The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

  • 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.

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Are you still referring to His human body when you say that?

He (his soul) was directly begotten (not created) by the Father before time began.
This is starting to fall dangerously close to the heretical zone. It is good you believe Jesus' soul was not created by the Father. Jesus' soul (mind, will, and emotions) is eternal. The Living Word (who is spirit and God) and who was named ahead of time as "Jesus" before conception was made flesh (See: 1 John 4:2-3, and Luke 1:31). Jesus was made flesh via by the virgin birth. The other metaphorical definition for "beget" means, "to produce." (according to Longman's Dictionary online).

So if you are saying that the Father produced Jesus' soul, that still falls in under the idea of creation or in line with the concept that the Living Word did not always have a soul (Which is not true because the Trinity always existed from eternity's past).

If you are trying to employ the idiotic Modernist scholar meaning brought forth in the 1940s (like with Dale Moody) upon the Greek word monogenes meaning unique, or one of a kind, this opens up another can of worms.

While the KJV does translate monogenes in two places as "only," this is not the same meaning as "unique" or "one of a kind." Dale Moody (1940s) and other Modernists pushes the false definition for monogenes as meaning "unique" or "one of a kind."

Note: One notable German rationalist named Adolf Schlatter (who was popular in the 1890s, and died in 1938) pushed the idea of monogenes meaning unique, but it did not become widespread until the 1940s with later Modernists.



So if you understand begotten to mean "one of a kind" or "unique" this would not be accurate to what the English word "begotten" actually means. This would be the meaning in Greek by modernists who changed the Greek word's meaning. But even if you wanted to employ this definition to your understanding to what you said, it will not help you.

If this is the case: You are saying that Jesus (his soul) was directly monadikos (unique) and not created by the Father. If this your definition (Which would not be accurate to any definition of begotten) this would be suggesting that Christ's soul was changed to become unique in some way that did not exist in some unique form before from eternity's past. If this is the case, in what way was the Living Word uniquely changed involving His mind, will, and emotions if this is your definition?

....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Bible Highlighter said:
1 John 5:7 in the KJV and the word "Godhead" (Meaning Trinity) in the KJV are removed in Modern Bibles. The Trinity
is not clearly taught in Modern Bibles but it is more of an inference or deduction off indirect verses on the Trinity.
What other verse in the Bible besides 1 John 5:7 in the KJV clearly teaches the Trinity?
You will not find one. 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is the only verse that directly teaches the Trinity and thus makes the Trinity the most clear unlike any other verse in the Bible. Besides the direct references of the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, and the word "Godhead" that appears three times, all you have are indirect references or inferences to the Trinity.

As for the word "Godhead" meaning "Trinity":

Well, here is...

My Defense of "Godhead" Ultimately Meaning "Trinity":

Explanation:

The Greek words underlying the English term "Godhead" in the KJV—θεῖον (theion) in Acts 17:29, θειότης (theiotēs) in Romans 1:20, and θεότης (theotēs) in Colossians 2:9—primarily convey the concept of "divine nature." However, the Cappadocian Fathers, beginning in the 4th century emphasized that this divine nature is most fully and completely realized within the context of the Trinity. While these Greek terms do refer to the essence or attributes of divinity, their fullest meaning is found when understood as referring to the triune nature of God. Therefore, in the KJV, "Godhead" ultimately signifies the Trinity, encapsulating both the basic meaning of divine nature and its complete realization in the triune God.

Early Christian Greek Writer:

Gregory Nazianzus (329 to 390 AD)

The following is an English translation of a work by Gregory Nazianzus, a Greek writer.

“The monad is set in motion on account of its richness; the dyad is surpassed, because Divinity is beyond matter and form; perfection is reached in the triad, the first to surpass the composite quality of the dyad, so that the Divinity neither remains constrained nor expands to infinity.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or.23 (De pace3), 8; P.G. 35, col. 1160C. See also Or. 29 (Theologica3), 2; P.G. 36, col. 76B.​

My Commentary:

Theologically speaking, particularly in the context of the passage above from Gregory Nazianzus, the term "monad" refers to the idea of oneness or unity, which in this context symbolizes the oneness of God. "Dyad" is used to describe the concept of two, specifically within the context of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Gregory uses "Dyad" to describe the distinctiveness of the Father and the Son as two persons (hypostases) within the Godhead. However, he is careful to emphasize that despite being a "Dyad," they are not separate in essence or nature. However, Gregory argues that the divine nature of God transcends this concept of duality, finding its perfect expression in the Trinity (a triad), which consists of three distinct yet unified persons. It is the "triad" (the Trinity) that represents the true and complete expression of divinity.​

Side Note:

Gregory of Nazianzus was one of the Cappadocian Fathers who played a crucial role in developing early Christian theology, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote extensively in Greek and is known for his eloquent theological orations, many of which defend the divinity of Christ.

Other Early Christian Writers:

Gregory of Nyssa (335–394 AD):

Gregory of Nyssa, a contemporary of Gregory of Nazianzus, also emphasized that the divine nature (theios) is fully realized in the Trinity. He argued that the divine essence is shared equally among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that understanding the nature of the Trinity is crucial for grasping the true divine nature. Gregory of Nyssa’s writings frequently emphasize the unity of the divine operations, which reflect the shared nature within the Triad.
Basil the Great (330–379 AD):

Basil, another Cappadocian Father and a close associate of Gregory of Nazianzus, similarly used the term theios to describe the divine nature that is fully and equally possessed by the three Persons of the Trinity. In his works, Basil stresses that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, they are one in essence, with theios pointing to their unified divine nature.​
Maximus the Confessor (580–662 AD):

Later in the 7th century, Maximus the Confessor continued this tradition. Maximus expanded on the understanding of theios in relation to the Trinity, arguing that the divine nature, as understood in the Cappadocian tradition, is fully present in each Person of the Trinity. He also emphasized that the true understanding of theios is inextricably linked to recognizing the Trinity’s role in the economy of salvation.​

John of Damascus (676–749 AD):

John of Damascus, a later theologian, also discussed theios in the context of the Trinity in his work Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. He upheld the Cappadocian view that the divine nature is fully realized in the three Persons of the Trinity, and he often referred to the Cappadocian Fathers, including Gregory of Nazianzus, in his theological discussions.​


The Context:

Acts 17:29 - The Godhead as the Trinity

In Acts 17:29, Paul declares, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." This highlights that God, who is numerically one, is fundamentally different from any physical representation. The mention of gold, silver, and stone—three distinct materials—can be seen as a reflection of the Trinity, where God is one singular being, yet distinct in His threefold nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This passage emphasizes that God is a living and active singular being, distinct because of His threefold nature, unlike the inanimate objects worshiped by men.

Romans 1:20 - The Godhead and the Trinity Revealed in Creation

Romans 1:20 states, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." The verse tells us that the Godhead is evident in the creation. An analogy can be drawn to the atom, which, though invisible, consists of three components—neutrons, electrons, and protons—within a single entity. This trifold structure mirrors the Trinity, where God's singular identity is expressed through three distinct Persons. This reflection in creation serves as a testimony to the full realization of God’s essence, leaving humanity without excuse for recognizing God's triune nature.

Colossians 2:9 - The Fullness of the Godhead in Christ

Colossians 2:9 affirms, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." This statement is deeply rooted in the context of Colossians 1, where Paul defends Christ’s deity. Colossians 1:15 identifies Christ as "the image of the invisible God," and Colossians 1:16 affirms that He created all things. Additionally, Colossians 1:27 reveals that Christ is "in you, the hope of glory," while Colossians 3:15 speaks of "the peace of God" (referring to God the Father) ruling in our hearts. These passages together emphasize the unity and equality of the Father and the Son within the Godhead. Christ, possessing the fullness of the Godhead, is fully and entirely God, with the presence of the Father and the Spirit within Him, reflecting the complete unity of the Trinity.

Dictionaries:

In the early 18th century, dictionaries by Nathan Bailey (1721) and John Kersey (1702), as well as Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary, consistently defined "Trinity" as the union of three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in the Godhead, continuing to express the same truth about the divine nature that had been affirmed by the Cappadocian Fathers for centuries. In later centuries, the word "Godhead" is still defined as "Trinity" in several reputable sources, including Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, and Dictionary.com, which bases its definitions on well-established scholarly dictionaries. Additionally, BlueLetterBible, through Strong’s Concordance, also associates the term "Godhead" with the concept of the Trinity.

(Note: Early 18th-century dictionaries by Nathan Bailey, John Kersey, and Samuel Johnson can be found on Archive.org by searching for "Samuel Johnson Dictionary 1755," "Nathan Bailey Dictionary 1721," and "John Kersey Dictionary 1702.")


Conclusion:

In recent years, modern biblical scholars and theologians have revisited the linguistic and historical context of the term 'Godhead,' arguing that while it is often associated with the Trinity in contemporary theological discussions, its original usage in the KJV was broader, focusing more on the concept of divinity. They contend that the stronger association with the Trinity is a product of later doctrinal development rather than the original intent of the biblical texts. However, early church writer Gregory Nazianzus argues that God's divine nature is fully expressed in the Trinity, suggesting that the connection between 'Godhead' and the Trinity has deeper historical roots.


....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Are you still referring to His human body when you say that?

He (his soul) was directly begotten (not created) by the Father before time began.
While I did not want to get into a discussion about the soul, there are Christians out there who falsely believe that a soul has to be human only in order for it to exist as a soul. This is easily disproved if they were to read and believe Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18 in the King James Bible.

God the Father has a soul:

Isaiah 42:1 is clearly God the Father speaking about His Son if you were to read Matthew 12:18 in context of Matthew 12. In these verses, it is clearly expressed that God the Father is referring to how He has a soul.

Isaiah 42:1 (KJV)
“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”

Matthew 12:18 (KJV)
“Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.”

Some Christians believe that God the Father only has a soul because He shares it with the Son. However, God the Father is talking about His soul, and not the Son’s soul because they are one. Christians who disagree have not offered any sufficient biblical proof to show otherwise. Just because the Father and the Son are one does not mean the Father does not have His own soul that is unique or distinct from the Son. The soul is described as being the mind, will, and emotions. We see a distinction between God the Father’s will and the will of Jesus even at the Garden of Gethsemane.


....
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
3,380
528
113
What do you mean by "begotten" according to an English dictionary?
Please take note that when you look up "begotten" it leads you to the word "beget."
This is because "begotten" is the past participle of "beget."

Generally the word "beget" means to become the father of a child.
There is a second definition that means to cause something or make it happen.
For example: Desperation begets recklessness.

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/beget

In the Bible, the word "beget" is not commonly used in the way that Longman’s dictionary describes (e.g., "to cause something or make it happen" as in "Generosity begets gratitude"). The Biblical usage typically refers to either a literal or spiritual generation, such as the birth of children or spiritual transformation or birth into joining God's people. The Bible tends to use other words for the concept of one thing causing another, like "bring forth" or "produce," but the specific metaphorical usage of "beget" as simply causing something to happen isn't prevalent in the KJV (or the dominant English Bible that existed for hundreds of years).
....
What about God's dictionary?
God is not a man that His ways should conform to man's limited scope of things.

You like keeping it simple and cut off from Divine Viewpoint.
It makes you feel you are in control and Gold must submit to that control.

The word begot is understood in human terms.
How it applies, God UNIQUELY begetting His Son?
It's not the right source for it.

The Soul of Jesus prexisted the Incarnation.
The Soul of Jesus was what was being expressed through that utilized human body.

Can't you see it? What preceeded the body? He was already being the Son of God.

Hebrews 10:5


Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me."

Who is that "me" speaking?
The one whom the body was prepared for!
The Son of God. AKA - the Lord God of Israel.

Before Abraham was born he was eternally existing!
For His Eternal Soul a body was prepared for!
He was already the Son of the Father before the body came around.

When you get a speeding ticket, the car does not get the ticket.
The one driving the car gets the ticket! The car is not the driver!
Likewise, the body is not the soul animating the body!

When you die? Your body ceases being a biological vehicle for your soul.
Your body is not your person.
Your soul is, and lives on.

It's not as simple as you want it to be.
If it were, you could master it in your natural ability.
Knowledge must master you. You, not master Him.

grace and peace ..................
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
3,380
528
113
God the Father has a soul:...

Not so! God is "spirit." Not soul.

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:24

It's the Son who has two natures in union.
It is only the Son who has a soul.
Hypostaic union...
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Logical fallacies will not save you. Godhead does not mean trinity.
Do a search at Dictionary.com, CollinsDictionary.com, and BlueLetterBible.org.
It is found in other dictionaries, as well. In addition, we find statements of faith by churches in the past on this, as well.
So your argument is not with me, but it is against dictionaries, and the statements of faith by churches.

….
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Not so! God is "spirit." Not soul.

God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24

It's the Son who has two natures in union.
It is only the Son who has a soul.
Hypostaic union...
Hey, look. I just believe the Bible in what it says. If you don't want to believe Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18 as they are plainly written, that is up to you. I am just pointing out to you that your own made-up false thinking does not align with what the Bible says. If you are not for the Bible, then okay. Just admit that.


....
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,105
30,235
113
Do a search at Dictionary.com, CollinsDictionary.com, and BlueLetterBible.org.
It is found in other dictionaries, as well. In addition, we find statements of faith by churches in the past on this, as well.
So your argument is not with me, but it is against dictionaries, and the statements of faith by churches.

….
LOL. Other sources say something different. Surely you have seen other sources? Reputable
sources do not always agree. Your argument is with them. Your logical fallacy does not fly.
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
3,380
528
113
What other verse in the Bible besides 1 John 5:7 in the KJV clearly teaches the Trinity?
You will not find one. 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is the only verse that directly teaches the Trinity and thus makes the Trinity the most clear unlike any other verse in the Bible. Besides the direct references of the Trinity in 1 John 5:7, and the word "Godhead" that appears three times, all you have are indirect references or inferences to the Trinity.

As for the word "Godhead" meaning "Trinity":

Well, here is...

My Defense of "Godhead" Ultimately Meaning "Trinity":

Explanation:

The Greek words underlying the English term "Godhead" in the KJV—θεῖον (theion) in Acts 17:29, θειότης (theiotēs) in Romans 1:20, and θεότης (theotēs) in Colossians 2:9—primarily convey the concept of "divine nature." However, the Cappadocian Fathers, beginning in the 4th century emphasized that this divine nature is most fully and completely realized within the context of the Trinity. While these Greek terms do refer to the essence or attributes of divinity, their fullest meaning is found when understood as referring to the triune nature of God. Therefore, in the KJV, "Godhead" ultimately signifies the Trinity, encapsulating both the basic meaning of divine nature and its complete realization in the triune God.

Early Christian Greek Writer:

Gregory Nazianzus (329 to 390 AD)

The following is an English translation of a work by Gregory Nazianzus, a Greek writer.

“The monad is set in motion on account of its richness; the dyad is surpassed, because Divinity is beyond matter and form; perfection is reached in the triad, the first to surpass the composite quality of the dyad, so that the Divinity neither remains constrained nor expands to infinity.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or.23 (De pace3), 8; P.G. 35, col. 1160C. See also Or. 29 (Theologica3), 2; P.G. 36, col. 76B.​

My Commentary:

Theologically speaking, particularly in the context of the passage above from Gregory Nazianzus, the term "monad" refers to the idea of oneness or unity, which in this context symbolizes the oneness of God. "Dyad" is used to describe the concept of two, specifically within the context of the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Gregory uses "Dyad" to describe the distinctiveness of the Father and the Son as two persons (hypostases) within the Godhead. However, he is careful to emphasize that despite being a "Dyad," they are not separate in essence or nature. However, Gregory argues that the divine nature of God transcends this concept of duality, finding its perfect expression in the Trinity (a triad), which consists of three distinct yet unified persons. It is the "triad" (the Trinity) that represents the true and complete expression of divinity.​

Side Note:

Gregory of Nazianzus was one of the Cappadocian Fathers who played a crucial role in developing early Christian theology, particularly the doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote extensively in Greek and is known for his eloquent theological orations, many of which defend the divinity of Christ.

Other Early Christian Writers:

Gregory of Nyssa (335–394 AD):

Gregory of Nyssa, a contemporary of Gregory of Nazianzus, also emphasized that the divine nature (theios) is fully realized in the Trinity. He argued that the divine essence is shared equally among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that understanding the nature of the Trinity is crucial for grasping the true divine nature. Gregory of Nyssa’s writings frequently emphasize the unity of the divine operations, which reflect the shared nature within the Triad.
Basil the Great (330–379 AD):

Basil, another Cappadocian Father and a close associate of Gregory of Nazianzus, similarly used the term theios to describe the divine nature that is fully and equally possessed by the three Persons of the Trinity. In his works, Basil stresses that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, they are one in essence, with theios pointing to their unified divine nature.​
Maximus the Confessor (580–662 AD):

Later in the 7th century, Maximus the Confessor continued this tradition. Maximus expanded on the understanding of theios in relation to the Trinity, arguing that the divine nature, as understood in the Cappadocian tradition, is fully present in each Person of the Trinity. He also emphasized that the true understanding of theios is inextricably linked to recognizing the Trinity’s role in the economy of salvation.​

John of Damascus (676–749 AD):

John of Damascus, a later theologian, also discussed theios in the context of the Trinity in his work Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. He upheld the Cappadocian view that the divine nature is fully realized in the three Persons of the Trinity, and he often referred to the Cappadocian Fathers, including Gregory of Nazianzus, in his theological discussions.​


The Context:

Acts 17:29 - The Godhead as the Trinity

In Acts 17:29, Paul declares, "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." This highlights that God, who is numerically one, is fundamentally different from any physical representation. The mention of gold, silver, and stone—three distinct materials—can be seen as a reflection of the Trinity, where God is one singular being, yet distinct in His threefold nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This passage emphasizes that God is a living and active singular being, distinct because of His threefold nature, unlike the inanimate objects worshiped by men.

Romans 1:20 - The Godhead and the Trinity Revealed in Creation

Romans 1:20 states, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." The verse tells us that the Godhead is evident in the creation. An analogy can be drawn to the atom, which, though invisible, consists of three components—neutrons, electrons, and protons—within a single entity. This trifold structure mirrors the Trinity, where God's singular identity is expressed through three distinct Persons. This reflection in creation serves as a testimony to the full realization of God’s essence, leaving humanity without excuse for recognizing God's triune nature.

Colossians 2:9 - The Fullness of the Godhead in Christ

Colossians 2:9 affirms, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." This statement is deeply rooted in the context of Colossians 1, where Paul defends Christ’s deity. Colossians 1:15 identifies Christ as "the image of the invisible God," and Colossians 1:16 affirms that He created all things. Additionally, Colossians 1:27 reveals that Christ is "in you, the hope of glory," while Colossians 3:15 speaks of "the peace of God" (referring to God the Father) ruling in our hearts. These passages together emphasize the unity and equality of the Father and the Son within the Godhead. Christ, possessing the fullness of the Godhead, is fully and entirely God, with the presence of the Father and the Spirit within Him, reflecting the complete unity of the Trinity.

Dictionaries:

In the early 18th century, dictionaries by Nathan Bailey (1721) and John Kersey (1702), as well as Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary, consistently defined "Trinity" as the union of three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—in the Godhead, continuing to express the same truth about the divine nature that had been affirmed by the Cappadocian Fathers for centuries. In later centuries, the word "Godhead" is still defined as "Trinity" in several reputable sources, including Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Collins Dictionary, and Dictionary.com, which bases its definitions on well-established scholarly dictionaries. Additionally, BlueLetterBible, through Strong’s Concordance, also associates the term "Godhead" with the concept of the Trinity.

(Note: Early 18th-century dictionaries by Nathan Bailey, John Kersey, and Samuel Johnson can be found on Archive.org by searching for "Samuel Johnson Dictionary 1755," "Nathan Bailey Dictionary 1721," and "John Kersey Dictionary 1702.")


Conclusion:

In recent years, modern biblical scholars and theologians have revisited the linguistic and historical context of the term 'Godhead,' arguing that while it is often associated with the Trinity in contemporary theological discussions, its original usage in the KJV was broader, focusing more on the concept of divinity. They contend that the stronger association with the Trinity is a product of later doctrinal development rather than the original intent of the biblical texts. However, early church writer Gregory Nazianzus argues that God's divine nature is fully expressed in the Trinity, suggesting that the connection between 'Godhead' and the Trinity has deeper historical roots.


....
Rather than making an argument over words your battleground?

Tell us, instead.
Why God is a Trinity?

After all?
If the Trinity is God? And it is so..
Why is God a Trinity, and not simply God?

Go find a dictionary for that one?
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
3,380
528
113
Hey, look. I just believe the Bible in what it says. If you don't want to believe Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18 as they are plainly written, that is up to you. I am just pointing out to you that your own made-up false thinking does not align with what the Bible says. If you are not for the Bible, then okay. Just admit that.
That's all explained here:

Philippians 2:6-8


6~~Who {Christ}, though He eternally existed in the essence of God,
He did not think equalities {plural} with God
a gain to be seized {means to violently take}
and held.

7~~But He Himself {Christ}
deprived Himself of the proper function of deity
when He had received the 'inner essence'/form of a servant/slave
although He had been born in the outward likeness/image of mankind.

He became that servant!
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
What about God's dictionary?
God is not a man that His ways should conform to man's limited scope of things.
But there has to be a dictionary out there that aligns with what the Bible says if a person needs to look up that word and understand it.
You just used the word "begotten" with some kind of odd-ball mysterious definition not found in any dictionary.

You said:
You like keeping it simple and cut off from Divine Viewpoint.
It makes you feel you are in control and Gold must submit to that control.
I think you are referring to your own self because you ignore Bible verses on what they plainly say like Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18, and you ignore definitions in a dictionary of words like "begotten." No need to be corrected for you. You are always right and you are the standard and the authority is not the Bible or any kind of understanding of words from a dictionary.

You said:
The word begot is understood in human terms.
How it applies, God UNIQUELY begetting His Son?
It's not the right source for it.
Are you ever going to give us a definition for the word "beget" from an English dictionary?

You said:
The Soul of Jesus prexisted the Incarnation.
Before you said that the body of Jesus from Mary (which is the incarnate form of Christ) existed before the world was created.
You also stated that the Father does not have a soul even though that contradicts the plain reading of Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18.
Yet, you stated in this post that a person's soul lives on after it dies. You also imply that Jesus had a soul before He received a body.
Again, this contradicts Your previous claims that Jesus had a body at the before the world.

You said:
The Soul of Jesus was what was being expressed through that utilized human body.
How do you define a soul?
Many Christians believe a soul is a being's mind, will, and emotions.
Do you agree with that?

You said:
Can't you see it? What preceeded the body? He was already being the Son of God.
Okay. Look. The eternal Living Word (second person of the Trinity) always existed. The Trinity has a mind, will, and emotions. This is the core or soul of God. The Trinity obviously always existed long before the Incarnation took place.

You said:
Hebrews 10:5​
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me."

Who is that "me" speaking?
The one whom the body was prepared for!
The Son of God. AKA - the Lord God of Israel.
Hebrews 10:5 in the King James Version (KJV) reads:
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"

Hebrews 10:5 highlights that after Jesus' Incarnation, He acknowledged that God no longer desired the old sacrifices of the law but had instead prepared a body for Him. This statement reflects Jesus' understanding of His mission on earth, recognizing that His physical body was given for the ultimate sacrifice to fulfill God's will. In coming into the world, Jesus embraced His role as the perfect and final sacrifice, replacing the inadequate offerings of the Old Covenant and fulfilling God’s redemptive plan. Hebrews 10:5 highlights that after Jesus' Incarnation, He acknowledged that God no longer desired the old sacrifices of the law but had instead prepared a body for Him. This statement reflects Jesus' understanding of His mission on earth, recognizing that His physical body was given for the ultimate sacrifice to fulfill God's will. In coming into the world, Jesus embraced His role as the perfect and final sacrifice, replacing the inadequate offerings of the Old Covenant and fulfilling God’s redemptive plan.

So the verse does not say what you think it says.
It says when he [Christ] cometh into the world [the incarnation] he saith.
Meaning after Christ came into the world through the Incarnation He said those words and not before His incarnation.

You said:
Before Abraham was born he was eternally existing!
For His Eternal Soul a body was prepared for!
He was already the Son of the Father before the body came around.
I am not in disagreement that the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) is also called the "Son."
John 3:17 says that the Father sent His Son into the world.
This does mean there a body before the Incarnation.

You said:
It's not as simple as you want it to be.
If it were, you could master it in your natural ability.
Knowledge must master you. You, not master Him.

grace and peace ..................
So says the person who ignores what is written in Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18, and who ignores dictionaries when using words like "begotten."


....
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
3,380
528
113
But there has to be a dictionary out there that aligns with what the Bible says if a person needs to look up that word and understand it.
You just used the word "begotten" with some kind of odd-ball mysterious definition not found in any dictionary.
...
The Son of God was begotten like a man is begotten?

If Jesus was begotten, as you are proposing he was begotten?

Then there would have had to be a time that he did not exist.
Therefore, He could not be God.

There's the rub.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
That's all explained here:

Philippians 2:6-8


6~~Who {Christ}, though He eternally existed in the essence of God,
He did not think equalities {plural} with God
a gain to be seized {means to violently take}
and held.

7~~But He Himself {Christ}
deprived Himself of the proper function of deity
when He had received the 'inner essence'/form of a servant/slave
although He had been born in the outward likeness/image of mankind.

He became that servant!
No. Your reply is insanity. Nowhere does Christ humbling Himself have anything to do with God the Father not having a soul as you falsely claim against the witness of Holy Scripture. Your reply here does not answer your ignoring that God the Father stating He has a soul in Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18.

Please try again. Maybe like give a word for word commentary on Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18.
But we both know you will not do that because it would just make you look silly.


....

....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
The Son of God was begotten like a man is begotten?
Yes, because that is how the word is defined in dictionaries, and that is how it is used in context throughout the Bible.
To make up your own definition means you don't care about the reality of words adn their real meanings, and you just want to insert your own thoughts into the Bible. You simply want to become your own authority.

You said:
If Jesus was begotten, as you are proposing, he was begotten?
Then there would have had to be a time that he did not exist.
Therefore, He could not be God.

There's the rub.
As was stated in this thread before, the body was begotten, and not the eternal Living Word (second person of the Trinity or Godhead) which is a spirit being and has a soul (Mind, will, and emotions).

As I told you before, the body is a temple. Jesus Himself said it was a temple (See: John 2:19-21). Yes, the body had gotten tired, and hungry, etc. but it was not what made up the core being of the eternal Living Word (Who is spirit).


....
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
3,380
528
113
No. Your reply is insanity. Nowhere does Christ humbling Himself have anything to do with God the Father not having a soul as you falsely claim against the witness of Holy Scripture. Your reply here does not answer your ignoring that God the Father stating He has a soul in Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18.

Please try again. Maybe like give a word for word commentary on Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18.
But we both know you will not do that because it would just make you look silly.


....

....
According to how you handle the word of God?

It plainly says you need to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin.

It does say it plainly... Does it not?


Matthew 5:29
King James Version

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.





Look up ""plainly" in your dictionary while you're at it...
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Rather than making an argument over words your battleground?

Tell us, instead.
Why God is a Trinity?

After all?
If the Trinity is God? And it is so..
Why is God a Trinity, and not simply God?

Go find a dictionary for that one?
Nowhere am I stating that dictionaries contain answers to everyone's questions about the Bible.
Not even the Bible has all the answers to detailed questions like the ones you asked.
My having to state this to you makes it appear like you either just arrived on planet Earth or you are completely new to the faith, etc.

Also, it seems like you do not believe in the Trinity. If so, that is absolutely heretical to deny the Trinity, which is clearly taught in Scripture (See: 1 John 5:7 in the KJV).


....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
According to how you handle the word of God?

It plainly says you need to pluck out your eye if it causes you to sin.

It does say it plainly... Does it not?


Matthew 5:29
King James Version

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee:
for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish,
and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.





Look up ""plainly" in your dictionary while you're at it...
I am aware that the Bible speaks in metaphors. If you are remotely familar with the Bible, it talks about how it uses similes (metaphors). So it should be no surprise when we run into them. Obviously context determines if it is a metaphor. But the problem here is you are not offering any rational explanation to how Isaiah 42:1, and Matthew 12:18 are metaphors.

So try again.


....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
LOL. Other sources say something different. Surely you have seen other sources? Reputable. sources do not always agree. Your argument is with them. Your logical fallacy does not fly.
Sure it does. Just read the Bible. Romans 1:20 (KJV) says, "...the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;"

What invisible things in nature are clearly seen that involve the Godhead or Trinity?

Atoms are singular and yet they are made up of three things (protons, electrons, and neutrons).


....
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
20,061
6,873
113
62
Sure it does. Just read the Bible. Romans 1:20 (KJV) says, "...the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;"

What invisible things in nature are clearly seen that involve the Godhead or Trinity?

Atoms are singular and yet they are made up of three things (protons, electrons, and neutrons).


....
What about subatomic particles?