CHRISTIANS ONLY: Trinitarian Christianity - Monotheistic or Polytheistic?

[URAVIP2ME]

So God is 1/3 The Father, 1/3 The Son, and 1/3 The Holy Spirit? 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 God?

In a family it is the 'brothers that are the equals' and Not the Father (who is greater than Jesus - John 14:28; John 20:17 B)
Jesus said his Father is greater than all at John 10:29.
So, as Jesus prayed his followers be one as he and his Father are one Jesus was not praying we all be God - John 17:11, 21-23
As far as God's spirit is concerned (Psalms 104:30; Job 33:4) it is a neuter 'it' as found at Numbers 11:17,25 (KJV)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus said "I and the Father are one".
Jesus said" I am in the Father and the Father is in me".
We can see a similar thing with Jesus and the Holy Spirit and with the Holy Spirit and the Father in the Bible.
Where one of them is, the other 2 are there also.The 3 are distinct but united. Jesus also said that the Father is the one true God.
This imo is because the Spirit and Son have their source in the Father even if they have no beginning.

I read that pre-human heavenly Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was "IN" the beginning (does Not say 'before' the beginning ) whereas Psalms 90:2 lets us know God had No beginning so only God was 'before' the beginning.
Jesus also prayed his followers be one just as he and his Father are one - please see John 17:21-23,11
Jesus gives his Father the credit as being Creator - Revelation 4:11.
Sure God is a Spirit person (Hebrews 9:24) but 'God's spirit' is what God used to create - Psalms 104:30
God's spirit is a neuter 'it' that modern translators ignore the neuter 'it' and replace 'it' with he or him.
Yes, in Greek grammar rules it's fine to use the masculine gender but that does Not change a neuter 'it' to a person.
Just as in English we speak of a car or ship as a 'she' and we know they are a neuter 'it'.

 

[metis]

Even Saint Augustine could not understand the Trinity:
What a child taught St. Augustine at the seashore

Which is why we call it "the Mystery of the Trinity" in Catholicism.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

"I am the father to my son. I am the son to my father. Whether I am the son or the father I am me, where the holy spirit dwells."

 

[Windwalker]

This sounds like an argument substantiated by monist monotheism and not by a standard Christian, which typically believes in dualism - the soul, immaterial presences. I specifically said in the title Christians Only. Not only are you not a Christian, you are arguing with me in a thread which is in the Religions Q&A section, which is NOT meant for arguing at all! What is your point in even making this post?

Let me start my reply by responding to this. Who are you to say I am not speaking from a Christian perspective on this? This sounds like some fundamentalist who claims anyone who doesn't believe the earth is 6000 years old is not a true Christian. Are you a fundi, or at least agree with them about who is or isn't a "true Christian"?

Christianity is my native language, but that does not mean I do not draw my understanding from other perspectives as well. I would fit more into a postmodern, post-postmodernist Christian perspective. And that is where I am speaking to you from. Talk with any postmodernist Christian or beyond, and you will have them speaking from outside traditionalist boxes, which is what I am doing here. If you want to not call that Christianity, then you are your own worst enemy there. No one accepts that judgement except fundis themselves who fear diversity of thought.

This is why I asked what is a "standard Christian" to you? Because based upon your response here, you seem to imagine that Christians are all radical dualists and biblical literalists and such. I'm not that.

I don't like to label myself with a religion per se, but if you look at my "religion" under my profile, "Love, Light, and Life", are all descriptions of God from the Apostle John. But this does not mean I think no other perspectives of God are valid too, and there is something to be learned from them. Unless to you that is what a "true Christian" is supposed to do?

You want a perspective of the Trinity from a Christian perspective. You are getting it it. Maybe not the box you want to put all Christians into, but it is a Christian perspective, nonetheless, and I'll add, a rather well- informed and well-considered perspective at that.

So, moving on now...

As far as saying this is "monist", that is wrong. It is not. It is nondualist. Monism is a subtle duality. "This and not that" still pertains. But nondualism is not an either/or reality, but a both/and reality.

So, if you want to understand the Trinity, you'll need to shift your thinking away from a radical dualistic mental constructed reality. If you don't do that, it will be nonsense to you. And rightly so. But just because you can't comprehend something with the mind, does not mean it is not true!

If God created a nation for you, established prophets and ultimately birthed your seed, even if he no longer existed wouldn't that be enough to worship something like that? But anyways, I already addressed later on in this thread that I would believe all three would be eternal, even if only one of them has a driving force.

I don't think of God in terms like this. This is a human tribalist perspective of what God was to them at that time in history.

That's probably why I don't believe it! But it's also weird how everything on Earth is already so perfect as it is - why not throw a perfect being in it too.l

You calling God "a being" reflects this dualistic perspective of God as more a deity form, than God as the All or the Absolute. I do not see God as an "entity" or a "being". Rather I see God as Being itself.

That is by the way, very much a Christian perspective of God you will find in the more mystical aspects of Christianity, beyond the Sunday School textbook images of God as a old man in the sky putting a rainbow in the clouds above Noah's boat full of animals. Not that that's a bad thing, for children, in order to try to get them to start thinking about God. But let's try to not stop there with it....

(That's what I'm trying to do here, BTW).

modern science isn't "removing" the supernatural from the equation, we have just learned to understand what was already supernatural to begin with.

Yes, modern science does not include supernaturalism in doing science. That is in fact what modern science does. Name one area of science that uses "God" to explain how things happen? You can't, because it doesn't.

I'm not talking about science saying "God doesn't exist". That's nonsense. Science does not deal with the supernatural at all. Therefore it does not make any pronouncements about it. That was my only point.

It simply does not say "We can't explain it, therefore God exists", or the other way around, "We can explain it, therefore God does not exist". That's only theists and atheists who imagine science like that!

I believe that the modern man came from how many people exist now. For example, roughly eight billion people exist now, and the total amount of people to ever exist is about eighty billion. One out of ten people that ever existed exist right now, whereas one lifetime is consumed in only eighty years. Do the math.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I think your math leaves something to be desired, and it's really irrelevant. I accept evolutionary theory, and the current population is a result of longer life spans. We need to quit being so "fruitful and multiplying" now.

I am simply trying to make a point across about this, about a false belief that I believe Christians could have.

"False belief". Hah! Spoken like a True Fundi, or an Ex-Fundi?.

Dude, I don't even know what "modalism" is. I'm not a modalist, a Christian, or any other stupid box you want to put me in.

Stupid box? So, you don't actually understand the debate itself about the Trinity, and when someone who is educated about this area talks to you about it by using the defined terms of the debate stretching back to the 4th Century AD, you call them "Dude" and accuse them of trying to put you in a box?

Aren't you trying to put me in a box, saying I'm not a Christian?

"Some infinities are larger than others." - John Green.

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about.

"Some infinities are bigger than other infinities…. I cannot tell you how grateful I am for our little infinity. You gave me forever within the numbered days, and I’m grateful.”

"The sentiment is lovely but mathematically inaccurate. "

The Fault in Our Stars' Faulty Math​

But even so, we are talking not about measures of the physical universe and mathematics, but that which transcends the material universe as the Infinite Source of all that is, material and non-material.

To use the Buddhist term, "Emptiness", or the Christian term, the Formless, or the Existentialist term, the Void, or the Abyss. These are not physicalist descriptions of the Infinite material reality. They are descriptions of the Deep, beyond mind and matter and mathematics.

And if you do not understand what those are at least at a rudimentary conceptual idea, then you will never begin to understand what the Trinitarian formulation is meant to point to. It is in fact you, trying to "box God in" to a physicalist model of reality, a reality of your own mind.

 

[Windwalker]

Infinity doesn't exist,

That is a statement of your personal subjective faith. I more than disagree with it, as do most all mystical perspectives of all the major religions of the world, both theistic and non-theistic.

but as long as things keep expanding exponentially it might as well. Doesn't infinity expand? Or is it constant? I don't know.

You are describing the material universe. I don't consider that to be Infinite, but it's a good starting place to get the mind to stop trying to box God in, which is what you are doing.

I just meant a standard trinitarian Christian. Why are you arguing with me about the word "standard" anyways?

Because you want to box Christians into your idea of what they should believe. And when you have someone tell you their perspective from Christian thought, you say they aren't really Christian, or that's not Christianity. You want to start with your idea of what is true, and when encountering something that doesn't match your preconceptions, you dismiss it as not real. Gotcha, check...

Then why are they called "Oneness Pentecostals"?

Because they don't understand what the Trinity actually points to, and consider themselves to be the true monotheists. That's why. I am intimately familiar with their teachings. You doubt me?

This is the kind of thing that led the user "We Never Know" to leave this forum. This idea that, "there are paradoxes nobody can understand." And use that argument as a justification of their claims.

If it's a paradox, it is not resolvable by reason. It's an apparently self-contradictory statement.

Now, I'll grant you that someone can use that as an excuse to justify nonsense, but that cannot then be used by you or others as an excuse to reject what is by nature genuinely paradoxical. That's like saying, "I don't believe in God, because that means I'd have to believe the earth is only 6000 years old.".

I know some people use that as an excuse. That, and say of other Christians that don't believe that, that they aren't really Christians..........

If you claim subjectivism or paradoxical thinking, it removes the ability for other people to relate to you at all.

No it doesn't. But it does mean that you have to have a similar experience to understand what it is. Those with similar experiences, fully understand what is being said. But those who lack expeirence, cannot know it like that. It's the difference between merely reading about the Ocean but never actually visiting it, versus someone who writes about the ocean that has actually swum in it. You think the understanding will be equal? No. The knowledge is, rightly so, subjectively apprehended.

Your mistake is thinking that only if it can be reasoned, that is the same thing as subjectively experiencing it. That is totally bogus thinking.

Dude, all I know is that I have one life which I try to understand reality from. Even if I have other lives somewhere else I can't and won't be able to remember anything from any other life anyways. I am just trying to understand the paradox of monotheistic trinitarian Christianity.

If you are genuinely trying to understand it, then start listening to those who have something to say about it, rather than calling them "dude" and dismissing them.

You don't think I know what pantheism implies?

No, I don't believe you do. You speak of it as if it were a physicalist reality only. You speaking of as if it's just calling nature God, a type of "sexed up atheism", as Richard Dawkins ridiculously called it.

It views nature itself as God.

Nature is an expression of God. I like the Buddhist expression, "Emptiness is not other than form. Form is not other than emptiness." That is not "sexed up atheism". That is not saying the tree is God, and God is nothing other than the tree. Now, you can call that a nonsense statement, and you will only prove my point that you will not begin to able to understand the Trinity formula if you expect concrete literal descriptions that you can fit into your neat box of reality.

Are you genuinely interested in understanding this, or just trying to convince yourself it's nonsense so you can be happy with your understanding of reality?

Not even The Omniverse is infinite.

But the backdrop upon which all realities exist or emerge from is. A drawing is not a drawing, nor can exist as a drawing, without a blank, empty sheet of paper upon with it is drawn. Begin by trying to understand that notion....

There will always be lines drawn where lines haven't existed before.

And they are all drawn upon "something" in order to have existence, right?

You aren't defining anything.

Correct. "The Tao that can be named, is not the eternal Tao". If you can define God, it is not God anymore. It is your idea of something beyond conceptualizing with the the boxes our mind create and try to put reality into.

You aren't really saying anything worth of value or substance with this.

That is solely your subjective opinion, because you aren't able to fit it into how you want it to be. Glad to disappoint. But there is truth and value in what I am saying, to be certain.

You are throwing around the word of God as if it means nothing at all.

But yet I am rejecting you equating nature with God only. So, I clearly don't think it means nothing at all. You just don't follow at this point, that's all.

The more waves there is the more wet things get. What are you trying to even imply by this?

No. They can't be wetter than wet. They are wet, or they are not wet. If I put a shirt in a tub of water, it is not any less when then if it put it in a lake, or in the ocean. It's the same wetness everywhere. It doesn't matter about shapes of volumes of the container.

What I am using that as an alanlogy to you for is understanding the nature the Divine, or "God". It's not a body or entry somewhere apart from other bodies. Rather is it the Same everywhere, not more, not less, not absence or bunched up. Doesn't matter if it's a solar system, or the atom in my finger. God is Infinite in each and all parts, not separate, not less, not more. Hence, the "wetness of every wave" is an apt analogy.

If you cannot define the very basis of our reality then you have no right to even permutate your subjective paradoxes on us.

I have a ideas of how I see reality, but I recognize those as constructions of the mind. Useful, but I don't mistake them as what reality actually is.

And this is a discussion of all of our subjective views of reality, your subjective views, and my subjective views. If you don't want to discuss the subjective views of other against your subjective views, then why are you here?

If you want to have a theological debate with me, take it up on PMs and leave this thread alone. I don't want to subjugate this thread with anymore of your subjective paradoxical nonsense.

Sorry you feel the need to insult me. Engage or don't engage. But don't say I'm speaking nonsense, or dismiss me as unqualified to respond in this thread. I am. I am willing to try to help you understand, if you are willing to try understand.

 

[blü 2]

I am confident in saying that Christians view themselves as monotheistic. Whether they are Unitarian or trinitarian Christians, all Christians see themselves with the belief of one God. Trinitarians, which make up the vast majority of Christianity, see God in three forms: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

If I were a Christian, this is how I would perceive it. The Father created Heaven and the Earth, found his sovereignty with the monotheistic nation of Israel, established his reign of various prophets and his covenant with them. God spoke to certain prophets of his plan to raise a man who would commit no sin and was born of a virgin, this became Jesus. When the Father created Jesus, the Father ceased to exist. Jesus lived his life as man and God, and when he died on the cross and rose from the dead, his essence was raised into Heaven, and dissolved, becoming the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the reason why humanity has thus had a huge incline in modern prophets with the sciences and liberal arts. The Holy Spirit made humans aware of their surroundings.

In this contraption I have made, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit exist separately from each other, but each one of them is distinctly God as we now perceive it.

However, the common trinitarian Christian argument is that all three of these Gods exist at the same time. That The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are all eternal. Even the Jehovah Witnesses believe Christ to first exist as Michael the Archangel.

If The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit all exist separately and at the same time, doesn't this make Christianity a polytheistic religion? Specifically tri-theism? Think about it. Yes, I know, Christians will make the allegory that water can be solid, liquid and gas as we know them, but if the water exists as solid, liquid and gas all at the same time, doesn't that lead the distinction into three Gods rather than one?

I am very confused about all of this. Something isn't adding up. Trinitarianism to me sounds like a fancy way of calling yourself a polytheist whilst still trying to hold yourself a monotheistic way of living.

I would like to try to talk to a standard Christian about this that helps me understand this confusion I have with the religion. It really doesn't make sense to me... Now, I have heard that Unitarian Christians believe that the Father is only God, and Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Son is only God, both of these arguments make more sense to me than the commonly perceived trinitarian monotheism that is popular in Christianity today.

As far as my own beliefs, what I hold to is a pantheistic understanding of trinitarian monotheism. The Omniverse, Entropy and Extropy all exist separately from each other, none of which is God without the other two. When all of them line up perfectly with each other, we create a Superverse - which is my conception of God. But The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exist separately and together at the same time, so it doesn't really make sense to call Christianity a monotheistic religion.

Please, I would like a Christian to educate me so I am less confused about this matter.

The Trinity doctrine was adopted in the latter 4th century CE. There's no support for it in the NT ─ instead, each of the five versions of Jesus there expressly denies he's God.

Briefly , it says that "the One God exists in Three Persons and One Substance".

It's declared to be "a mystery in the strict sense".

And a "mystery in the strict sense" (in their own words) "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed". You'll find "a nonsense" also fits that description.

The notion gives rise to many problems, because it says God is NOT a single being who may take any of three forms. And God is NOT a corporation with three shareholders, or a firm with three partners, or a club with three officials. Instead, the doctrine says, the Father is 100% of God, Jesus is 100% of God and the Ghost is 100% of God, but the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost and Jesus is not the Ghost.

Easy to see that 100%+100%+100%=300%=3 gods, but no, the Doctrine insists that 100%+100%+100%=100%=1 god. That's to say, the doctrine insists on incoherence.

The incoherence would disappear if the churches acknowledged either

that Jesus and the Ghost are neither gods nor persons of God, or

that Jesus and the Ghost are simply alternative manifestations of God the Father, or

that there are three gods (as you ask in your OP).

But of course they do none of those things.

 

[Brian2]

I read that pre-human heavenly Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was "IN" the beginning (does Not say 'before' the beginning ) whereas Psalms 90:2 lets us know God had No beginning so only God was 'before' the beginning.

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel— One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.

Jesus also prayed his followers be one just as he and his Father are one - please see John 17:21-23,11
Jesus gives his Father the credit as being Creator - Revelation 4:11.

All Christians are one, one body of Christ.
All things were created through, by Jesus. NOT all "other" things.
So Jesus was not created.

Sure God is a Spirit person (Hebrews 9:24) but 'God's spirit' is what God used to create - Psalms 104:30
God's spirit is a neuter 'it' that modern translators ignore the neuter 'it' and replace 'it' with he or him.
Yes, in Greek grammar rules it's fine to use the masculine gender but that does Not change a neuter 'it' to a person.
Just as in English we speak of a car or ship as a 'she' and we know they are a neuter 'it'.

God's Spirit is alive and in that respect is not an "it" even if God's Spirit has no gender.

 

[Rival]

*** THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD. DEBATING POSTS WILL BE MODERATED UNDER RULE 10***​

 

[Soapy]

*** THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD. DEBATING POSTS WILL BE MODERATED UNDER RULE 10***​

Could you move these posts to another thread as there is too much temptation to respond in debate style to what are clearly wrongful scriptural renderings. For instance, how can someone say that ‘Father’ does not mean ‘Creator’ when it is absolutely certain that it is without another person replying to correct the wrongful render?

 

[Rival]

Could you move these posts to another thread as there is too much temptation to respond in debate style to what are clearly wrongful scriptural renderings. For instance, how can someone say that ‘Father’ does not mean ‘Creator’ when it is absolutely certain that it is without another person replying to correct the wrongful render?

Moving the thread would have to be at the OP's request or by Staff decision. I suggest you stay away from the thread.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Vouthon gave me the answer I was looking for.

Windwalker, I skimmed your second reply and honestly you are so far gone that I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you. Please do not reply in this thread again.

Soapy, if you wish to debate other people about this topic I suggest you create a thread in Religious Debates or possibly Same Faith Debates.

 

[Revoltingest]

@EthanReilly, there is a forum, "Christianity DIR",
which would automatically allow only Christians.
This is more effective than a titular restriction.

Just trying to be useful.
I'll exit now.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

@Revoltingest That is useful, however DIR is for discussion of specific religions, not debate. @Soapy I suggest you create a thread in Same Faith Debates about this.

 

[Soapy]

The Trinity doctrine was adopted in the latter 4th century CE. There's no support for it in the NT ─ instead, each of the five versions of Jesus there expressly denies he's God.

Briefly , it says that "the One God exists in Three Persons and One Substance".

It's declared to be "a mystery in the strict sense".

And a "mystery in the strict sense" (in their own words) "can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed". You'll find "a nonsense" also fits that description.

The notion gives rise to many problems, because it says God is NOT a single being who may take any of three forms. And God is NOT a corporation with three shareholders, or a firm with three partners, or a club with three officials. Instead, the doctrine says, the Father is 100% of God, Jesus is 100% of God and the Ghost is 100% of God, but the Father is not Jesus or the Ghost and Jesus is not the Ghost.

Easy to see that 100%+100%+100%=300%=3 gods, but no, the Doctrine insists that 100%+100%+100%=100%=1 god. That's to say, the doctrine insists on incoherence.

The incoherence would disappear if the churches acknowledged either

that Jesus and the Ghost are neither gods nor persons of God, or

that Jesus and the Ghost are simply alternative manifestations of God the Father, or

that there are three gods (as you ask in your OP).

But of course they do none of those things.

A gave a thumbs up for the main aspect of what you said but I would like to add further corrections:

1. ‘Ghost’: there is no such thing as ‘Ghost’. The word is from the English medieval period and used to concoct a view of a disembodied spirit IN THE MATERIAL WORLD. The reality is that ‘Ghosts’ were just mists off the rivers, eerie noises in creaky buildings, appearances of sounds of children which a person who has lost a child makes to her real (even cats on heat during mating periods make such noises!), and more like shadows in buildings or shrubbery. The proper term is ‘Spirit’. Spirit cannot make noise nor can be seen or touched (see the Jesus and Thomas event!) A Spirit of one entity can only try to influence the Spirit of another entity - it cannot do so physically, therefore a spirit cannot physically harm a person, say
2. Trinitarian is polytheistic irrespective of its ADDED claim of being monotheistic. The ‘… but they are not three Gods but one’ is a late addition to the human created Roman Catholic creed - which, added to all the other modifications to the creed, shows that the creed and therefore, trinitarianism, is a false belief… the additions and changes being made as huge holes are discovered in the creed which defy integrity of a cohesive belief
3. Any true Christian (or maybe those who believe in God as the Father and Christ Jesus as the man concentrated by God and made heir to God) would stop any debate about who God is at the verse: ‘Father, …. Eternal life depends on believing in you, the only true God…’. Or maybe a new group title other than ‘Christian’ would separate the true believer from the “today’s Christian”: aka: Trinitarian (whether three in one or one as three or even dualism of Jesus is the Father etc.)
4. Jesus was sent by God to reveal God to humanity… if we are to believe that ‘God is a mystery’ then we must also believe that Jesus FAILED in his mission. But we know he did not since Jesus himself declared: ‘It is done, I have given them the word you gave me to give to them - and they have received it’. Trinitarians deny that Jesus succeeded in his mission.
5. Trinity says that Jesus created everything - but ask a trinitarian if Jesus created man … I have never received an answer from any trinitarian to this day: ‘What does, ‘Let us make man in our image’ mean if it was Jesus who created man? It would mean man is the image of Jesus… What is an IMAGE? According to trinitarian Jesus is the image of God (a shadow and reflection) but this means he IS GOD…. So, if man is image of the one who says, ‘let us create man in our (my) image’, then man is JESUS!! (Oh, I know, nonsense.. yeah! But that’s what you get if you believe in trinity!!)
6. Jesus IS GRANTED the kingship over creation… but if he is God then who granted him something he already is the owner of? And isn’t kingship over creation a DEMOTION from being GOD over creation.

 

[Soapy]

@Revoltingest That is useful, however DIR is for discussion of specific religions, not debate. @Soapy I suggest you create a thread in Same Faith Debates about this.

Thank you for the directive.

 

[blü 2]

A thumbs up for the main aspect of what you said but I would like to add further corrections:

‘Ghost’: there is no such thing as ‘Ghost’. The word is from the English medieval period and used to concoct a view of a disembodied spirit IN THE MATERIAL WORLD. The reality is that ‘Ghosts’ were just mists off the rivers, eerie noises in creaky buildings, appearances of sounds of children which a person who has lost a child makes to her real (even cats on heat during mating periods make such noises!), and more like shadows in buildings or shrubbery. The proper term is ‘Spirit’. Spirit cannot make noise nor can be seen or touched (see the Jesus and Thomas event!) A Spirit of one entity can only try to influence the Spirit of another entity - it cannot do so physically, therefore a spirit cannot physically harm a person,

My early brushes with the Christian church were as a Pisco. And I assure you that the formula was "Father, Son and Holy Ghost", which goes back to the earliest records in English, where it meant 'soul' or 'spirit' and in the latter sense still survives in that phrase. (By all means check it out for yourself. The OED is particularly useful for historical questions.)

Trinitarian is polytheistic irrespective of its ADDED claim of being monotheistic.

I don't disagree, but the Trinity doctrine does ─ incoherently, as I mentioned, but adamantly.

But the other options, expressly rejected early on, would also solve the problem ─ three gods, or one god with three faces, or one god with two non-god executive vice presidents ─ and no doubt more.

Jesus was sent by God to reveal God to humanity…

And/or to spread what was essentially John the Baptist's message ─ GET READY ─ God will set up [his] Kingdom on Earth in the next few years!! (Of course that didn't happen and the author of John sensibly refrained from mentioning it.)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

"I am the father to my son. I am the son to my father. Whether I am the son or the father I am me, where the holy spirit dwells."

I wonder if the ^ above ^ is a reference to 3rd Paul 66:6 __________

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Micah 5:2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel— One whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity.................

I find my reference about Micah 5:2 B in the Hebrew reads ' origins from early times, from days of old.' Not eternity.
So, changing the original wording to the word eternity does Not make it to correspond to Psalms 90:2.
God had No origin according to Psalms 90:2 because God is from everlasting meaning No beginning, No origin.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus had an origin, a beginning, as John writes at Revelation 3:14 B

 

[Soapy]

I find my reference about Micah 5:2 B in the Hebrew reads ' origins from early times, from days of old.' Not eternity.
So, changing the original wording to the word eternity does Not make it to correspond to Psalms 90:2.
God had No origin according to Psalms 90:2 because God is from everlasting meaning No beginning, No origin.
Whereas, pre-human heavenly Jesus had an origin, a beginning, as John writes at Revelation 3:14 B

I find it very strange that Christian’s should be having to make a claim that God had no beginning, no origin.

Also, that there was a pre-human Jesus. The scriptures is quite clear that Jesus was created/born by the overshadowing of the Virgin Mary by the spirit of God:

• ‘Therefore the CHILD TO BE BORN shall be HOLY and CALLED the Son of God’ (paraphrased)

How then is there a belief that ‘The Son of God’ was pre-existent?

Was the angel therefore deceiving Mary and therefore Christians by stating that the Son of God is born from the union of God’s spirit with the inert egg of a female (Seed of a woman, as prophesied in Genesis!)