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

[Josheb]

I'm answering questions..........

pfffffft!

 

[Josheb]

his Jesus though is same one of the JW

For the sake of my observation that is irrelevant. The problem that exists anytime Jesus' ontology is discussed is the problem of ambiguity. Non-Trins and Trins do not assign identical meaning s to words. The word "Jesus" or "Christ" has an entirely different meaning to the Jew than it does to the LDS and neither use the words the same way a modalist or a classic Trinitarian use the words. The result is two (or more) participants speaking past one another, wrongly imagining something of substance has been communicated to the other person when that is not the case.

@Paul claims he is not a JW, so he should not be treated as such (although if it quacks like a duck..... ). Might help if someone asked, and he provided a statement regarding who and what he believes Jesus is (in addition to merely saying he is the Son of God).

 

[makesends]

If you seen the Son you have seen the Father because the Father is living in Him doing His work. They are one.

A being with no beginning cannot be from another as a Son nor would such a being have a God. As is the Father alone the only true God

Only Jesus' physical body had a beginning. The Son of God did not. You are looking at it backwards.

 

[makesends]

I'm answering questions but it's getting to a point where I'm going to stop as I have better things to do.

Gotta have the last word, then?

 

[John Bauer]

So which heresy are you part of then? seems like Arianism or the JW.

A brief note on Eusebian subordinationism​

I don’t know if this is what @Paul is affirming but this ancient view is what I’m hearing in his posts.

After Origen but before and around Nicaea (early 300s CE), many eastern bishops held what historians call subordinationist Christology. Eusebian subordinationism is the theological position, associated primarily with Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE)—influenced by Origen and Arius—that within the Godhead the Son (Jesus Christ) is subordinate to the Father in his being, rank, and authority. The Son is divine, but his divinity is derived, conferred, or delegated from the Father who is autotheos (“God of himself”).

Key Characteristics:​

• The Father alone is unbegotten and supreme: The Father is the ultimate, unoriginated source of all things—the “Monad.” He is truly God in the highest sense.
  
  ​
• The Son is generated by the Father: The Son is not co-eternal with the Father. There was a time (at least logically) before the Son was begotten or generated by the Father’s will. This makes the Son a creature, albeit the first and highest creation.
  
  ​
• A derived divinity: Because the Son derives his being from the Father, his divinity is delegated or derivative. He is God in a secondary sense—a “second God” (deuteros theos)—who acts as the Father’s agent in creating and governing the universe. Eusebius used metaphors like a “ray” from the “sun” or a “stream” from a “fountain” to describe this relationship.
  
  ​
• The Son is the image and will of the Father: The Son is the perfect image and likeness of the Father and the executor of the Father’s will. He is the means through which the transcendent, unknowable Father interacts with creation.

Historical Context:​

Eusebius was a central figure in the Arian controversy. While he was a sophisticated theologian in his own right and not a mere follower of Arius, his views did align closely with the subordinationist core of Arianism. He opposed the teaching of Alexander (of Alexandria) and his deacon Athanasius, who argued for the Son’s co-equality and co-eternity with the Father (homoousios, “of the same substance”). At the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius initially found the term homoousios problematic because it sounded Sabellian or Modalist to him (erasing the distinction between Father and Son) and contradicted his subordinationist view.

He ultimately signed the Nicene Creed—likely for political and ecclesiastical peace—but his subsequent writings show he continued to interpret it in a subordinationist way.

Why It Matters:​

Eusebian subordinationism is crucial for understanding:

• The pre-Nicene landscape: It represented a powerful and sophisticated theological position that existed before the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was formally and fully defined.
  
  ​
• The motivation for Nicaea: The teachings of Arius and Eusebius were the direct catalyst for the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed, with its “true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father,” was formulated explicitly to reject subordinationism of this kind.
  
  ​
• The doctrine of the Trinity: The eventual orthodox formulation—one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons—was developed in opposition to subordinationist ideas like those of Eusebius.

In short, Eusebian subordinationism is the “defeated alternative” to the classic doctrine of the Trinity. It insisted on the distinct personhood of the Father and Son but at the cost of making the Son a lesser deity, a position ultimately condemned as heretical by the whole church from Nicaea onward.

 

[Eleanor]

Is from the doctrine of the trinity

And you still have not addressed the following Biblical teaching:
(your failure to do so speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you say)

One God. . .in three distinct persons:
the Son being subject to the Father, for the Son is sent by the Father (Jn 5:23, 36, 43),
the Spirit being subject to the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Father in the Son's name (Jn 14:26), and
the Spirit being subject to the Son as well as the Father, for the Spirit is sent by the Son as well as the Father (Jn 15:26, 16:7, 14:26, Ac 2:33).

One doesn't send oneself, one sends another person.

It is Jesus in the above who shows three distinct persons in disclosing the mystery of the Trininty, which mystery is the heart of Christian faith in God.
And that mystery is three distinct persons in one God--the Son doing the will of the Father, and the Spirit doing the will of the Father and the Son.

 

[Josheb]

A brief note on Eusebian subordinationism​

I don’t know if this is what @Paul is affirming but this ancient view is what I’m hearing in his posts.

After Origen but before and around Nicaea (early 300s CE), many eastern bishops held what historians call subordinationist Christology. Eusebian subordinationism is the theological position, associated primarily with Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE)—influenced by Origen and Arius—that within the Godhead the Son (Jesus Christ) is subordinate to the Father in his being, rank, and authority. The Son is divine, but his divinity is derived, conferred, or delegated from the Father who is autotheos (“God of himself”)...................................

​

Well done.

The problem can be summarized fairly succinctly. Simply put, if the progeny of a God is another God then an instant contradiction is created because neither God can be almighty (one is not mighty over the other). It instantly negates the premise of divinity as asserted in the Bible.* Two big-G Gods is an oxymoron. They attempt to say one is a Father and the other is a Son to create a subordinate relationship when scripture expressly states Jesus is Creator, sovereign, and almighty does not solve the inherent contradiction.

However, @Paul hasn't been clear. He stands on Jesus being the firstborn of creation. That implies Jesus is created. Paul was unable to address the question of how anything could be born before creation and born as the first part of creation; how something, someone, anything, anyone could be at the beginning of creation and also the beginning of creation. Then there's the matter of Jesus being made (firstborn) before either angels or humans were made. He is not angel, and he is not human. He must be something else; a third type of creature (or non-creature) that is not elsewhere accounted for, elaborated upon in scripture, or detailed (which would be odd considering he is what scripture is all about). As far as @Paul's contribution to the thread goes, the truth of Jesus being "firstborn" was taken out of context. The term is primarily soteriological. Relevant to creation, Jesus is firstborn. Relevant to eternity, Jesus is without origin. His is the firstborn, which scripture describes as the one who receives a double portion of the inheritance, which includes the position of head representation of the family. Being firstborn is also couched in the "tithe," or the first fruits that are gathered at the beginning of a harvest, a gathering that is entirely given to God in devotion, having been gathered from among both the crop planted and the weeds in which the crop grows. Jesus is all of that, but also more, and the attempts to get at the more proved fruitless.​

* Polytheism cannot be supported by whole scripture.
.

 

[Paul]

A brief note on Eusebian subordinationism​

I don’t know if this is what @Paul is affirming but this ancient view is what I’m hearing in his posts.

After Origen but before and around Nicaea (early 300s CE), many eastern bishops held what historians call subordinationist Christology. Eusebian subordinationism is the theological position, associated primarily with Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339 CE)—influenced by Origen and Arius—that within the Godhead the Son (Jesus Christ) is subordinate to the Father in his being, rank, and authority. The Son is divine, but his divinity is derived, conferred, or delegated from the Father who is autotheos (“God of himself”).

Key Characteristics:​

• The Father alone is unbegotten and supreme: The Father is the ultimate, unoriginated source of all things—the “Monad.” He is truly God in the highest sense.

True the Father is the only true God there is no other Deity.

• 
  
  ​
• The Son is generated by the Father: The Son is not co-eternal with the Father. There was a time (at least logically) before the Son was begotten or generated by the Father’s will. This makes the Son a creature, albeit the first and highest creation.

True the Son's spirit (not deity) was formed by the Father as the first of His works. Not only in the sense of the Firstborn being but also the Firstborn of all creation.

• 
  
  ​
• A derived divinity: Because the Son derives his being from the Father, his divinity is delegated or derivative. He is God in a secondary sense—a “second God” (deuteros theos)—who acts as the Father’s agent in creating and governing the universe. Eusebius used metaphors like a “ray” from the “sun” or a “stream” from a “fountain” to describe this relationship.

Not quite. The Son is not a different God or a lesser God He is God as in the first and last. It is the fullness of the Fathers Deity that lives in Him. He is all that the Father is. They are one. The Father's Deity is not secondary to Himself, but His Firstborn Son is secondary to Him.

• 
  
  ​
• The Son is the image and will of the Father: The Son is the perfect image and likeness of the Father and the executor of the Father’s will. He is the means through which the transcendent, unknowable Father interacts with creation.

As is stated of the Father -From whom all things come. As is stated of the Son -through whom all things come.

Historical Context:​

Eusebius was a central figure in the Arian controversy. While he was a sophisticated theologian in his own right and not a mere follower of Arius, his views did align closely with the subordinationist core of Arianism. He opposed the teaching of Alexander (of Alexandria) and his deacon Athanasius, who argued for the Son’s co-equality and co-eternity with the Father (homoousios, “of the same substance”). At the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius initially found the term homoousios problematic because it sounded Sabellian or Modalist to him (erasing the distinction between Father and Son) and contradicted his subordinationist view.

He ultimately signed the Nicene Creed—likely for political and ecclesiastical peace—but his subsequent writings show he continued to interpret it in a subordinationist way.

Why It Matters:​

Eusebian subordinationism is crucial for understanding:

• The pre-Nicene landscape: It represented a powerful and sophisticated theological position that existed before the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was formally and fully defined.
  
  ​
• The motivation for Nicaea: The teachings of Arius and Eusebius were the direct catalyst for the Council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed, with its “true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father,” was formulated explicitly to reject subordinationism of this kind.
  
  ​
• The doctrine of the Trinity: The eventual orthodox formulation—one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons—was developed in opposition to subordinationist ideas like those of Eusebius.

In short, Eusebian subordinationism is the “defeated alternative” to the classic doctrine of the Trinity. It insisted on the distinct personhood of the Father and Son but at the cost of making the Son a lesser deity, a position ultimately condemned as heretical by the whole church from Nicaea onward.

Can you prove from the NT that this is a lie? Father and Son.

 

[Josheb]

True the Son's spirit (not deity)....

Wrong.

Romans 8:9
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ.

Not quite. The Son is not a different God or a lesser God He is God as in the first and last.

Then he is not born.

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me.....

Ge is eternal. The idea a God has a birth is contrary to scripture's definition of God. The minute it is said Jesus us God in any way, shape or form, the notion of birth is negated.

It is the fullness of the Fathers Deity that lives in Him. He is all that the Father is. They are one. The Father's Deity is not secondary to Himself, but His Firstborn Son is secondary to Him.

Then Jesus is without beginning or end. If Jesus is ALL that is the Father, then Jesus is eternal, not a created creature that is made divine.

As is stated of the Father - From whom all things come. As is stated of the Son - through whom all things come.

That is not all that is Jesus.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

By and through. By, not just through.

Can you prove from the NT that this is a lie? Father and Son.

Yep. Just did.


And every single one of these texts was previously brought to your attention and were ignored despite multiple requests to have them addressed. The practice of selective use of scripture was also broached and also ignored. The proof was provided and then ignored.

 

[Paul]

Wrong.

Romans 8:9
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ.

Then he is not born.

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me.....

Ge is eternal. The idea a God has a birth is contrary to scripture's definition of God. The minute it is said Jesus us God in any way, shape or form, the notion of birth is negated.

The Father is unbegotten and is the true God.

Then Jesus is without beginning or end. If Jesus is ALL that is the Father, then Jesus is eternal, not a created creature that is made divine.

Apparently, you ignore what I have stated. Whether the Father has always been is unknown to me as I don't know. I do know He's unbegotten. Its His Deity without limit that lives in the Son.

That is not all that is Jesus.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Through Him and for Him speaks of another. God created by His Son just as God spoke to us by His Son, The Deity in the Son doing His work.
Even your creed states, "through Him all things were made"

By and through. By, not just through.

God spoke to us in these last days by His Son.
Jesus- the Father living in me doing His work.

About the Son
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but 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.

Yep. Just did.


And every single one of these texts was previously brought to your attention and were ignored despite multiple requests to have them addressed. The practice of selective use of scripture was also broached and also ignored. The proof was provided and then ignored.

I consider all that is written of Him.

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

 

[Paul]

Wrong.

Romans 8:9
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

I have the Spirit of Christ in me and my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
The Fathers Spirit sent in Jesus's name.
Jesus speaks of that Spirit as "another" advocate.
The Father states in these last days He will pour out "His" Spirit.

The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ.

"Father into your hands I commit "MY" spirit.

Jesus would not need to ask for and receive His own spirit to send nor speak of His spirit as "another" from Himself.

Then he is not born.

He is the Firstborn of all creation, (His spirit)

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me.....

I believe the Father alone is the only true God.

Ge is eternal. The idea a God has a birth is contrary to scripture's definition of God. The minute it is said Jesus us God in any way, shape or form, the notion of birth is negated.

The Father is unbegotten.

Then Jesus is without beginning or end. If Jesus is ALL that is the Father, then Jesus is eternal, not a created creature that is made divine.

He never dies as He lives by the Deity that dwells in Him. But He is begotten.

 

[John Bauer]

The Son is not a different God or a lesser God; he is God, as in the First and Last. It is the fullness of the Father's deity that lives in him. He is all that the Father is. They are one. The Father's deity is not secondary to himself, but his firstborn Son is secondary to him.

Interestingly, this helpful clarification actually cements his alignment with Eusebian subordinationism. Although he insists that the Son is "not a lesser God," he claims that the Son's deity

• derives from the Father,
  
  ​
• depends on the Father's unbegotten life,
  
  ​
• participates in the Father's fullness, and
  
  ​
• mirrors the Father's essence rather than possessing it self-existently.

That is subordinationism in ontological form, even if wrapped in pious affirmations of "oneness." He may be trying to avoid saying "lesser God" while still maintaining "secondary Godhead," but that is exactly the Eusebian error that Nicaea rejected as internally inconsistent.

The Son is not a different God or a lesser God; he is God, as in the First and Last. It is the fullness of the Father's deity that lives in him. He is all that the Father is. They are one. The Father's deity is not secondary to himself, but his firstborn Son is secondary to him.

Like Eusebius, he is claiming that the Son truly shares in divinity but that it's derivative, as participation in the Father's deity. That is, the Son's deity is in him, not of him; it is the Father's own deity indwelling the Son. Only the Father's deity is of himself (autotheos). This is participatory oneness—ontological sameness by communication, not by identity of essence. His final line—"his firstborn Son is secondary to him"—is the clincher, for secondary (deuteros) is the classic subordinationist word from Eusebius and Origen alike.

 

[Paul]

Interestingly, this helpful clarification actually cements his alignment with Eusebian subordinationism. Although he insists that the Son is "not a lesser God," he claims that the Son's deity

• derives from the Father,
  
  ​
• depends on the Father's unbegotten life,
  
  ​
• participates in the Father's fullness, and
  
  ​
• mirrors the Father's essence rather than possessing it self-existently.

That is subordinationism in ontological form, even if wrapped in pious affirmations of "oneness." He may be trying to avoid saying "lesser God" while still maintaining "secondary Godhead," but that is exactly the Eusebian error that Nicaea rejected as internally inconsistent.

The Son is not a different God or a lesser God; he is God, as in the First and Last. It is the fullness of the Father's deity that lives in him. He is all that the Father is. They are one. The Father's deity is not secondary to himself, but his firstborn Son is secondary to him.

Like Eusebius, he is claiming that the Son truly shares in divinity but that it's derivative, as participation in the Father's deity. That is, the Son's deity is in him, not of him; it is the Father's own deity indwelling the Son. Only the Father's deity is of himself (autotheos). This is participatory oneness—ontological sameness by communication, not by identity of essence. His final line—"his firstborn Son is secondary to him"—is the clincher, for secondary (deuteros) is the classic subordinationist word from Eusebius and Origen alike.

My understanding is not from Eusebian.

 

[John Bauer]

My understanding is not from Eusebian.

Perhaps not, but it certainly aligns with it—and exhibits the same internal incoherence.

 

[Josheb]

The Father is unbegotten and is the true God.

Yes, and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. Post 268 states otherwise. Your problem is not that you quote scripture. The problem is that scripture is quoted selectively. You post what fits your position and ignore what does not fit it. Post 268 states the Son's spirit was formed by the Father but scripture says the Spirit of God is the Spirit of God. if what scripture says is true and correct then Post 269's report is incorrect. God's spirit is not formed by God. That is self-contradictory!

Apparently, you ignore what I have stated.

Never happened. That is a figment of your imagination.

Whether the Father has always been is unknown to me as I don't know. I do know He's unbegotten. Its His Deity without limit that lives in the Son.

No, His Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Christ does not have someone else's Spirit. It is the exact same Spirit. His Spirit is God's Spirit and God's Spirit is Christ's Spirit.

Through Him and for Him speaks of another.

Only in the way you have treated the text in your selectivity. The fact of scripture is that creation was created BOTH by and through Jesus. You selectively emphasize the "through" and ignore the "by." Stop it. Accept the facts of scripture: it is BOTH by and through Jesus the world was created. You asked for scripture. Scripture was provided.

You're now arguing against the scripture provided (not me).

At the very beginning of our exchange I asked you, "Is that all that is Jesus?" and I asked you that question multiple time. It is an inquiry you're still not engaging...... except to deny what scripture plainly says. Jesus is BOTH, the by and the through. And that, in turn, leads to certain very specific logical necessities which I also tried to discuss with you. only to have the matter ignored and the subject changed LIKE YOU ARE DOING NOW. You're not dealing with the fact, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. You're not dealing with the fact Jesus is BOTH the by and the through of creation. You are not dealing with the selective used of scripture.

In other words, you've got problems in both content and method and are not dealing with either.

God created by His Son just as God spoke to us by His Son,

The scripture states Christ is the one by whom all things were created. Scripture also states God created everything. That means both God and Jesus are THE Creator because there cannot logically, possibly, be two Creators. What this also means is that divine attributes are attributed to God ontologically, not merely teleologically...... and if Jesus were not actually God then that equivalence asserted by scripture itself would be heresy!!! If, in turn, heretical statement are being asserted to Jesus then 1) Jesus is not Lord or Savior of anything, and 2) scripture proves unreliable. We're both lost. There is no salvation for anyone and we're all just arguing over lies.

YOU cannot have it both ways, @Paul.

It is not exegetically or logically possible to assign any form of divinity to Jesus and deny all that necessarily accompanies being a Deity.

The Deity in the Son doing His work.

That is teleology, not ontology. I tried to broach that with you too, only to see it ignored.

Even your creed states, "through Him all things were made"

Nice red herring. My creed? What do you presume to know about my creed? What I have posted is scripture, whole scripture, and whole scripture exactly as written. No appeal to creeds. You take that up with someone appealing to creeds, not me.

God spoke to us in these last days by His Son.

Yep. God did do that. You're still not dealing with the facts of scripture now in evidence: God's Spirit is Christ's Spirit and Christ is BOTH the by and the through of creation.

Stop dancing around the issue.

Jesus- the Father living in me doing His work.

This discussion is not about you.

About the Son
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but 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.

Yes, all of that is true BUT it is not all that is true of Jesus. You are being selective with scripture because although Jesus was revealed in the last times, he existed as God prior to creation and he was with God in the beginning as God.

I consider all that is written of Him.

The posts prove otherwise. You have NOT considered all that is written about Jesus, AND when everyone here attempts to bring whole scripture to your attention and reason with you through what is written the response is Posts 270 and 271. Two posts that do not address the concerns expressed in Post 269.

You've just wasted everyone's time (including your own).

I believe the Father alone is the only true God.

That is not the problem. The problem is that the God you believe to be the only true God is not the God described in the WHOLE of scripture.

The Father is unbegotten.

And, therefore, if God's Spirit is the exact same Spirit as that of Jesus, then Jesus is also unbegotten. And since there cannot be two Gods because that sort of polytheism is inherently illogical.... The Son must also be unbegotten and the only true God.

Part of the problem is you're hung up on the language of "Father" and "Son." Those are soteriological and soteriologically eschatological terms. They are teleological. Jesus' ontology is much, much greater than his role as the bondservant Son. You are being selective when you stick only to the verses that speak of Father/Son.

He never dies as He lives by the Deity that dwells in Him. But He is begotten.

Irrelevant. What you were asked to address is

• The Spirit of God is Christ's Spirit.
• The minute you say Jesus is God you've contradicted your own belief in one God.
• The minute you say Jesus is all that is the Father you've contradicted all claims of his having a beginning because God has no beginning.
• Jesus is both the by and the through of creation.
• Your claim of having answered all questions you've been asked when that is demonstrably not the case.

Everyone's time (including your own) is being wasted when you dance around and ignore these matters.

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

Yep. That is true but it does nothing to address the five points I just listed.

Everyone's time is being wasted when you dance around and avoid addressing these matters.

• The Spirit of God is Christ's Spirit.
• The minute you say Jesus is God you've contradicted your own belief in one God.
• The minute you say Jesus is all that is the Father you've contradicted all claims of his having a beginning because God has no beginning.
• Jesus is both the by and the through of creation.
• Your claim of having answered all questions you've been asked when that is demonstrably not the case.

You asked for scripture. Scripture was provided. You say you've considered all the scriptures, but the posts prove otherwise. You've been selective with your use of scripture and multiple posters here have asked you to consider the whole of scripture. How heard would it have been to focus on post on Romans 8:9 instead of the waste of time that is posts 170 and 271?

You have spent several posts telling posters what you are NOT. You're not JW, and you're not modalist or oneness. You're not Eusebian. Good! Great!

What are you?

As far as the posts in this thread (and elsewhere) go, you are a poster who uses scripture selectively and refuses to engage others asking you to consider other scripture. Is that the guy you want to be? Is that the guy you want us to understand you to be? If not, then pick one of the points just listed and engage the discussion accordingly WITH WHOLE SCRIPTURE!!!

• The Spirit of God is Christ's Spirit.
• The minute you say Jesus is God you've contradicted your own belief in one God.
• The minute you say Jesus is all that is the Father you've contradicted all claims of his having a beginning because God has no beginning.
• Jesus is both the by and the through of creation.
• Scripture is used selectively, primarily focusing on the seeming dichotomy between the Father and the Son, when scripture has a lot more to say about Jesus than what you've posted.
• Your claim of having answered all questions you've been asked when that is demonstrably not the case.

.

 

[Rella]

It's not reality which is the point. A being with no beginning cannot be from any other person and would not be a Son with a Father nor have a God. It is something that is just stated as so. A mystery as a foundation not fact.

I am not entering into this debate but feel I must ask you who you believe the Word... From John 1:1 was or is?

And then I would like to ask you when exactly you believe that Jesus was begotten?

 

[Josheb]

A being with no beginning cannot be from any other person and would not be a Son with a Father nor have a God.

It would if the Father/Son dichotomy pertained solely to soteriological purpose of bond service.

Philippians 2:5-6 (Greek transliteration)
Christ Jesus, who in the form of God existing, considered equality with God not something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, the form of a bondservant in the likeness of men having been made.

1. He existed in the form of God.
2. He existed in the form of God before emptying himself.
3. He existed in the form of God before taking the form of a bondservant.
4. He existed in the form of God before being made in the likeness of men.
5. He existed in the form of God before considering equality something to be grasped (implying he could have rationally and justly considered it).

His bond service sonship has a beginning. His existence as God does not.