Argument against the Doctrine of the Trinity. (And keep it clean, please.)

[Paul]

Paul, you continue asking the same question because you’re assuming something Scripture never teaches — your assuming that “Son” is a creaturely category. It is not. You are collapsing the incarnation into the eternal nature of the Son.

Let me answer your question again, directly and clearly:



He did not “become” the Son.
He is the Son eternally.
But He did become man, and as man He can truly say “My God.”

Scripture teaches two truths side by side:

Again you dodge my question. If He has no beginning how is He from the Father as a Son who has a God? You have not presented any scripture that shows He's coeternal. There is no historical teaching or word in the bible that means the only Son of a parent that has no beginning. There is no such thing as eternally begotten. It was made up and stated so. If He is begotten He has a beginning and is indeed a Son who has a Father and God.

You did not read this=> This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

1. As God, the Son has no beginning, no superior, no God over Him.

• “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
• “All things were made through Him.” (John 1:3)
• “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Heb 1:8)
• “He upholds all things by the word of His power.” (Heb 1:3)

This is not a creature.
This is not a subordinate god.
This is the eternal Son in His divine nature.

God our Father is greater than His Son and His Christ.
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus=>‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Don't you think all sound reasoning would state one's own God is greater then them?

My God and your God is stated in the same context
My Father and your Father is stated in the same context

2. As man, the Son truly has a God, because He took on a real human nature.​

• “Born of woman, born under the law.” (Gal 4:4)
• “My God and your God.” (John 20:17)
• “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Wrong -You must believe what Christ states is not always true.
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

These refer to His humanity, not His deity.

You must distinguish what Scripture distinguishes:

The only deity in Christ is the Fathers

If you don’t, every verse becomes a contradiction.

There is order in the Godhead (taxis), but not inequality.​

• The Father is unbegotten.
• The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
• The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

This is the eternal order of personal relations — not a hierarchy of being, power, or deity.

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation -The Fathers first begotten
The Father is unbegotten
The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is given through the Son. That is in acts 2 the Spirit Jesus sent He received from the Father.

It is in the text itself:

John calls Him God plainly (John 1:1; 1:18).
Thomas calls Him “My Lord and my God” and Jesus blesses it (John 20:28).
The Father calls Him God (Heb 1:8).
He eternally shares the glory of the Father (John 17:5).
He creates and sustains everything (Col 1:16–17; Heb 1:3).

I have no problem with John as Jesus has the Fathers nature. In that context a promise Son who is called God is correct.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

If He were a created “Son,” every one of these verses would be idolatry.

The Fathers will -I worship God my Father and Jesus my Lord. Most of my prayers are to Jesus and He has answered me back.
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

You have not addressed a single one of these passages yet.



Your quotation from John 6 proves nothing about creaturehood.

Jesus also says:



“Life in Himself” is a divine attribute.
No creature has it.
No creature receives it.
Only God possesses life “in Himself.”

God granted Christ to have life in Himself. Its the authority to give life.
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself

Your reading forces the verse into contradiction.
The correct interpretation is the classic one:

The Son possesses the same divine life as the Father by eternal relation,
not by temporal subordination.

The entire context (John 5:18–27) destroys a creaturely view of the Son.​

In this very passage the Son:

• gives life (v. 21)
• raises the dead (v. 21)
• judges all humanity (v. 22)
• must be honored just as the Father is honored (v. 23)

The Fathers works Jesus performed testify that the Father is in Him and they are one.

If the Son is a creature, every one of these claims is blasphemy.

Only in your mind.

The Jews understood Jesus perfectly:

He corrected them as He stated He was Gods Son. Jesus is all that the Father is. For in Him dwells all the fullness.
We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’ ?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Jesus is not saying,

“The Father is God and I am a subordinate being.”

He did state:but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
That the Father is HIS GOD.

He is saying:

“My life and My power are the same divine life and power as the Father’s.
And the reason is the eternal relation between us.”

He says the Father is living in Him doing His work - So if you see Him you have seen the Father as they are ONE. In context of this oneness Jesus is the first and last.

Paul, you continue asking the same question because you’re assuming something Scripture never teaches — your assuming that “Son” is a creaturely category. It is not. You are collapsing the incarnation into the eternal nature of the Son.

Let me answer your question again, directly and clearly:

I'm not assuming anything Jesus is begotten.

He did not “become” the Son.
He is the Son eternally.
But He did become man, and as man He can truly say “My God.”

Scripture teaches two truths side by side:

As long as Jesus existed, He has been A Son of the Father and the Father has been His God.

1. As God, the Son has no beginning, no superior, no God over Him.

• “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
• “All things were made through Him.” (John 1:3)
• “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Heb 1:8)
• “He upholds all things by the word of His power.” (Heb 1:3)

He has a place on His Fathers throne forever. His God set Him above all except Himself.
Again I have no problem calling Jesus God but He is not coeternal. In Him the fullness dwells and He is all that that the Father is.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

This is not a creature.
This is not a subordinate god.
This is the eternal Son in His divine nature.

I perfer Son not creature and born rather than created. The Father's Spirit gave birth to Jesus's spirit as the first of His works.

This part of the creed I agree with.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

2. As man, the Son truly has a God, because He took on a real human nature.​

• “Born of woman, born under the law.” (Gal 4:4)
• “My God and your God.” (John 20:17)
• “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

These refer to His humanity, not His deity.

You must distinguish what Scripture distinguishes:

again you must believe what Christ states is not always true.
This was written while He was in heaven.
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

If you don’t, every verse becomes a contradiction.

There is order in the Godhead (taxis), but not inequality.​

• The Father is unbegotten.
• The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
• The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son.

This is the eternal order of personal relations — not a hierarchy of being, power, or deity.



It is in the text itself:

John calls Him God plainly (John 1:1; 1:18).
Thomas calls Him “My Lord and my God” and Jesus blesses it (John 20:28).
The Father calls Him God (Heb 1:8).
He eternally shares the glory of the Father (John 17:5).
He creates and sustains everything (Col 1:16–17; Heb 1:3).

If He were a created “Son,” every one of these verses would be idolatry.

You have not addressed a single one of these passages yet.



Your quotation from John 6 proves nothing about creaturehood.

Jesus also says:



“Life in Himself” is a divine attribute.
No creature has it.
No creature receives it.
Only God possesses life “in Himself.”

Your reading forces the verse into contradiction.
The correct interpretation is the classic one:

The Son possesses the same divine life as the Father by eternal relation,
not by temporal subordination.

The entire context (John 5:18–27) destroys a creaturely view of the Son.​

In this very passage the Son:

• gives life (v. 21)
• raises the dead (v. 21)
• judges all humanity (v. 22)
• must be honored just as the Father is honored (v. 23)

If the Son is a creature, every one of these claims is blasphemy.

The Jews understood Jesus perfectly:



Jesus is not saying,

“The Father is God and I am a subordinate being.”

He is saying:

“My life and My power are the same divine life and power as the Father’s.
And the reason is the eternal relation between us.”

 

[John Bauer]

You believe he has always been the Son, as in child of the Father?

You are once again importing a category that belongs to creatures, Paul. Terms like child or offspring denote a creaturely relation, therefore they don’t describe what we believe.

We believe that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father—without beginning, change, or essential subordination. In that sense, and only in that sense, he has always been the Son. The distinction between the two persons (Father and Son) is relational, not ontological. God is one in essence as three distinct persons.

At this point, continued reliance on creaturely terms will not help clarify our position; it can only misstate it—and I will enforce rule 2.2.

Yes, I know. What I don't know is how you see him as a Son.

I have already explained this. The term Son names a relational distinction between the two persons, not an ontological one. That is why creaturely categories are inapplicable, because the Son is eternally begotten, neither made nor ontologically dependent, and therefore has no creator.

That's the body that had a beginning. Unlike you, it's clear to me that the Son who was, his spirit, descended into the body that was prepared for him. And he was before the world began.

With this clarification, you have only amplified how profoundly dangerous your view is to Chalcedonian Christology and the apostolic gospel itself. You have now effectively conceded that your view does not even have an incarnation. What you describe is not incarnation but indwelling.

Nicene orthodoxy recognizes that John 1:14 is identificatory, not locative: “The Word became flesh.” The text does not say the Word entered or inhabited flesh, or indwelt a prepared body. The subject of the verb is the Logos himself, and the predicate is sarx. Incarnation is a statement of identity, not habitation.

Once incarnation is reduced to indwelling, the Christological consequences follow immediately and inevitably. At best, this is Nestorian-adjacent Christology: divine and human “joined” by cooperation or habitation rather than personal identity. There is no true hypostatic union. His human nature is neither anhypostatic in itself nor enhypostatic in the Logos; it does not subsist in the eternal Son as its personal center (Jensen 2016). And because there is no single personal subject of both natures, the communicatio idiomatum collapses. God does not truly suffer; only the Son does. The Lord of glory is not crucified; only his vehicle of flesh is acted upon.

Once this is combined with your claim that the Son is God only by participation in the Father’s deity, the system disintegrates entirely. What emerges is theologically grotesque: Deity is something that inhabits the Son, and humanity is something the Son inhabits. Neither deity nor humanity is constitutive of his person; both are donned, not owned.

At that point the question becomes unavoidable: Who, then, is he?

If he is God only by participation in another’s deity, and man only by inhabiting a body prepared for him, then he is neither God nor man in the Chalcedonian sense. He is clothed in an alien body and filled with alien deity. He is a metaphysical intermediary—a nebulous tertium quid ontologically suspended between God and humanity, belonging properly to neither.

And that is catastrophic.

If neither the deity nor the humanity of Christ is constitutive of his person, then Christ has no coherent personal identity. And if Christ has no coherent personal identity, the gospel has no coherent mediator. The damage strikes at the center of our salvific hope. Christology is mutilated because the incarnation is evacuated of its subject, and soteriology is cratered because God himself is removed from the act of redemption.

That is not the faith once delivered to the saints.

If he's not a child of God, then how did he become the Son?

I reject the premise on which your question depends: He never “became” the Son. It is incoherent to ask that question of someone who confessed that “he is eternally the Son.”

Jesus is not our Father; he is our Lord.

Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed otherwise.

It strengthens not weakens my case.

It doesn’t even make your case, I said, much less strengthen it. Again, since trinitarian monotheists affirm the verse without becoming binitarians, it cannot be evidence for binitarianism.

It’s clear to me.

Good for you? But as the saying goes, “If you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it.”

Whose deity?

I reject the premise on which your question depends: It assumes that deity is an attribute that a hypostasis can have, share, or receive, rather than the one divine essence in which each hypostasis subsists identically. Deity is not something the Father has and shares, it’s what he is. Same for the Son, as Paul makes clear: “For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). The fullness of deity is not qualified. Paul doesn’t say “the fullness of the Father’s deity.” He says the fullness of deity, period (τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος). That is an ontological predicate: the entire divine nature resides in the incarnate Christ.

Yes. As the Father’s Spirit, it would be involved. But the two persons were noted from the Father through the Son. … The Spirit is not a third person. God is Spirit and it’s the Spirit of the sovereign Lord.

I am not the only one who noticed that you ignored the direct counter-argument, leaving it unrefuted.

Just two on that throne.

Here, too, the counter-argument was ignored.

I hope you’re keeping score, dear readers.

The Father is the only true God, and it’s his fullness that lives in his firstborn Son—and they are one.

Here is another implication that the readers might find interesting: Our friend cannot be a consistent monotheist.

Why not?

Believing that deity is transferable or communicable logically entails more than one God. If the Son is divine in a way that the Father is not, then “God” is no longer a numerically singular reality. If deity can be possessed by a subject via participation (the Son), then deity becomes a property rather than an identity. Once deity is something that can be given, it can exist in more than one subject. That means more than one bearer of deity. Calling one “original” and the other “derived” doesn’t change that fact; it just ranks them.

Does deity exist in the Son, or through the Son? If the former, then there is numerical plurality—deity exists in more than one subject, one underived and one derived. If the latter, then the Son is not divine in himself but functions as a medium of divinity, in the same way the flesh functions for the Son as a medium of humanity.

Those who listen and learn from the Father go to God's Son and anointed Christ for salvation.

Amen.

The Father is unbegotten.

Which is what I said, so obviously I agree.

The Son is the Father’s first begotten.

First? Scriptures, please.

 

[Paul]

[MOD HAT: Rules-violating content struck.]

You are once again importing a category that belongs to creatures, Paul. Terms like child or offspring denote a creaturely relation, therefore they don’t describe what we believe.

We believe that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father—without beginning, change, or essential subordination. In that sense, and only in that sense, he has always been the Son. The distinction between the two persons (Father and Son) is relational, not ontological. God is one in essence as three distinct persons.

At this point, continued reliance on creaturely terms will not help clarify our position; it can only misstate it—and I will enforce rule 2.2.

Then we will end the discussion here because I state you are mistaken Jesus is Gods oldest child. Gods firstborn. (His spirit-the fullness was gifted)
The same context
My God and your God; My Father and your Father
Jesus calls His Father the only true God.

I have already explained this. The term Son names a relational distinction between the two persons, not an ontological one. That is why creaturely categories are inapplicable, because the Son is eternally begotten, neither made nor ontologically dependent, and therefore has no creator.



With this clarification, you have only amplified how profoundly dangerous your view is to Chalcedonian Christology and the apostolic gospel itself. You have now effectively conceded that your view does not even have an incarnation. What you describe is not incarnation but indwelling.

Nicene orthodoxy recognizes that John 1:14 is identificatory, not locative: “The Word became flesh.” The text does not say the Word entered flesh, inhabited flesh, or indwelt a prepared body. The subject of the verb is the Logos himself, and the predicate is sarx. Incarnation is a statement of identity, not habitation.

Once incarnation is reduced to indwelling, the Christological consequences follow immediately and inevitably. At best, this is Nestorian-adjacent Christology: divine and human “joined” by cooperation or habitation rather than personal identity. There is no true hypostatic union. His human nature is neither anhypostatic in itself nor enhypostatic in the Logos; it does not subsist in the eternal Son as its personal center (Jensen 2016). And because there is no single personal subject of both natures, the communicatio idiomatum collapses. God does not truly suffer; only the Son does. The Lord of glory is not crucified; only his vehicle of flesh is acted upon.

Once this is combined with your claim that the Son is God only by participation in the Father’s deity, the system disintegrates entirely. What emerges is theologically grotesque: Deity is something that inhabits the Son, and humanity is something the Son inhabits. Neither deity nor humanity is constitutive of his person; both are donned, not owned.

At that point the question becomes unavoidable: Who, then, is he?

If he is God only by participation in another’s deity, and man only by inhabiting a body prepared for him, then he is neither God nor man in the Chalcedonian sense. He is clothed in an alien body and filled with alien deity. He is a metaphysical intermediary—a nebulous tertium quid ontologically suspended between God and humanity, belonging properly to neither.

And that is catastrophic.

If neither the deity nor the humanity of Christ is constitutive of his person, then Christ has no coherent personal identity. And if Christ has no coherent personal identity, the gospel has no coherent mediator. The damage strikes at the center of our salvific hope. Christology is mutilated because the incarnation is evacuated of its subject, and soteriology is cratered because God himself is removed from the act of redemption.

That is not the faith once delivered to the saints.



I reject the premise on which your question depends: He never “became” the Son. It is incoherent to ask that question of someone who confessed that “he is eternally the Son.”



Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed otherwise.



It doesn’t even make your case, I said, much less strengthen it. Again, since trinitarian monotheists affirm the verse without becoming binitarians, it cannot be evidence for binitarianism.



Good for you? But as the saying goes, “If you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it.”



I reject the premise on which your question depends: It assumes that deity is an attribute that a hypostasis can have, share, or receive, rather than the one divine essence in which each hypostasis subsists identically. Deity is not something the Father has and shares, it’s what he is. Same for the Son, as Paul makes clear: “For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). The fullness of deity is not qualified. Paul doesn’t say “the fullness of the Father’s deity.” He says the fullness of deity, period (τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος). That is an ontological predicate: the entire divine nature resides in the incarnate Christ.



I am not the only one who noticed that you ignored the direct counter-argument, leaving it unrefuted.



Here, too, the counter-argument was ignored.

I hope you’re keeping score, dear readers.



Here is another implication that the readers might find interesting: Our friend cannot be a consistent monotheist.

Why not?

Believing that deity is transferable or communicable logically entails more than one God. If the Son is divine in a way that the Father is not, then “God” is no longer a numerically singular reality. If deity can be possessed by a subject via participation (the Son), then deity becomes a property rather than an identity. Once deity is something that can be given, it can exist in more than one subject. That means more than one bearer of deity. Calling one “original” and the other “derived” doesn’t change that fact; it just ranks them.

Does deity exist in the Son, or through the Son? If the former, then there is numerical plurality—deity exists in more than one subject, one underived and one derived. If the latter, then the Son is not divine in himself but functions as a medium of divinity, in the same way the flesh functions for the Son as a medium of humanity.



Amen.



Which is what I said, so obviously I agree.



First? Scriptures, please.

 

[John Bauer]

Then we will end the discussion here …

It is quite revealing that you choose to end the conversation rather than stop misrepresenting your opponent’s position.

 

[Paul]

[MOD HAT: Rules-violating content struck.]

It is quite revealing that you choose to end the conversation rather than stop misrepresenting your opponent’s position.

I'm disagreeing with my opponent's position so you see wrong. Then threatened with rules. Its time to stop.

Look at this reasoning from Hebrews about the "Son" =>"you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness" therefore God your God has set you above your companions.

Hello ? His companions not His creation. Set above based on reasoning rather than being the true God from whom all things come. He is a CHILD of the Father hence His companions not His creation.

This is about Yahweh
You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

I believe this so telling me He is called God in scripture doesn't make Him coeternal and it's the Fathers nature not His own.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of His nature,

From the will of another
Colossians 1:19

 

[John Bauer]

I'm disagreeing with my opponent's position so you see wrong. Then threatened with rules. Its time to stop.

[MOD HAT]:

I did not invoke the rules to silence disagreement, but to distinguish that from misrepresentation. It is possible to disagree with my position as represented accurately.

There is a categorical difference between (a) disagreeing with or even rejecting my position and (b) continuing to describe my position in terms I have explicitly rejected. Rule 2.2 exists precisely to govern the latter. Invoking it is not a threat; it’s a reminder that rules exist and will enforced if necessary. (And it should not be necessary. Members are expected to comply with the rules voluntarily.)

Calling it a “threat” is a rhetorical move designed to deflect from your own misrepresentation.

 

[Paul]

[MOD HAT]:

I did not invoke the rules to silence disagreement, but to distinguish that from misrepresentation. It is possible to disagree with my position as represented accurately.

There is a categorical difference between (a) disagreeing with or even rejecting my position and (b) continuing to describe my position in terms I have explicitly rejected. Rule 2.2 exists precisely to govern the latter. Invoking it is not a threat; it’s a reminder that rules exist and will enforced if necessary. (And it should not be necessary. Members are expected to comply with the rules voluntarily.)

Calling it a “threat” is a rhetorical move designed to deflect from your own misrepresentation.

Your free to do as you wish. But calling one a Son of a another to support your theology but then stating He is not a child of that other misrepresents the meaning of the word Son. Jesus sat down as He stated on His "Fathers" throne.

You have to prove that Jesus's use of Son and Father and His God differs from all other usage and meaning of those words throughout scripture rather than just stating something is so.

And this is clear to me

My God and Your God
My Father and Your Father

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

As a Son or child of the Father He was set above His "companions" not His creation. But isn't Yahweh already above His creation?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Again you dodge my question. If He has no beginning how is He from the Father as a Son who has a God? You have not presented any scripture that shows He's coeternal. There is no historical teaching or word in the bible that means the only Son of a parent that has no beginning. There is no such thing as eternally begotten. It was made up and stated so. If He is begotten He has a beginning and is indeed a Son who has a Father and God.

You did not read this=> This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

God our Father is greater than His Son and His Christ.
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
Jesus=>‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Don't you think all sound reasoning would state one's own God is greater then them?

My God and your God is stated in the same context
My Father and your Father is stated in the same context

Wrong -You must believe what Christ states is not always true.
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.


The only deity in Christ is the Fathers

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation -The Fathers first begotten
The Father is unbegotten
The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is given through the Son. That is in acts 2 the Spirit Jesus sent He received from the Father.


I have no problem with John as Jesus has the Fathers nature. In that context a promise Son who is called God is correct.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.


The Fathers will -I worship God my Father and Jesus my Lord. Most of my prayers are to Jesus and He has answered me back.
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.


God granted Christ to have life in Himself. Its the authority to give life.
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself


The Fathers works Jesus performed testify that the Father is in Him and they are one.

Only in your mind.

He corrected them as He stated He was Gods Son. Jesus is all that the Father is. For in Him dwells all the fullness.
We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’ ?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

He did state:but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
That the Father is HIS GOD.




He says the Father is living in Him doing His work - So if you see Him you have seen the Father as they are ONE. In context of this oneness Jesus is the first and last.

I'm not assuming anything Jesus is begotten.

As long as Jesus existed, He has been A Son of the Father and the Father has been His God.

He has a place on His Fathers throne forever. His God set Him above all except Himself.
Again I have no problem calling Jesus God but He is not coeternal. In Him the fullness dwells and He is all that that the Father is.
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I perfer Son not creature and born rather than created. The Father's Spirit gave birth to Jesus's spirit as the first of His works.

This part of the creed I agree with.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

again you must believe what Christ states is not always true.
This was written while He was in heaven.
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Paul, you keep repeating the same assertions—“true Son,” “firstborn,” “received from the Father,” “has a God”—as if repeating creaturely categories will somehow answer the central, fatal question you are still avoiding:

How can a derived, originated being receive the same worship given to the one true God—without Scripture commanding idolatry?

You have not touched this once.
So let’s bring the text before us again.

The decisive, non-negotiable biblical datum

Revelation 5:13–14 (cf. Rev 7:10; Phil 2:10–11)

“To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

And the elders fell down and worshiped.

Notice:

The identical doxology is given jointly to God and the Lamb.

This is the same worship John is forbidden to give an angel: “Worship God!” (Rev 19:10; 22:9).

If the Lamb is a creature—however exalted—then Revelation 5 is a cosmic celebration of idolatry.

Your only answer so far has been special pleading (“the Father permits it”), which is not exegesis.

The “sons of God” argument is still untouched

Scripture uses “sons/children of God” in four ways—all creaturely, all adoptive or appointed:

Angels (Job 1:6; 38:7)

Israel (Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1)

Davidic kings (Ps 2:7; 89:27; 2 Sam 7:14)

Believers (John 1:12; Rom 8:15–17)

Every one of these is derivative sonship.

But Jesus is called the only-begotten Son (monogenēs huios) — a monadic (one-of-a-kind) title.
He is never placed among the creaturely “sons.” Not once.

Why?
Because Scripture attributes to Him what no created “son” could ever possess:

He creates all things (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)
He sustains the entire universe (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17)
He is worshiped by all the angels (Heb 1:6)
He shares the divine throne (Rev 22:1, 3)
He has life in Himself as the Father does (John 5:26)

None of these belong to a creature.
All belong to Yahweh alone.

“Firstborn” does not mean “first-created”

Scripture itself explains this:

David is called firstborn (Ps 89:27) though he was the youngest of Jesse’s sons.
→ Meaning: preeminent, not first in time.

Israel is called firstborn (Ex 4:22) though many nations existed before Israel.

Paul tells you plainly what “firstborn of all creation” means:

“because (hoti) by Him all things were created…” (Col 1:15–16)

He is above creation because He is its Creator, not part of it.

John 5:26 does not teach derived deity

You again misunderstand this text.

“As the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.”

“Aseity” (life in Himself) is a divine attribute not given to creatures.

A creature cannot receive unborrowed, underived, self-existent life.
That is a contradiction.

The Father eternally “grants” (ἔδωκεν) in the same sense He eternally “gives all things into the Son’s hand” (John 3:35; 17:2).
This is eternal relation, not temporal subordination.

Your final contradiction

You repeatedly claim: “He is all that the Father is.”

But you simultaneously claim:

He is originated
He is ontologically subordinate
He is a creature who has a God
He lacks aseity
He derived existence from the Father

These cannot both be true.

If the Son is everything the Father is, then He is:

eternal
uncreated
self-existent
worthy of divine worship
possessing the one divine nature

If He is derived, then He is none of these.

There is no middle category.

The unavoidable biblical dilemma

Your position requires embracing one of two conclusions:

A. Scripture commands, approves, and celebrates idolatry

(Revelation 5:13–14; Hebrews 1:6)

OR

B. The Lamb is not a creature.

Every historic creed, every Reformed confession, every early Christian writer chose B.

So do the apostles:

“My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Heb 1:8)
“In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

The eternal Son is not the highest creature.
He is true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.

Until you can explain how a derived being may receive the identical worship of Revelation 5 without collapsing Scripture into blasphemy, your interpretation remains both exegetically impossible and theologically unstable.

I, for one, choose to believe Scripture: our God is Triune.

 

[Paul]

Paul, you keep repeating the same assertions—“true Son,” “firstborn,” “received from the Father,” “has a God”—as if repeating creaturely categories will somehow answer the central, fatal question you are still avoiding:

How can a derived, originated being receive the same worship given to the one true God—without Scripture commanding idolatry?

The Son was found worthy of honor and power and glory by God for He purchased for God peoples of all nations by His blood.
The Son was given a name above every other name by God.

You have not touched this once.
So let’s bring the text before us again.

The decisive, non-negotiable biblical datum

Revelation 5:13–14 (cf. Rev 7:10; Phil 2:10–11)

“To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”

And the elders fell down and worshiped.

Notice:

The identical doxology is given jointly to God and the Lamb.

This is the same worship John is forbidden to give an angel: “Worship God!” (Rev 19:10; 22:9).

This is the expressed will of God who does whatever He is pleased to do.
Likewise Jesus has promised to give a place on His throne as well

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

If the Lamb is a creature—however exalted—then Revelation 5 is a cosmic celebration of idolatry.

Already addressed above

Your only answer so far has been special pleading (“the Father permits it”), which is not exegesis.

It's what I read and it speaks to the Fathers glory who is Himself above His creation.

Therefore, God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

The “sons of God” argument is still untouched

Scripture uses “sons/children of God” in four ways—all creaturely, all adoptive or appointed:

Angels (Job 1:6; 38:7)

Israel (Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1)

Davidic kings (Ps 2:7; 89:27; 2 Sam 7:14)

Believers (John 1:12; Rom 8:15–17)

Every one of these is derivative sonship.

But Jesus is called the only-begotten Son (monogenēs huios) — a monadic (one-of-a-kind) title.
He is never placed among the creaturely “sons.” Not once.

He states He's Gods Son and God is His Father. I believe Him.

Why?
Because Scripture attributes to Him what no created “son” could ever possess:

He creates all things (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2)
He sustains the entire universe (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17)
He is worshiped by all the angels (Heb 1:6)
He shares the divine throne (Rev 22:1, 3)
He has life in Himself as the Father does (John 5:26)

God created by/through Him. God spoke to us in these last days by His Son. That is the Fathers Deity in the Son doing His work. I would state the same reasoning in God creating through Him that is the Fathers Deity in Him creating.
Nicene creed "Through Him all things were made"

None of these belong to a creature.
All belong to Yahweh alone.

“Firstborn” does not mean “first-created”

The Firstborn from the dead. The First to rise from the dead.
The Firstborn of all creation. The beginning of the creation of God.

Scripture itself explains this:

David is called firstborn (Ps 89:27) though he was the youngest of Jesse’s sons.
→ Meaning: preeminent, not first in time.

The Christ is the greatest or most exalted king not David and God appointed His Firstborn to Davids line. The Christ is forever.
Jesus is not the Son of David but the Son of God who God appointed to Davis line by His own authority


I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
28I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail.
29I will establish his line forever, =>FULFILED IN CHRIST WHO IS FOREVER
his throne as long as the heavens endure

Whose Son is the Christ?
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42“What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.” ’
45If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?

Israel is called firstborn (Ex 4:22) though many nations existed before Israel.

Gods Firstborn would be a being not a people and such a being would make such a statement, "before Abraham was born I Am"

Paul tells you plainly what “firstborn of all creation” means:

I believe He is before all created things except His own person. The beginning of the creation of God And by, through and for Him God made all things. For Him speaks of another. He is Gods Firstborn and has always been Gods Child.

“because (hoti) by Him all things were created…” (Col 1:15–16)

He is above creation because He is its Creator, not part of it.

John 5:26 does not teach derived deity

You again misunderstand this text.

“As the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.”

“Aseity” (life in Himself) is a divine attribute not given to creatures.

Jesus stated the Father granted Him to have life in Himself. I believe Him.

A creature cannot receive unborrowed, underived, self-existent life.
That is a contradiction.

The Fathers Deity in the Son can do His work as I read.

The Father eternally “grants” (ἔδωκεν) in the same sense He eternally “gives all things into the Son’s hand” (John 3:35; 17:2).
This is eternal relation, not temporal subordination.

Isn't Yahweh already over His creation and doesn't everything already belong to Him? It is the Fathers alone to give. His Son is the one receiving.
Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.

Your final contradiction

You repeatedly claim: “He is all that the Father is.”

Thats how I read this. Not that the Son is God but the very image of God.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

The cause- in Him was pleased to dwell all the fullness of God. Col 1:19

But you simultaneously claim:

He is originated
He is ontologically subordinate
He is a creature who has a God
He lacks aseity
He derived existence from the Father

These cannot both be true.

As I have stated it is true. A Son who has the Fathers nature in Him a promise Son who is God.

If the Son is everything the Father is, then He is:

repetitive - answered above in regard to the meaning - Hebrews 1:3

eternal
uncreated
self-existent
worthy of divine worship
possessing the one divine nature

If He is derived, then He is none of these.

Everyone of these points have been addressed above.

There is no middle category.

The unavoidable biblical dilemma

Your position requires embracing one of two conclusions:

A. Scripture commands, approves, and celebrates idolatry

(Revelation 5:13–14; Hebrews 1:6)

OR

B. The Lamb is not a creature.

Every historic creed, every Reformed confession, every early Christian writer chose B.

So do the apostles:

“My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Heb 1:8)
“In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

The eternal Son is not the highest creature.
He is true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.

Until you can explain how a derived being may receive the identical worship of Revelation 5 without collapsing Scripture into blasphemy, your interpretation remains both exegetically impossible and theologically unstable.

I, for one, choose to believe Scripture: our God is Triune.

No you did NOT read this
This is eternal life that they know US the only true God.
I did read this
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sen

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son. (child)

 

[Rella]

Again you dodge my question. If He has no beginning how is He from the Father as a Son who has a God? You have not presented any scripture that shows He's coeternal. There is no historical teaching or word in the bible that means the only Son of a parent that has no beginning. There is no such thing as eternally begotten. It was made up and stated so. If He is begotten He has a beginning and is indeed a Son who has a Father and God.

@Paul

@Hazelelponi is doing a splendid job answering your questions and I have no desired to come between but please read the following and see if it helps.

Your question touches on core debates in Christian theology, particularly around the Trinity, the nature of Jesus as the "Son," and terms like "begotten." I'll address this step by step with references to relevant biblical passages and historical developments, drawing from a range of Christian perspectives (including Trinitarian majority views and non-Trinitarian critiques). Note that interpretations vary across denominations ....e.g., most orthodox Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox) affirm Jesus' coeternality with the Father, while groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Unitarians see Him as having a beginning as a created being. I'll focus on factual scriptural and historical data without endorsing one side.

You are concerned with coeternality....... and are looking for Biblical Passages
While no single verse uses the exact phrase "coeternal," several passages are commonly cited in Christian theology to indicate that Jesus (the Son/Word) has existed eternally alongside the Father, without a beginning in time. These emphasize His preexistence, role in creation, and shared divine essence. Here's a table summarizing key verses, their context, and how they're interpreted in relation to coeternality:

Verse	Text	Interpretation in Context of Coeternality
John 1:1-3, 14	"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."	The "Word" (Jesus) existed "in the beginning" (echoing Genesis 1:1), was "with God" (distinct person), and "was God" (shared essence). All creation came through Him, implying He predates creation and has no origin. This is seen as evidence of eternal existence, not creation.
Micah 5:2	"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."	Applied to Jesus in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 2:5-6), "origins... from ancient times" (Hebrew: "from days of eternity") suggests an eternal past, not a finite beginning.
John 8:58	"Very truly I tell you... before Abraham was born, I am!"	Jesus claims preexistence before Abraham (c. 2000 BC) using "I am" (echoing God's name in Exodus 3:14), implying timeless, eternal existence.
Colossians 1:15-17	"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth... all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."	"Firstborn" here means preeminence or heir (not literal birth/order of creation, as in Psalm 89:27 for David). Since "all things" were created through Him and He is "before all things," He can't be part of creation—implying eternity.
Hebrews 1:2-3, 8	"In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being... But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever.'"	"The Son created the universe and is the "exact representation" of God's being (Greek: hypostasis, shared substance). Verse 8 calls the Son "God," with an eternal throne.
Isaiah 9:6 (prophetic of Jesus)	"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given... and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."	"Everlasting Father" (or "Father of Eternity") implies timelessness, and "Mighty God" equates Him with divinity without beginning.

These verses are foundational in Trinitarian theology for arguing coeternality. Critics (e.g., non-Trinitarians) interpret them differently, such as seeing "firstborn" as literal creation or "beginning" as the start of God's plan, but the texts don't explicitly state a temporal origin for Jesus.


Do you understand the meaning of "Begotten" in Biblical Context???????????/

The term "begotten" (Greek: monogenes in John 3:16, often translated "only begotten" or "one and only") doesn't imply a beginning or creation in the way human birth does. In ancient Greek, monogenes means "unique," "one of a kind," or "only" in the sense of special relationship, not necessarily procreation with a start point.

For example:

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son..." Emphasizes Jesus' unique status as God's Son, not a temporal birth. It's about relational uniqueness, similar to Isaac being Abraham's "only" son (Hebrews 11:17) despite other children.

Psalm 2:7: "You are my son; today I have become your father" (or "begotten you"). This is messianic (applied to Jesus in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5), but "today" refers to a declarative act—like coronation, incarnation, or resurrection—not a literal beginning. In Acts 13:33, it's tied to Jesus' resurrection: "raised up Jesus... 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.'" It signifies installation or revelation, not creation.

Non-Trinitarians argue "begotten" means literal origin (e.g., Jesus as God's first creation, per Colossians 1:15), but the Greek and contextual usage in Scripture leans toward uniqueness without temporal limits in Trinitarian readings.

What does history tell us on Historical Teaching on "Eternally Begotten"?????????

The concept of an "eternally begotten" Son isn't a direct biblical phrase but emerged in early Christian theology to explain how Jesus is both "from the Father" (as Son) and without beginning (as God). It wasn't "made up" arbitrarily but developed through church councils and writings to counter heresies like Arianism (which claimed Jesus was created and had a beginning).

Early Church Fathers (2nd-3rd centuries): Writers like Origen (c. 185-254 AD) used "eternal generation" to describe the Son's timeless origin from the Father—begotten eternally, not in time, like light from the sun (always emanating, no start). Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) influenced Western views, emphasizing the Son's coeternal distinction without creation.

Nicene Creed (325 AD): Formulated at the Council of Nicaea to refute Arius (who said "there was a time when the Son was not"). It states: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." This became the standard for orthodox Christianity. Athanasius (c. 296-373 AD) defended it vigorously, arguing eternal generation preserves both unity and distinction in the Godhead.

Later Developments: The Athanasian Creed (c. 5th century) and theologians like Augustine reinforced it. Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin) upheld it, though some modern evangelicals debate "eternal Sonship" vs. "incarnational Sonship" (Sonship starting at birth, but divinity eternal).

Critics (e.g., Arians historically, or modern Unitarians) reject this as extra-biblical philosophy, insisting "begotten" means a literal beginning, but the doctrine arose from interpreting verses like those above to maintain monotheism while affirming Jesus' divinity.

In summary, the idea reconciles Jesus being "from the Father" (relational subordination as Son) with no beginning (shared eternal essence). If He were created, passages like John 1:3 ("without him nothing was made") would contradict, as He'd be part of "nothing." This framework has been central to Christianity since the 4th century, though not universally accepted.