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

[Paul]

This is really bad Theology.

Those who teach sinless perfection also teach this false doctrine about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who is God that came in the flesh.

I don't teach sinless perfection. I stated those who are sealed IN Christ by the Spirit are one and a state of sin cannot exist in God. As in Him is no sin. I stated what John wrote that those born of God will not and cannot continue to sin BECAUSE Gods seed remains in them. That those who claim to know Him but do not do what He says are liars and the truth is not in them.

This is not bad theology.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

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

 

[makesends]

Have you ever read about the Son in Hebrews 1? I believe God created by that Son. That God appointed that Son heir of all things. That God set that Son above His companions.

You believe the Logos ceased to exist and became the Son and remained the Son?

Do you believe the Son who calls His God Father is the offspring of the Father?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Col 1:19 -This is what the Spirit made known to me -From the will of another.

You read everything in regard to the Son through the lens of the doctrine of the trinity.

No. I read everything in regard to the Son by knowing him, and by seeing, (among other things), that he is omnipotent. There can be only one omnipotent, and the Son is omnipotent. So is the Spirit of God. So is the Father.

And the "Persons noted in regard to the creation are God our Father and Christ are Lord. The persons noted on the throne are God Jesus's Father and His lamb. No mention of the Spirit. Because the Spirit is just that the Spirit OF God our Father the only true God.

Use this lens as given to you by the head of the body of Christ not man -The One He calls His God and Father is the only true God,

 

[John Bauer]

Have you ever read about the Son in Hebrews 1? I believe God created [through] that Son, that God appointed that Son heir of all things, [and] that God set that Son above his companions.

Trinitarian monotheists believe exactly the same thing, which means Hebrews 1 doesn’t make your case for binitarian monotheism.

You believe the Logos ceased to exist and became the Son and remained the Son?

No. Both the Logos and the Son refer to one person who is eternally the same. He is eternally the Logos with respect to creation and revelation, he is eternally the Son with respect to the Father, and in both respects he is eternally and fully God. The Logos has never ceased to exist, the Son never came to be.

Only his incarnate mode of existence as Jesus is temporal or had a beginning; the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14) and was given the name Jesus (Matt 1:21).

Do you believe the Son who calls his God “Father” is the offspring of the Father?

No, as the term “offspring” denotes a creaturely relation and is never used in Scripture to describe the Son. We believe the Son is eternally begotten of the Father without beginning, change, or essential subordination. They are distinct as to their relation, not their ontology; God is one in essence as three distinct persons.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Again, that is what trinitarian monotheists affirm, which means Hebrews 13:8 doesn’t make your case for binitarian monotheism.

Colossians 1:19 [speaks to] what the Spirit made known to me: [the fullness of deity is] from the will of another.

Because trinitarian monotheists rely directly on passages like Colossians 1:19 for their doctrine, there is more going on than quoted words convey by themselves. Translation is not sufficient. Exegesis is needed here.

The key question is not whether the fullness dwells in the Son—we clearly see here that it does—but whether that fullness is constitutive of who the Son is (the trinitarian view), or derivative of another (the binitarian view). Eusebian subordinationism says that God’s fullness dwells in the Son because the Father shares it. Nicene orthodoxy says that God’s fullness dwells in the Son because the Son is God. The text itself does not force either conclusion. The conclusion is supplied by prior commitments about divine simplicity, eternal generation, and the Creator–creature divide.

That is why an appeal to “fullness” of deity alone proves nothing. The verse is downstream of ontology, not upstream from it. Both camps are able to affirm the sentence, but only one explains it without shipwrecking divine simplicity or aseity.

You read everything in regard to the Son through the lens of the doctrine of the trinity.

Just as you read everything regarding the Son through a binitarian lens. This is not the gotcha you were reaching for.

And the "persons" noted in regard to creation are God our Father and Christ our Lord. The persons noted on the throne are God, Jesus's Father and his Lamb. No mention of the Spirit. Because the Spirit is just that, the Spirit OF God our Father the only true God.

For whatever reason, you forgot the involvement of the Spirit in creation (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Job 33:4). Scripture does not treat creation as a Father–Son dyad with the Spirit as an impersonal residue.

Enthronement signals at once the fountainhead of sovereign authority in the Father and messianic kingdom rule in the Son (cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 Cor 15:24–28). The Father’s enthronement is the public vindication of his eternal kingship; the Son’s enthronement is the completion and confirmation of his finished mediatorial obedience. Hebrews 10:12 says that the Son “sat down at the right hand of God” because the Son assumed flesh, obeyed as the second Adam, suffered, died, and rose.

The Father is enthroned as the personal source from whom all authority is eternally given, according to the divine counsel that precedes creation itself. The Son is enthroned as the one through whom that authority is exercised—foundationally in the eternal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) and historically through covenantal obedience, atonement, and exaltation. His reign is not an abstraction but the executed will of the Father carried out through mediatorial fulfillment.

The Spirit is not enthroned because his work does not terminate in enthronement. His work is not crowned by session but expressed through procession and presence. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, he actualizes and sustains the reign of the enthroned Christ, applying in time what was decreed in eternity and accomplished in history. He makes the reign of Christ present, effective, and inwardly actualized in the people of God. He is not enthroned as mediator, because there is only one mediator.

Crucially, in Scripture the Spirit is explicitly present before the throne (Rev 1:4; 4:5; 5:6), depicted in temple imagery—fire, lamps, breath, voice—rather than in royal session. That placement is not marginal or subordinate; it is theological. The Spirit is the divine presence proceeding from the throne, not a lesser being excluded from it.

If the Spirit were merely “the Spirit of God” in the way you suggest—a kind of property, force, or extension—Scripture could not speak of him as sending and being sent (John 15:26; Gal 4:6), teaching and testifying (John 14:26; 15:26), searching the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10), being lied to as God (Acts 5:3–4).

• Father = eternally unbegotten; originator—redemption purposed (Eph 1:3-6).
• Son = eternally begotten; mediator—redemption accomplished (Eph 1:7).
• Spirit = eternally proceeding; applier—redemption applied (Eph 1:13-14).

Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt. The external work of the holy trinity is indivisible ontologically, yet ordered and differentiated economically.

 

[Paul]

No. I read everything in regard to the Son by knowing him, and by seeing, (among other things), that he is omnipotent. There can be only one omnipotent, and the Son is omnipotent. So is the Spirit of God. So is the Father.

You might read all but you do it through the lens of the doctrine of man. I prefer truth as given from above,

The two persons on the throne of God.

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.


The Son has all the fullness of God the Father living in Him. He is one with the Father and all that the Father is but is the Fathers oldest child. A Son -the Firstborn A promise Son called God.

One God our Father and One Christ our Lord.

TWO
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the main street of the city.
To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

 

[Paul]

Trinitarian monotheists believe exactly the same thing, which means Hebrews 1 doesn’t make your case for binitarian monotheism.

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

No. Both the Logos and the Son refer to one person who is eternally the same. He is eternally the Logos with respect to creation and revelation, he is eternally the Son with respect to the Father, and in both respects he is eternally and fully God. The Logos has never ceased to exist, the Son never came to be.

Yes I know what I don't know is how you see Him as a Son.

Only his incarnate mode of existence as Jesus is temporal or had a beginning; the Logos “became flesh” (John 1:14) and was given the name Jesus (Matt 1:21).

That's the body that had a beginning unlike you it's clear to me the Son who was, His spirit, descended into the body that was prepared for Him. And HE was before the world began.

No, as the term “offspring” denotes a creaturely relation and is never used in Scripture to describe the Son. We believe the Son is eternally begotten of the Father without beginning, change, or essential subordination. They are distinct as to their relation, not their ontology; God is one in essence as three distinct persons.

If He's not a child of God then how did He become the Son with GOD being called our Father? Jesus is not our Father He is our Lord.

Again, that is what trinitarian monotheists affirm, which means Hebrews 13:8 doesn’t make your case for binitarian monotheism.

It strengthens not weakens my case.
Col 1:19 - It has always been so and always will be so.

Because trinitarian monotheists rely directly on passages like Colossians 1:19 for their doctrine, there is more going on than quoted words convey by themselves. Translation is not sufficient. Exegesis is needed here.

Its clear to me. You require more only under the direct influence of the doctrine of the trinity NOT the text.

The key question is not whether the fullness dwells in the Son—we clearly see here that it does—but whether that fullness is constitutive of who the Son is (the trinitarian view), or derivative of another (the binitarian view). Eusebian subordinationism says that God’s fullness dwells in the Son because the Father shares it. Nicene orthodoxy says that God’s fullness dwells in the Son because the Son is God. The text itself does not force either conclusion. The conclusion is supplied by prior commitments about divine simplicity, eternal generation, and the Creator–creature divide.

Repetitive.

That is why an appeal to “fullness” of deity alone proves nothing. The verse is downstream of ontology, not upstream from it. Both camps are able to affirm the sentence, but only one explains it without shipwrecking divine simplicity or aseity.

Whose Deity -The Fathers alone who Christ calls the only true God. He sat down with His Father on His Fathers throne.

Just as you read everything regarding the Son through a binitarian lens. This is not the gotcha you were reaching for.

I'm reading the Son as a true Son yet one called God. We differ in how that is so.

For whatever reason, you forgot the involvement of the Spirit in creation (e.g., Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30; Job 33:4). Scripture does not treat creation as a Father–Son dyad with the Spirit as an impersonal residue.

Yes as the Fathers Spirit it would be involved but the two persons were noted from the Father through the Son.

Matt 10:20
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Enthronement signals at once the fountainhead of sovereign authority in the Father and messianic kingdom rule in the Son (cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 Cor 15:24–28). The Father’s enthronement is the public vindication of his eternal kingship; the Son’s enthronement is the completion and confirmation of his finished mediatorial obedience. Hebrews 10:12 says that the Son “sat down at the right hand of God” because the Son assumed flesh, obeyed as the second Adam, suffered, died, and rose.

Just two on that throne and Christ was given Sovereign authority. He and the Father are one just as He stated.
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.

The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

The Father is enthroned as the personal source from whom all authority is eternally given, according to the divine counsel that precedes creation itself. The Son is enthroned as the one through whom that authority is exercised—foundationally in the eternal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) and historically through covenantal obedience, atonement, and exaltation. His reign is not an abstraction but the executed will of the Father carried out through mediatorial fulfillment.

The Father is the only true God and its His fullness that lives in His Firstborn Son and they are one.

The Spirit is not enthroned because his work does not terminate in enthronement. His work is not crowned by session but expressed through procession and presence. Proceeding from the Father and the Son, he actualizes and sustains the reign of the enthroned Christ, applying in time what was decreed in eternity and accomplished in history. He makes the reign of Christ present, effective, and inwardly actualized in the people of God. He is not enthroned as mediator, because there is only one mediator.

The Spirit is not a 3rd person. God is Spirit and its the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord.

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

Crucially, in Scripture the Spirit is explicitly present before the throne (Rev 1:4; 4:5; 5:6), depicted in temple imagery—fire, lamps, breath, voice—rather than in royal session. That placement is not marginal or subordinate; it is theological. The Spirit is the divine presence proceeding from the throne, not a lesser being excluded from it.

If the Spirit were merely “the Spirit of God” in the way you suggest—a kind of property, force, or extension—Scripture could not speak of him as sending and being sent (John 15:26; Gal 4:6), teaching and testifying (John 14:26; 15:26), searching the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10), being lied to as God (Acts 5:3–4).

• Father = eternally unbegotten; originator—redemption purposed (Eph 1:3-6).
• Son = eternally begotten; mediator—redemption accomplished (Eph 1:7).
• Spirit = eternally proceeding; applier—redemption applied (Eph 1:13-14).

Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt. The external work of the holy trinity is indivisible ontologically, yet ordered and differentiated economically.

The Father is unbegotten.
The Son is the Fathers first begotten.
The Spirit is the Fathers Spirit sent into the world that testifies and acts according to the will of the mind of the Spirit.

The source of the truth Christ spoke is God His Father not His own message as in the Spirit of truth.

 

[makesends]

You don't seem to realize that you too read through the lens of the doctrine of man.

You seem to think you can speak on your own authority. But you are only human.

You might read all but you do it through the lens of the doctrine of man. I prefer truth as given from above,

The two persons on the throne of God.

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.


The Son has all the fullness of God the Father living in Him. He is one with the Father and all that the Father is but is the Fathers oldest child. A Son -the Firstborn A promise Son called God.

One God our Father and One Christ our Lord.

TWO
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the main street of the city.
To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

Strange the Greek uses the masculine instead of the neuter here:
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own [authority], but whatever he hears he will speak..."
The noun, 'Spirit', is naturally a neuter word. So why'd Jesus refer to it as "He"?

The Spirit of God is a person.

Jesus Christ also did not speak on his own authority.

The three persons do not act independently.

 

[Paul]

You don't seem to realize that you too read through the lens of the doctrine of man.

You seem to think you can speak on your own authority. But you are only human.

Strange the Greek uses the masculine instead of the neuter here:
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own [authority], but whatever he hears he will speak..."
The noun, 'Spirit', is naturally a neuter word. So why'd Jesus refer to it as "He"?

The Spirit of God is a person.

Jesus Christ also did not speak on his own authority.

The three persons do not act independently.

No I look through the lens of the Father being the only true God as the head of the body of Christ clearly stated. You can't accept that because you look through the lens of the doctrine of the trinity which is not truth as given from above.

Jesus is a TRUE Son of God His Father. Firstborn

 

[makesends]

No I look through the lens of the Father being the only true God as the head of the body of Christ clearly stated. You can't accept that because you look through the lens of the doctrine of the trinity which is not truth as given from above.

Jesus is a TRUE Son of God His Father. Firstborn

That's what I said. That is the lens you look through. And you accept it without question, so that is how you read what you consider proof of your thesis.

Trinitarians [generally] don't claim to understand how it works. It is much simpler to tell what it is not, than to describe what it is. But this is God, who doesn't fit into human minds. Your notions fit your mind. You are conforming God to your image.

 

[Paul]

That's what I said. That is the lens you look through. And you accept it without question, so that is how you read what you consider proof of your thesis.

Trinitarians [generally] don't claim to understand how it works. It is much simpler to tell what it is not, than to describe what it is. But this is God, who doesn't fit into human minds. Your notions fit your mind. You are conforming God to your image.

I have believed in and loved the Lord as far back as my memory goes. I like to stay with scripture, but I asked HIM about the trinity.

The Firstborn of all creation -He is Gods firstborn and has always been the Son. That's my lens.

The doctrine of the trinity despite what you state is your teacher. You did not learn all that it states from HIM.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Then the angel showed me a river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the main street of the city.
To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

You cited Revelation 22 to argue against the Trinity, but let’s actually read the passage slowly and let the text interpret itself:

“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb… On either side of the river, the tree of life… And the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him.” (Rev 22:1–3)

Notice what the passage plainly reveals:

1. There is one singular throne—yet it belongs eternally to both “God” and “the Lamb.”
→ Two distinct Persons, one undivided seat of majesty.
This is not subordination—this is the co-regency of the Father and the Son in undivided divine sovereignty.

2. The river of the water of life flows from that one throne.
Jesus has already identified the “living water” as the Holy Spirit (John 7:38–39).
→ The Spirit’s life-giving work proceeds from the throne shared by the Father and the Son.

3. God’s servants worship him (singular).
The grammar is deliberate: plural Persons, one object of worship.
→ Distinction of Persons, unity of essence.

4. The broader doxology seals the vision:

“To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and power,
forever and ever!” (Rev 5:13; cf. 7:10)

The same undivided ascription that is given to “Him who sits on the throne” is given to the Lamb. No creature may share the worship that belongs to God alone (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).

Far from undermining the Trinity, Revelation 22 is one of the most radiant Trinitarian visions in all of Scripture:
one throne, two divine Persons enthroned, the Spirit flowing forth in His life-giving mission, one worship ascending forever. We are not imposing a doctrine onto the text; we are simply receiving what the text itself presents.

One thing your interpretation never accounts for is what Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son.” You read “Son” as though Scripture were describing biological ancestry or creaturely origin—but that is never how the Bible uses the term when speaking of Christ.

The title Son speaks of eternal relationship, not created beginning:

• The Son shares the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5).
• The Son is worshiped by angels (Heb 1:6).
• The Son is the exact imprint of God’s nature (Heb 1:3).
• The Son is eternal (Heb 7:3).

No creature, however exalted, can bear these descriptions.

To place a mere creature on the very throne of God, to grant him the worship due to God alone, to have the Spirit proceed in His life-giving work from that shared throne, would be the height of blasphemy.

But because the Lamb is, in the words of Thomas, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), the vision is not blasphemy; it is the final unveiling of the Holy Trinity in undimmed glory.

Sharing a throne is not what creatures do.
Sharing worship is not what creatures receive.
Sharing divine rule is not what creatures have.

Your interpretation cannot explain why a mere “firstborn creature” shares the throne, worship, and reign of God Himself.

 

[Paul]

You cited Revelation 22 to argue against the Trinity, but let’s actually read the passage slowly and let the text interpret itself:



Notice what the passage plainly reveals:

1. There is one singular throne—yet it belongs eternally to both “God” and “the Lamb.”
→ Two distinct Persons, one undivided seat of majesty.
This is not subordination—this is the co-regency of the Father and the Son in undivided divine sovereignty.

2. The river of the water of life flows from that one throne.
Jesus has already identified the “living water” as the Holy Spirit (John 7:38–39).
→ The Spirit’s life-giving work proceeds from the throne shared by the Father and the Son.

3. God’s servants worship him (singular).
The grammar is deliberate: plural Persons, one object of worship.
→ Distinction of Persons, unity of essence.

4. The broader doxology seals the vision:



The same undivided ascription that is given to “Him who sits on the throne” is given to the Lamb. No creature may share the worship that belongs to God alone (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).

Far from undermining the Trinity, Revelation 22 is one of the most radiant Trinitarian visions in all of Scripture:
one throne, two divine Persons enthroned, the Spirit flowing forth in His life-giving mission, one worship ascending forever. We are not imposing a doctrine onto the text; we are simply receiving what the text itself presents.

One thing your interpretation never accounts for is what Scripture means when it calls Jesus the “Son.” You read “Son” as though Scripture were describing biological ancestry or creaturely origin—but that is never how the Bible uses the term when speaking of Christ.

The title Son speaks of eternal relationship, not created beginning:

• The Son shares the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5).
• The Son is worshiped by angels (Heb 1:6).
• The Son is the exact imprint of God’s nature (Heb 1:3).
• The Son is eternal (Heb 7:3).

No creature, however exalted, can bear these descriptions.

To place a mere creature on the very throne of God, to grant him the worship due to God alone, to have the Spirit proceed in His life-giving work from that shared throne, would be the height of blasphemy.

But because the Lamb is, in the words of Thomas, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), the vision is not blasphemy; it is the final unveiling of the Holy Trinity in undimmed glory.

Sharing a throne is not what creatures do.
Sharing worship is not what creatures receive.
Sharing divine rule is not what creatures have.

Your interpretation cannot explain why a mere “firstborn creature” shares the throne, worship, and reign of God Himself.

The throne belongs to the Father and His Son. What I posted was in regard to the 3rd person you refer to God the Spirit rather than the Spirit OF the Sovereign Lord. Your driven by the doctrine of the trinity.

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.

The persons of Father and Son were honored no other person.
To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

Jesus calls the Father the only true God for a reason =>TRUTH

I heard this question from a reliable witness:
Jesus calls the Father the only true God. If He always was and always was God how does this believe in God for He stated on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit MY spirit"?

 

[Hazelelponi]

The throne belongs to the Father and His Son. What I posted was in regard to the 3rd person you refer to God the Spirit rather than the Spirit OF the Sovereign Lord. Your driven by the doctrine of the trinity.

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.

The persons of Father and Son were honored no other person.
To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!”

Jesus calls the Father the only true God for a reason =>TRUTH

I heard this question from a reliable witness:
Jesus calls the Father the only true God. If He always was and always was God how does this believe in God for He stated on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit MY spirit"?

Your repeating that the Spirit is merely “the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord,” as though Scripture presents Him as an impersonal force rather than a divine Person. But the Spirit speaks (Acts 13:2), wills (1 Cor 12:11), teaches (John 14:26), testifies (John 15:26), searches the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10), and can be lied to—and lying to Him is lying to God Himself (Acts 5:3–4).

None of these are attributes of a creature or a force. Scripture treats the Spirit as fully divine and personally distinct.

As for your use of John 17:3 (“the only true God”), Jesus is not contrasting Himself with the Father, but contrasting the true God with the false gods of the world. John makes this absolutely clear when Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), and Jesus receives the confession rather than correcting it.

Even more, in the very same prayer where He calls the Father “the only true God,” Jesus also says:

“Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.” (John 17:5)

No creature shares God’s eternal glory, much less before creation.

Your argument collapses because it cannot explain two things the text demands:

The Father and the Son share one divine throne and one worship (Rev 22:1–3; 5:13).

The Son possessed divine glory with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5).

Both facts destroy the idea that the Son is a created “firstborn child.”

Finally, when Jesus says, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit,” He is speaking according to His true human nature, not denying His divine nature. The incarnate Son truly died, truly entrusted His human spirit to the Father, and truly rose again. The existence of His human nature does not erase His eternal divine nature (Phil 2:6–8).

You keep trying to force texts about Christ’s humanity to nullify texts about His deity. But Scripture does not let us divide Him that way.

God is Triune: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding—one essence, coequal in power, majesty, and deity.

 

[Paul]

Your repeating that the Spirit is merely “the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord,” as though Scripture presents Him as an impersonal force rather than a divine Person. But the Spirit speaks (Acts 13:2), wills (1 Cor 12:11), teaches (John 14:26), testifies (John 15:26), searches the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10), and can be lied to—and lying to Him is lying to God Himself (Acts 5:3–4).

None of these are attributes of a creature or a force. Scripture treats the Spirit as fully divine and personally distinct.

As for your use of John 17:3 (“the only true God”), Jesus is not contrasting Himself with the Father, but contrasting the true God with the false gods of the world. John makes this absolutely clear when Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), and Jesus receives the confession rather than correcting it.

Even more, in the very same prayer where He calls the Father “the only true God,” Jesus also says:

“Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.” (John 17:5)

No creature shares God’s eternal glory, much less before creation.

Your argument collapses because it cannot explain two things the text demands:

The Father and the Son share one divine throne and one worship (Rev 22:1–3; 5:13).

The Son possessed divine glory with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5).

Both facts destroy the idea that the Son is a created “firstborn child.”

Finally, when Jesus says, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit,” He is speaking according to His true human nature, not denying His divine nature. The incarnate Son truly died, truly entrusted His human spirit to the Father, and truly rose again. The existence of His human nature does not erase His eternal divine nature (Phil 2:6–8).

You keep trying to force texts about Christ’s humanity to nullify texts about His deity. But Scripture does not let us divide Him that way.

God is Triune: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten, the Spirit eternally proceeding—one essence, coequal in power, majesty, and deity.

The Father is the only true God. His Spirit alone is Deity. His Deity was upon Jesus. His fullness lives in Jesus. There is only ONE Spirit.
Isaiah 61:1

God set Jesus above His companions because He loved righteousness and hated wickedness and Yahweh is already above all and from whom all things come so that strengthens not weakens Him being a true Son. Jesus was glorified.

Jesus did have glory with His Father in the beginning. Through Him and FOR Him God created.

God spoke to us by His Son -the Fathers Deity in the Son doing His work
God created by His Son-the Fathers Deity in the Son doing His work.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The Father is the only true God. His Spirit alone is Deity. His Deity was upon Jesus. His fullness lives in Jesus. There is only ONE Spirit.
Isaiah 61:1

God set Jesus above His companions because He loved righteousness and hated wickedness and Yahweh is already above all and from whom all things come so that strengthens not weakens Him being a true Son. Jesus was glorified.

Jesus did have glory with His Father in the beginning. Through Him and FOR Him God created.

God spoke to us by His Son -the Fathers Deity in the Son doing His work
God created by His Son-the Fathers Deity in the Son doing His work.

Paul, your responses keep circling back to the same claim: that Jesus is a created “true Son” and “firstborn” who has only borrowed or derived deity from the Father. But that claim simply breaks down the moment we test it against the passages we’re both quoting.

If Jesus has only the Father’s “deity placed upon Him,” then please answer these straightforward questions the text itself raises:

1. Why does Jesus claim to have shared glory with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)?
No creature possesses or shares the eternal divine glory that God will not give to another (Isa 42:8).

2. Why is the Lamb worshiped with exactly the same worship and doxology given to “Him who sits on the throne” (Rev 5:13–14; 7:10)?
Scripture repeatedly forbids giving divine worship to any creature (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).

3. Why does Jesus uphold the entire universe by the word of His power (Heb 1:3)?
Only the Creator sustains all things; no creature could bear that role.

4. Why is He called the exact imprint of God’s own nature (hypostasis) and the radiance of His glory (Heb 1:3)?
A creature cannot be the perfect expression of God’s very being.

5. Why does Thomas fall before Jesus and confess, “My Lord and my God!”—and Jesus blesses him for believing (John 20:28–29)?
No mere creature, however exalted, may receive such a confession without rebuke.

Repeating “the Father is the only true God” does not resolve these. Jesus uses that very phrase in John 17:3 to distinguish the true God from the false idols of the nations—then immediately prays to be restored to the glory He shared with the Father before the world began (John 17:5). The context is inclusion, not exclusion.

Your view cannot explain how a created being could, without idolatry:

share eternal pre-creation glory,

receive the worship due to God alone,

sit eternally on the divine throne,

sustain all creation,

bear the exact imprint of God’s essence,

and be confessed as “my God” by the apostles.

If the Son were a creature, Revelation’s vision would depict blasphemy.
But Revelation is the unveiling of truth, not idolatry.

Therefore the Lamb who shares the throne, the worship, and the glory is fully and eternally God.

There is no middle ground.

God is Triune: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding—one God in essence, coequal in power, majesty, and glory.

 

[Paul]

Paul, your responses keep circling back to the same claim: that Jesus is a created “true Son” and “firstborn” who has only borrowed or derived deity from the Father. But that claim simply breaks down the moment we test it against the passages we’re both quoting.

If Jesus has only the Father’s “deity placed upon Him,” then please answer these straightforward questions the text itself raises:

1. Why does Jesus claim to have shared glory with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)?
No creature possesses or shares the eternal divine glory that God will not give to another (Isa 42:8).

2. Why is the Lamb worshiped with exactly the same worship and doxology given to “Him who sits on the throne” (Rev 5:13–14; 7:10)?
Scripture repeatedly forbids giving divine worship to any creature (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).

3. Why does Jesus uphold the entire universe by the word of His power (Heb 1:3)?
Only the Creator sustains all things; no creature could bear that role.

4. Why is He called the exact imprint of God’s own nature (hypostasis) and the radiance of His glory (Heb 1:3)?
A creature cannot be the perfect expression of God’s very being.

5. Why does Thomas fall before Jesus and confess, “My Lord and my God!”—and Jesus blesses him for believing (John 20:28–29)?
No mere creature, however exalted, may receive such a confession without rebuke.

Repeating “the Father is the only true God” does not resolve these. Jesus uses that very phrase in John 17:3 to distinguish the true God from the false idols of the nations—then immediately prays to be restored to the glory He shared with the Father before the world began (John 17:5). The context is inclusion, not exclusion.

Your view cannot explain how a created being could, without idolatry:

share eternal pre-creation glory,

receive the worship due to God alone,

sit eternally on the divine throne,

sustain all creation,

bear the exact imprint of God’s essence,

and be confessed as “my God” by the apostles.

If the Son were a creature, Revelation’s vision would depict blasphemy.
But Revelation is the unveiling of truth, not idolatry.

Therefore the Lamb who shares the throne, the worship, and the glory is fully and eternally God.

There is no middle ground.

God is Triune: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding—one God in essence, coequal in power, majesty, and glory.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

The Son of Man returning on the clouds of heaven

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14;He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Hebrews
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him

Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.


You assume glory means Yahweh. He was gifted the fullness and was a craftsman's at Gods side in regard to the creation.

He calls the one on the throne Father.

About the Son
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

But 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

He has always been a TRUE Son

 

[Hazelelponi]

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

The Son of Man returning on the clouds of heaven

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14;He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Hebrews
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him

Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.


You assume glory means Yahweh. He was gifted the fullness and was a craftsman's at Gods side in regard to the creation.

He calls the one on the throne Father.

About the Son
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

But 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

He has always been a TRUE Son

Paul, I want to point out that you’ve now shifted categories without realizing it. Nearly every verse you’ve cited speaks to the Son’s messianic, mediatorial role—His work as the incarnate Redeemer—not to His eternal divine essence.

Scripture distinguishes between:

1. The Son as eternal God — the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature
(John 1:1–3; Heb 1:3; Col 1:16–17).

2. The Son as incarnate Mediator, who, in His assumed humanity, receives authority, exaltation, and kingdom for the sake of redemption
(Dan 7:13–14; Matt 28:18; Phil 2:9–11; Heb 1:4–9).

All the texts you’re appealing to belong to the second category.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matt 28:18)

This is the risen Messiah receiving mediatorial kingship in His exalted humanity.

Yet the same Jesus, as God, inherently possesses all authority and gives life and judgment just as the Father does (John 5:21–27).

Receiving authority as man does not negate possessing authority as God.
Two natures, one Person.

Daniel 7:13–14 — the Son of Man receiving everlasting dominion

Yes—this is the Messiah coming to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom.
But notice what destroys any creaturely reading:

All nations serve and worship Him.

His dominion is everlasting.

His kingdom shall never be destroyed.

Yet, no creature receives the worship of all nations.
No creature possesses an inherently eternal dominion.

Daniel 7 does not weaken the Son’s deity — it proves it.

“Let all God’s angels worship Him” (Heb 1:6)

This is decisive.

We are forbidden to worship any creature (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).
If the Son is a creature, this command is idolatry.

But Scripture commands the worship — therefore the Son is not a creature.

“Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You above Your companions” (Heb 1:9)

This describes Christ's exaltation in His messianic office and humanity.

But you cannot isolate v.9 from what immediately precedes it:

“But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.’” (Heb 1:8)

In two verses:

The Son calls the Father “My God” (in His true humanity).

The Father calls the Son “God” (in His eternal deity).

You must accept both, not one at the expense of the other.

The Son calling the One on the throne “Father”

Of course He does — He truly became man and entered real human sonship as the promised Messiah.

But this does not erase the deeper, eternal reality: the Father and the Son stand in a true, eternal relationship within the Godhead.

So His relational language according to the incarnation does not cancel or diminish His eternal divine sonship, which has no beginning and no inferiority.

To collapse the two natures — treating incarnate sonship as though it replaces eternal sonship — is not biblical Christology.

“Craftsman at God’s side” (Prov 8)

Proverbs is poetic personification.
The New Testament gives the actual doctrinal explanation:

All things were created by the Word who was God (John 1:1–3).

All things were created by the Son and for the Son (Col 1:16).

The Son upholds the universe by the word of His power (Heb 1:3).

No created intermediary fits these descriptions.

Here is the heart of the matter

You still have not explained how a created “true Son” or “firstborn companion” can—without plunging Scripture into idolatry:

share the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5),

receive the worship of every creature in heaven and earth (Rev 5:13–14),

sustain all things by His own power (Heb 1:3),

have all creation made through and for Him (Col 1:16),

be addressed by the Father as “God” whose throne is eternal (Heb 1:8),

and sit on the one eternal throne of God (Rev 22:1–3).

Your verses describe the Messiah — the anointed King in His mediatorial work.
They do not describe a created being.

The Messiah is the eternal Son who took on flesh, not a creature elevated to near-divine status.

God has revealed Himself as Triune: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding — one God in essence, coequal in power, majesty, and glory.

 

[Paul]

Paul, I want to point out that you’ve now shifted categories without realizing it. Nearly every verse you’ve cited speaks to the Son’s messianic, mediatorial role—His work as the incarnate Redeemer—not to His eternal divine essence.

Scripture distinguishes between:

1. The Son as eternal God — the radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature
(John 1:1–3; Heb 1:3; Col 1:16–17).

2. The Son as incarnate Mediator, who, in His assumed humanity, receives authority, exaltation, and kingdom for the sake of redemption
(Dan 7:13–14; Matt 28:18; Phil 2:9–11; Heb 1:4–9).

All the texts you’re appealing to belong to the second category.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matt 28:18)

This is the risen Messiah receiving mediatorial kingship in His exalted humanity.

Yet the same Jesus, as God, inherently possesses all authority and gives life and judgment just as the Father does (John 5:21–27).

Receiving authority as man does not negate possessing authority as God.
Two natures, one Person.

Daniel 7:13–14 — the Son of Man receiving everlasting dominion

Yes—this is the Messiah coming to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom.
But notice what destroys any creaturely reading:

All nations serve and worship Him.

His dominion is everlasting.

His kingdom shall never be destroyed.

Yet, no creature receives the worship of all nations.
No creature possesses an inherently eternal dominion.

Daniel 7 does not weaken the Son’s deity — it proves it.

“Let all God’s angels worship Him” (Heb 1:6)

This is decisive.

We are forbidden to worship any creature (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).
If the Son is a creature, this command is idolatry.

But Scripture commands the worship — therefore the Son is not a creature.

“Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You above Your companions” (Heb 1:9)

This describes Christ's exaltation in His messianic office and humanity.

But you cannot isolate v.9 from what immediately precedes it:

“But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.’” (Heb 1:8)

In two verses:

The Son calls the Father “My God” (in His true humanity).

The Father calls the Son “God” (in His eternal deity).

You must accept both, not one at the expense of the other.

The Son calling the One on the throne “Father”

Of course He does — He truly became man and entered real human sonship as the promised Messiah.

But this does not erase the deeper, eternal reality: the Father and the Son stand in a true, eternal relationship within the Godhead.

So His relational language according to the incarnation does not cancel or diminish His eternal divine sonship, which has no beginning and no inferiority.

To collapse the two natures — treating incarnate sonship as though it replaces eternal sonship — is not biblical Christology.

“Craftsman at God’s side” (Prov 8)

Proverbs is poetic personification.
The New Testament gives the actual doctrinal explanation:

All things were created by the Word who was God (John 1:1–3).

All things were created by the Son and for the Son (Col 1:16).

The Son upholds the universe by the word of His power (Heb 1:3).

No created intermediary fits these descriptions.

Here is the heart of the matter

You still have not explained how a created “true Son” or “firstborn companion” can—without plunging Scripture into idolatry:

share the Father’s glory before the world existed (John 17:5),

receive the worship of every creature in heaven and earth (Rev 5:13–14),

sustain all things by His own power (Heb 1:3),

have all creation made through and for Him (Col 1:16),

be addressed by the Father as “God” whose throne is eternal (Heb 1:8),

and sit on the one eternal throne of God (Rev 22:1–3).

Your verses describe the Messiah — the anointed King in His mediatorial work.
They do not describe a created being.

The Messiah is the eternal Son who took on flesh, not a creature elevated to near-divine status.

God has revealed Himself as Triune: the Father unbegotten, the Son eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding — one God in essence, coequal in power, majesty, and glory.

I believe this about Gods Son for in Him all the fullness dwells. He and the Father are one and He is all that the Father is. In this He is the first and last but He is a begotten Son of the Father.
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature - I agree, I disagree in how this is so.
Begotten of the Father alone before all ages but not made. I agree in part.

He is a Son. He has received from His Father. The glory of oneness, the fullness, sovereign authority and appointed heir of all things by God.
The Father has not received from any other being.

If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become a Son who has a God?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I believe this about Gods Son for in Him all the fullness dwells. He and the Father are one and He is all that the Father is. In this He is the first and last but He is a begotten Son of the Father.
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature - I agree, I disagree in how this is so.
Begotten of the Father alone before all ages but not made. I agree in part.

He is a Son. He has received from His Father. The glory of oneness, the fullness, sovereign authority and appointed heir of all things by God.
The Father has not received from any other being.

If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become a Son who has a God?

Paul, the reason you keep getting stuck is that you are treating “Son” as if it were a creaturely category. In Scripture, it is not. The Son is not “made a Son”—He is eternally the Son.

Let me answer your question directly, you asked:

“If Jesus always was and always was God, how then did He become a Son who has a God?”

He did not “become” the Son. He is the Son from all eternity.
His sonship is not a created role but an eternal relationship within the Godhead.

1. Eternal Sonship: the Son is eternally from the Father, not created by the Father.

He is “begotten, not made” (John 1:1, 1:14, 1:18).

When Christians confess the Son as “begotten, not made,” the phrase is often misunderstood. In biblical and Nicene usage, “begotten” does not mean created or brought into existence. A faithful rendering today would be:

“the Son is eternally from the Father, not created.”

“Begotten” speaks of an eternal relationship that originates within the Godhead:

the Father is unbegotten,
the Son is eternally from the Father,
the Spirit eternally proceeds.

This is not biological language and does not imply beginning. It means the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father, truly God of God, not a creature elevated to divine status.

Eternal generation means:

He receives His divine personhood from the Father, but not His divine essence (which is one and undivided).

He is fully God because the divine essence is not partitioned or transmitted like substance — it is one, eternally possessed by Father, Son, and Spirit.

2. The Son “having a God” refers to His true humanity, not His eternal deity.

When the Son took on flesh, He also took on a human relationship to God as His God.

Scripture is explicit:

“The Word became flesh.” (John 1:14)
“Born of woman, born under the law.” (Gal 4:4)

As God, the Son has no superior.
As man, the Son perfectly obeys, worships, and depends on the Father.

This is why the resurrected Jesus says:

“I ascend to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Not because He is a creature,
but because He became truly human for our salvation.

If the Son had not taken a real human nature, He could not be our Redeemer.

3. Everything the Son “receives” in Scripture He receives as the incarnate Messiah, not as a created being.

You listed:

glory
fullness
sovereign authority
heirship
kingship

All of these are His by eternal right as God (John 5:21–23; Heb 1:3),
but they are given to Him in time as the Mediator, the second Adam (Phil 2:9–11).

This is why the Bible speaks in two ways:

As God:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Heb 1:8)

As man:

“The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Two natures, one Person.
Not two beings. Not a created son.

4. Why did the eternal Son take on flesh and speak of God as His God?

Exactly because He came to redeem a people for the Father’s glory.

He condescended.

He took on our nature.

He entered our condition.

He placed Himself under the law.

He obeyed where we failed.

He died the death we deserved.

He rose in the humanity He assumed.

He leads many sons to glory (Heb 2:10).

You asked,

“How can He have a God if He is God?”

Answer:
Because the eternal Son became man for our salvation.
He has a God according to His humanity — not according to His deity.

If He had not become man, He could not be our Mediator.
If He were merely a creature, He could not be our Savior.

The Son is Son eternally in His deity, and Son in time according to His humanity.
One Person, two natures—true God and true man for us and for our salvation.

 

[Paul]

Paul, the reason you keep getting stuck is that you are treating “Son” as if it were a creaturely category. In Scripture, it is not. The Son is not “made a Son”—He is eternally the Son.

Let me answer your question directly, you asked:

“If Jesus always was and always was God, how then did He become a Son who has a God?”

He did not “become” the Son. He is the Son from all eternity.
His sonship is not a created role but an eternal relationship within the Godhead.

1. Eternal Sonship: the Son is eternally from the Father, not created by the Father.

He is “begotten, not made” (John 1:1, 1:14, 1:18).

When Christians confess the Son as “begotten, not made,” the phrase is often misunderstood. In biblical and Nicene usage, “begotten” does not mean created or brought into existence. A faithful rendering today would be:




“Begotten” speaks of an eternal relationship that originates within the Godhead:

the Father is unbegotten,
the Son is eternally from the Father,
the Spirit eternally proceeds.

This is not biological language and does not imply beginning. It means the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father, truly God of God, not a creature elevated to divine status.

Eternal generation means:

He receives His divine personhood from the Father, but not His divine essence (which is one and undivided).

He is fully God because the divine essence is not partitioned or transmitted like substance — it is one, eternally possessed by Father, Son, and Spirit.

2. The Son “having a God” refers to His true humanity, not His eternal deity.

When the Son took on flesh, He also took on a human relationship to God as His God.

Scripture is explicit:

“The Word became flesh.” (John 1:14)
“Born of woman, born under the law.” (Gal 4:4)

As God, the Son has no superior.
As man, the Son perfectly obeys, worships, and depends on the Father.

This is why the resurrected Jesus says:

“I ascend to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Not because He is a creature,
but because He became truly human for our salvation.

If the Son had not taken a real human nature, He could not be our Redeemer.

3. Everything the Son “receives” in Scripture He receives as the incarnate Messiah, not as a created being.

You listed:

glory
fullness
sovereign authority
heirship
kingship

All of these are His by eternal right as God (John 5:21–23; Heb 1:3),
but they are given to Him in time as the Mediator, the second Adam (Phil 2:9–11).

This is why the Bible speaks in two ways:

As God:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” (Heb 1:8)

As man:

“The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Two natures, one Person.
Not two beings. Not a created son.

4. Why did the eternal Son take on flesh and speak of God as His God?

Exactly because He came to redeem a people for the Father’s glory.

He condescended.

He took on our nature.

He entered our condition.

He placed Himself under the law.

He obeyed where we failed.

He died the death we deserved.

He rose in the humanity He assumed.

He leads many sons to glory (Heb 2:10).

You asked,

“How can He have a God if He is God?”

Answer:
Because the eternal Son became man for our salvation.
He has a God according to His humanity — not according to His deity.

If He had not become man, He could not be our Mediator.
If He were merely a creature, He could not be our Savior.

The Son is Son eternally in His deity, and Son in time according to His humanity.
One Person, two natures—true God and true man for us and for our salvation.

I asked if He always was and always was God how did He become the Son with a God. In otherwords if He is the true God with no beginning how is He a Son with a God and Father? I shouldn't have to state true Son. He is a Son who states God my Father just as we do. Even in Rev God is His God and Father.

Show me where it states true God from true God and coeternal with the Father. I disagree with both statements but do agree He is indeed FROM the Father as in born from the Father.

The eternal life in the Son is the Father.
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

You don't have to convince me we live through the Son. I believe that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I asked if He always was and always was God how did He become the Son with a God.

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:

“If He always was and always was God, how did He become the Son with a God?”

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:

In otherwords if He is the true God with no beginning how is He a Son with a God and Father? I shouldn't have to state true Son. He is a Son who states God my Father just as we do. Even in Rev God is His God and Father.

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.

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:

one Person, two natures.

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.

Show me where it states true God from true God and coeternal with the Father. I disagree with both statements but do agree He is indeed FROM the Father as in born 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).

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.

The eternal life in the Son is the Father.
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Your quotation from John 6 proves nothing about creaturehood.

Jesus also says:

“Just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.” (John 5:26)

“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:

“He was making Himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)

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.”