dealing with issued of being a physical being. and gave the ultimate sacrifice (his life) on our behalf.
3. God (the HS) has to deal with men grieving him by not listening to him all too often. yet he loves us so much, he continues to indwell us, continues to seal us as a guarantee, and continues to chasten us in love, teach us, and attempt to guide us, no matter how many times we do not listen to him.
what more love and closeness can you not only see, but feel and participate in?
A unitarian God can not do all this.
Bowman said that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit occupy the singular Throne in Revelations. That simply is not the truth, no matter how you slice the pie, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit do not occupy the same singular Throne in the book of Revelations. So I will ask you the same sort of question you asked me: Why is it so hard for you to see that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 in 3 acting as 1, as the scripture confirms, and not 3 in 1? It is obvious from this chapter 5 of Revelations that they are not 3 in 1. This is a class A example of that truth. Class A means that there is no other possible interpretation, it is too straight-forward.
You have put a lot of work into redefining what the word "son" means. I believe you are trying to show that the word "son" can mean, the nature, actions, or character of a person. You use an absolute metaphor, "sons of thunder" to make your point, that "sons" in this context obviously does not mean the literally offspring of thunder.
I think you are trying to say is the designation of "Son" in the case of Jesus only defines his role in the Triune God. You must be saying that "Son" does not mean that Jesus is the literal offspring of God, in the same sense that "son" usually means.
This redefinition allows you to by-pass the usual meaning of the word "begotten" and attach it to the resurrection, instead of to the usual meaning of the word "son" having to do with the mortal birth of the Son of God, fully separate and distinct from God, other than a oneness associated with righteousness, mind, will, purpose and actions. This is why many Christians would like to remove the words "only begotten" altogether from John 3:16. They would rather it read, God so loved the world that he gave his Son... That would remove the sticky "only begotten" problem.
My exegesis of the word "begotten is 2 fold:
1) In the Bible there are many chapters that define the genealogy of families. Matthew chapter 1 is a good example. It relates 28 generations from Adam to Jesus. The key word in the genealogical verbiage is "begat". It means to generate offspring. The definition also uses the word procreate, but I won't use it for fear that you will get the idea that I believe Jesus was somehow created. To me the word "begotten" means simply to generate offspring, which is why God is the literal Father of His Son Jesus. So my research assures me that I am using begotten in the right way.
2) Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of God (John 3:16). The scripture only makes sense when referring to the "Son" as a literal offspring of God, hence "only begotten" Son of God.
To me this scripture makes absolutely no sense when you use "only begotten" in reference to the resurrection.
Jesus was not the "only begotten" Son of God that was raised from the dead!
Jesus was the FIRSTBORN to be raised, implying that there will be other that follow, which was true (Mat. 27:52-53)
Jesus was "NOT THE ONLY ONE" raised from the dead.
The word "begotten" does not mean created, "like created out of nothing". In this context created means
"added upon". We cannot deny that Jesus's body was generated by Mary just like any other mortal. But Jesus's mortal body was prepared to house his eternal spirit, which was not created. That is what the incarnation is all about. The eternal spirit of a Deity coming into a mortal body and dwelling with man. His mortal body had one ingredient that no other mortal have, his Father was not mortal, He is a God. Hence the "ONLY BEGOTTEN" and no other mortal will follow and be designated begotten of God. Even Jesus's body was changed into a perfect, glorious resurrected body, he was the first to do it, but again not the "only". Now his eternal spirit is in an eternal body of flesh and bone forever. So will we after we are resurrected.
So "only Begotten" has to do with Jesus's mortal body and "firstborn from the grave" has to do with the resurrection.
I think you are trying to say is the designation of "Son" in the case of Jesus only defines his role in the Triune God. You must be saying that "Son" does not mean that Jesus is the literal offspring of God, in the same sense that "son" usually means.
This redefinition allows you to by-pass the usual meaning of the word "begotten" and attach it to the resurrection, instead of to the usual meaning of the word "son" having to do with the mortal birth of the Son of God, fully separate and distinct from God, other than a oneness associated with righteousness, mind, will, purpose and actions. This is why many Christians would like to remove the words "only begotten" altogether from John 3:16. They would rather it read, God so loved the world that he gave his Son... That would remove the sticky "only begotten" problem.
My exegesis of the word "begotten is 2 fold:
1) In the Bible there are many chapters that define the genealogy of families. Matthew chapter 1 is a good example. It relates 28 generations from Adam to Jesus. The key word in the genealogical verbiage is "begat". It means to generate offspring. The definition also uses the word procreate, but I won't use it for fear that you will get the idea that I believe Jesus was somehow created. To me the word "begotten" means simply to generate offspring, which is why God is the literal Father of His Son Jesus. So my research assures me that I am using begotten in the right way.
2) Jesus is the "only begotten" Son of God (John 3:16). The scripture only makes sense when referring to the "Son" as a literal offspring of God, hence "only begotten" Son of God.
To me this scripture makes absolutely no sense when you use "only begotten" in reference to the resurrection.
Jesus was not the "only begotten" Son of God that was raised from the dead!
Jesus was the FIRSTBORN to be raised, implying that there will be other that follow, which was true (Mat. 27:52-53)
Jesus was "NOT THE ONLY ONE" raised from the dead.
The word "begotten" does not mean created, "like created out of nothing". In this context created means
"added upon". We cannot deny that Jesus's body was generated by Mary just like any other mortal. But Jesus's mortal body was prepared to house his eternal spirit, which was not created. That is what the incarnation is all about. The eternal spirit of a Deity coming into a mortal body and dwelling with man. His mortal body had one ingredient that no other mortal have, his Father was not mortal, He is a God. Hence the "ONLY BEGOTTEN" and no other mortal will follow and be designated begotten of God. Even Jesus's body was changed into a perfect, glorious resurrected body, he was the first to do it, but again not the "only". Now his eternal spirit is in an eternal body of flesh and bone forever. So will we after we are resurrected.
So "only Begotten" has to do with Jesus's mortal body and "firstborn from the grave" has to do with the resurrection.
No, that is not what I was trying to say, that is what I said.
I am not re-defining these words. I am simply giving you the definition of the Greek words and showing you how they are represented in scripture. Do not confuse υἱὸς with τέκνον. υἱὸς - 'son' more closely defines nature and function. τέκνον, which is 'son' or 'offspring' refers to origin. Jesus in NEVER called the τέκνον or offspring of God.
γεγέννηκά - begotten is very clearly given an inspired application by Paul in Acts 13:31-38. Jesus is called Begotten by virtue of the resurrection. I did not say this Paul did when he gave an inspired interpretation of Psalms 2:7. What you are doing is attempting to give and interpretation of the word that fits your theology rather than accepting the use of the word as defined by scripture itself.
First of all, this is by no stretch of the imagination an "exegesis" of the word 'begotten'.
Secondly, as you pointed out, this is YOUR understanding of an English translation of γεγέννηκά. You are limiting scripture's use of language based on you own limited understand of an English equivalent. That is NOT exegesis.
Why is this the only way it makes sense?
It made perfect sense to the apostle Paul who received that explanation of the word γεγέννηκά from the Holy Spirit. You are using your own limited intelligence as the standard for judging how scripture should be understood. You are forcing your theology onto the text rather than allowing scripture to formulate your theology.
I was not suggesting that he was the only one raised from the dead. You are confusing two different terms. First born and only begotten are completely different terms that are not synonomus and that define completely different concepts about Jesus.
"God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today I have begotten (γεγέννηκά) you.Acts 13:33.
Paul says very plainly that "You are My Son; today I have begotten you" is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. That gives us an inspired interpretation of the use of begotten.
You really do not understand John 1, nor are you allowing scripture to define its own use of language. Again, You are attempting to force your theology onto the text rather than allowing scripture to formulate your theology.
What you are teaching is nothing more that a revision of Gnostic theology. Jesus was not simply transferred into the body of a man to dwell in that body, rather, the Word himself became the man. This is not an indwelling, this is a metamorphoses. There is a transformation of form and substance. This is how Paul presents the incarnation in Phil. 2.
I am not re-defining these words. I am simply giving you the definition of the Greek words and showing you how they are represented in scripture. Do not confuse υἱὸς with τέκνον. υἱὸς - 'son' more closely defines nature and function. τέκνον, which is 'son' or 'offspring' refers to origin. Jesus in NEVER called the τέκνον or offspring of God.
γεγέννηκά - begotten is very clearly given an inspired application by Paul in Acts 13:31-38. Jesus is called Begotten by virtue of the resurrection. I did not say this Paul did when he gave an inspired interpretation of Psalms 2:7. What you are doing is attempting to give and interpretation of the word that fits your theology rather than accepting the use of the word as defined by scripture itself.
First of all, this is by no stretch of the imagination an "exegesis" of the word 'begotten'.
Secondly, as you pointed out, this is YOUR understanding of an English translation of γεγέννηκά. You are limiting scripture's use of language based on you own limited understand of an English equivalent. That is NOT exegesis.
Why is this the only way it makes sense?
It made perfect sense to the apostle Paul who received that explanation of the word γεγέννηκά from the Holy Spirit. You are using your own limited intelligence as the standard for judging how scripture should be understood. You are forcing your theology onto the text rather than allowing scripture to formulate your theology.
I was not suggesting that he was the only one raised from the dead. You are confusing two different terms. First born and only begotten are completely different terms that are not synonomus and that define completely different concepts about Jesus.
"God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm, You are My Son; today I have begotten (γεγέννηκά) you.Acts 13:33.
Paul says very plainly that "You are My Son; today I have begotten you" is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. That gives us an inspired interpretation of the use of begotten.
You really do not understand John 1, nor are you allowing scripture to define its own use of language. Again, You are attempting to force your theology onto the text rather than allowing scripture to formulate your theology.
What you are teaching is nothing more that a revision of Gnostic theology. Jesus was not simply transferred into the body of a man to dwell in that body, rather, the Word himself became the man. This is not an indwelling, this is a metamorphoses. There is a transformation of form and substance. This is how Paul presents the incarnation in Phil. 2.
Worship of The Creator is, and always has been, Triune...
Who is the ‘One’ upon the Throne in Rev?
Revelation tells us that The Father sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21); that Jesus sits upon the Throne (Rev 3.21; 7.17; 22.1 - 3), & that Theos sits upon the Throne (Rev 7.10 – 11; 7.15; 12.5; 14.5; 19.4; 22.1 - 3).
This is the Trinity....and receives all worship...