Trinitarian belief?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

St. John 1:2 implicates the pre-existence of the Son.

I believe in the eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ.

You might believe in that, Jermyn. But God doesn't. (Be careful that your Trinitarian C.O.G.I.C. pals dont start to corrupt your godhead theology.)

Jesus' pre-existence was as the Word, before he was made flesh.
However, the Word was not eternally preexistent within God. You have NO bible for that whatsoever, sir. It's just not there.

The Word was brought into being at a particular point in time, which is why the bible repeatedly refers to the begotten Son, not an eternally preexistent Son.

Hence, the Word was not eternally preexistent with God. If you have scripture to demonstrate otherwise, feel free to share it with us.

Trinitarians fail to grasp the distinction between an eternally preexistent Son (a man-made concept) vs. a begotten Son (a reality repeatedly spelled out in Scripture)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

You might believe in that, Jermyn. But God doesn't. (Be careful that your Trinitarian C.O.G.I.C. pals dont start to corrupt your godhead theology.)

Jesus' pre-existence was as the Word, before he was made flesh.
However, the Word was not eternally preexistent within God. You have NO bible for that whatsoever, sir. It's just not there. The Word was brought into being at a particular point in time, which is why the bible repeatedly refers to the begotten Son, not an eternally preexistent Son.

Hence, the Word was not eternally preexistent with God. If you have scripture to demonstrate otherwise, feel free to share it with us.

Trinitarians fail to grasp the distinction between an eternally preexistent Son (a man-made concept) vs. a begotten Son (a reality repeatedly spelled out in Scripture)

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I'm familiar with the verse, but that verse doesn't indicate eternal preexistence.

(Preexistence beginning at a particular point in time is very different from eternal preexistence. )

I'm not certain what your point is, exactly... but feel free to clarify.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Justin

Here is a brief explanation of the Trinity:

God exists in three persons, each having their own wills and love for each other. They are co-equal and co-eternal. They are each God, but they are distinct from each other:

As a Oneness believer I am OK with this diagram.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This is how The Trinies explain The Eternal Sonship doctrine.
http://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...-god-eternally

[Scott Hutchinson]

This can help.
http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...oreoneness.htm

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

You might believe in that, Jermyn. But God doesn't. (Be careful that your Trinitarian C.O.G.I.C. pals dont start to corrupt your godhead theology.)

Jesus' pre-existence was as the Word, before he was made flesh.
However, the Word was not eternally preexistent within God. You have NO bible for that whatsoever, sir. It's just not there.

The Word was brought into being at a particular point in time, which is why the bible repeatedly refers to the begotten Son, not an eternally preexistent Son.

Hence, the Word was not eternally preexistent with God. If you have scripture to demonstrate otherwise, feel free to share it with us.

Trinitarians fail to grasp the distinction between an eternally preexistent Son (a man-made concept) vs. a begotten Son (a reality repeatedly spelled out in Scripture)

Sir,

The verse", "the same was in the beginning with God"-- how does that not point to the eternality of the Son?

The Creation account (God spoke the world into existence, but Jesus created the world.)

I don't suggest that Christ existed as a man eternally.

However, I do state that Jesus has always been and will always be.





BYW, thanks for looking out for me, doctrinally. Truth is very important.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jimmyrrs

I have read it, tried to study the background, and am still missing something in their beleif.

Is there one on AFF that can put it in simple terms HOW they come by this thinking.

I have a feel for what most trinitarians beleive. The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

1-God 3-manifestations God - the father of all creation God - his spirit (the holy ghost) God - the son (fleshly form).

Where does this thinking come from?

As others have referred to, I'm certain that there are just about as many explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity as there are people who would care to define it. I've known ardent Trinitarians whose concept of God(s) honestly struck me (and and even many Trinitarians) as tri-theistic at least if not outright polytheism.

Most Trinitarians though, with whom I've discussed it with will listen to my Oneness view of God and say, "Yup... that's the Trinity!" Go figure. It's really the hard-core "apologist" who will insist upon the creedal definitions, and most Christians haven't got it in their hearts to be that harsh. Again, this is just from my observations.

Tertullian is generally credited with the first formulations of the doctrine - and he invented over 100 new Latin words to do it. Most of the words had been in use previously but had dropped out of the language. One such word was "Persona." He used this to describe the distinctions between the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.

The word didn't mean "person" in the way that we use the word today. Rather, it was an Etruscan word for the theater masks that a single actor would change from during a performance. This is why Dr. Walter Martin "shushed" Cal Beisner during that famous televised debate several years ago. Beisner was saying that the "Oneness God" was a "God who wore masks..." and was implicitly deceitful. Martin was a little more savvy and didn't want Beisner setting them up for good come back from the Oneness side.

God is complex. Our attempts to get a handle on those complexities, however, should always be done with humility and we should be careful we don't fall prey to the same arrogance that seems to have overtaken many in the Trinitarian camp. We can be right about many things, but lose it all because our spirit wasn't right.

[Nina]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Most Trinitarians though, with whom I've discussed it with will listen to my Oneness view of God and say, "Yup... that's the Trinity!" Go figure. It's really the hard-core "apologist" who will insist upon the creedal definitions, and most Christians haven't got it in their hearts to be that harsh. Again, this is just from my observations.

Brother Pelathais,

It's great to hear from You again.
You put my thoughts into better words than I can.

Nina