Main |
SATAN'S GREATEST HOAX or 226 questions PROVING the doctrine of the TRINITY to be UNSCRIPTURAL! Questions 75 through 92- The Son- eternal or begotten? ((Do you believe that the "SON" preexisted (as a person not just as a thought or something) before the Incarnation?)) I am very glad you asked this question. And I have a question for you- QUESTION #75) Where does the Bible SPECIFICALLY SAY that the WORD existed as the SON eternally? Apparently you and I DON'T agree on the definition of the Incarnation- Luk 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be BORN OF THEE SHALL BE called THE SON OF GOD." Gal 4:4 "But WHEN the fulness of THE TIME WAS COME, God sent forth HIS SON, MADE OF A WOMAN, made under the law." Again, the definition of the Biblical word- "word"- "Strong's reference number: 3056, Greek: logos, Derivation: Derived from 3004. Definition: something said (including the thought); by impl. A TOPIC (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extens. a computation; spec. (with the art. of John) THE DIVINE EXPRESSION (ie Christ)" -Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Joh 1:14 "And THE WORD (thought, topic, divine expression) WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only BEGOTTEN of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Joh 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only BEGOTTEN Son of God." Act 13:33 "God HATH FULFILLED the same UNTO US their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in THE SECOND PSALM, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE." Heb 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Heb 5:5 "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, TO DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee." QUESTION #76) Does the word "begotten" mean eternal to you Trinitarians? Does it NOT mean something in reference to time, and therefore, SPECIFICALLY NOT eternal? (Especially since the scriptures so often qualify the term "begotten" with "THIS DAY"!!!) BEGOTTEN- "Strong's reference number: 3439, Greek: MONOGENES, Derivation: Derived from 3441 1096 (see below), Definition: only born, i.e sole MONO-genes: "Strong's reference number: 3441, Greek: MONOS, Derivation: Derived from 3306, Definition: remaining, i.e. sole or single; by impl. mere." -Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. mono-GENES: "Strong's reference number: 1096 Greek: GINOMAI, Derivation: A primary word. Definition: TO CAUSE TO BE ("gen"-erate), i.e. (reflex.) TO BECOME (COME INTO BEING), used with great latitude (lit. or fig., intens., etc.) QUESTION #77) For example, was Abraham's son Isaac an 'eternal son' since he was "BEGOTTEN" by Abraham? And if not, according to Trinitarian logic, why not? Heb 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac... HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN son." QUESTION #78) Where does the Bible say that we are to believe on the name of His only 'ETERNAL' Son? QUESTION #79) If the Bible says to believe on His BEGOTTEN Son, and Trinitarians change that to mean 'ETERNAL' Son, how are they NOT then preaching another Christ? 2 Cor 11:3 "But I FEAR, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, WHOM WE HAVE NOT PREACHED, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." QUESTION #80) How is it that BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT TRINITARIANS HAVE CHANGED THE MEANING OF 'BEGOTTEN SON' TO 'ETERNAL SON' this does not PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that **TRINITARIANS DON'T EVEN BELIEVE JOHN 3:16**??? Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth IN HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life." Therefore, laying aside the commandment of God: "BEGOTTEN Son... believeth IN HIM," ye hold the tradition of men ((the "SON" preexisted... as a person))... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition... Making the word of God of NONE EFFECT by your tradition, WHICH YE HAVE DELIVERED... -Mk 7:6-13. Now this doctrine of "eternal sonship" if that indeed be what you are speaking about in saying "the Son preexisted" is NOT AT ALL A SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. If you're not talking about "Eternal Sonship" please excuse me! But in case any one else believes it, consider this... Although the above scriptures adequately contradict the doctrine of the 'eternal sonship', allow me to quote from Adam Clarke, a Methodist commentator, writing against this heretical doctrine of 'eternal sonship.' (I do not quote A. Clarke here as though I consider him to be an authority, but merely because in this instance, his words are very appropriate)- "...The doctrine of 'eternal Sonship of Christ' is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and HIGHLY DANGEROUS. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: "1st. I have NOT been able to find ANY EXPRESS DECLARATION IN THE SCRIPTURES concerning it. "2dly. If Christ be the son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; FOR SON IMPLIES FATHER; AND FATHER IMPLIES, IN REFERENCE TO THE SON, PRECEDENCY IN TIME, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation. "3dly. If Christ be the son of God, as to his Divine nature, THEN THE FATHER IS OF NECESSITY PRIOR, CONSEQUENTLY SUPERIOR to him. "4thly. Again, IF THIS DIVINE NATURE WERE BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, THEN IF MUST BE IN TIME; I.E. THERE WAS A PERIOD IN WHICH IT DID NOT EXIST, AND A PERIOD WHEN IT BEGAN TO EXIST. THIS DESTROYS THE ETERNITY OF OUR BLESSED LORD, AND ROBS HIM AT ONCE OF HIS GODHEAD. "5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and THE PHRASE 'ETERNAL SON' IS A POSITIVE SELF-CONTRADICTION. ETERNITY IS THAT WHICH HAS HAD NO BEGINNING, nor stands in any reference to time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ides. "The enemies of Christ's divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead in Christ. THIS DOCTRINE OF THE 'ETERNAL SONSHIP' DESTROYS THE DEITY OF CHRIST; now, if his deity be taken away, the whole gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. ON THIS GROUND THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST CANNOT HAVE BEEN OF INFINITE MERIT, AND CONSEQUENTLY COULD NOT PURCHASE PARDON FOR THE OFFENSES OF MANKIND, NOR GIVE ANY RIGHT TO, OR POSSESSION OF, AN ETERNAL GLORY. The very use of this phrase is but absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the scriptures. This doctrine of the 'eternal sonship'... I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism... From such heterodoxies, and their abettors, may god save his church! Amen!" Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary. (Adam Clarke has been called "the greatest Methodist Bible commentator to have ever lived"). QUESTION #81) In what way has Adam Clarke erred in speaking out against this heretical doctrine of 'eternal sonship'? QUESTION #82) Where does the scripture "expressly declare" the 'eternal sonship' doctrine? QUESTION #83) "If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature..." HOW can he "...be eternal; for Son implies father; and father implies, in reference to the son, PRECEDENCY in time, if not in nature too."? QUESTION #84) "If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then..." HOW IS NOT "the Father... of necessity prior..." and "consequently superior to him."? QUESTION #85) "Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then..." HOW CAN IT NOT "...be in time?" How can there NOT be "a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist."? HOW would this NOT destroy "...the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead."? QUESTION #86) How is it NOT ABSURD "...To say that he was begotten from all eternity"? How is NOT "...the phrase 'eternal son'... a positive self-contradiction."? QUESTION #87) How does NOT "...This doctrine of the 'eternal sonship' destroy... the deity of Christ"? QUESTION #88) How is Christ 'eternally begotten'? Is He not quite done being begotten? Can he be considered to be God Almighty if he is never "done" being begotten? How have not the Trinitarians in formulating this doctrine made Christ out to be a semi-god, or an inferior god, and thereby NO GOD AT ALL (in their opinion)? QUESTION #89) Furthermore, if the power and authority of the Son is NOT to last forever, how can He be called the 'eternal son'? 1 Cor 15:28 "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, THEN SHALL THE SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." QUESTION #90) If the deity that is in Christ is NOT the one and the selfsame eternal Spirit Himself, how can Jesus be said to be God? How then have Trinitarians NOT DESTROYED THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST in this false doctrine of 'eternal sonship'??? Heb 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." QUESTION #91) Why do Trinitarians insist that Jesus Christ is a name that only applies to the Son? In other words, why don't Trinitarians accept that the Deity in Christ IS our one God the Father, and it was merely the word made flesh, in which that Spirit dwelled, that was begotten (made flesh) in the fullness of time, and thereby the whole temple, the man, and the God within, that is manifested by the name of Jesus Christ? Joh 14:7 "IF YE HAD KNOWN ME, YE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN MY FATHER ALSO: AND FROM HENCEFORTH YE KNOW HIM, AND HAVE SEEN HIM. 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, SHEW US THE FATHER, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, HAVE I BEEN SO LONG TIME WITH YOU, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, Philip? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 BELIEVEST THOU NOT THAT I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but THE FATHER that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works. 11 BELIEVE ME THAT I AM IN THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IN ME: or else believe me for the very works' sake. " (("The only begotten of the Father..." (v. 14) shows us that John is speaking of the Son. So the Son became flesh. NOW, do your famous inserting: "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God." There! That's it! This is what the verse IS saying!)) The Bible doesn't say- "the Son became flesh" the Bible says- Joh 1:14 "And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Heb 1:5 "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Luk 1:30 "And the angel said unto... Mary... 31 ...thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS... 35 ...The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee... THEREFORE also that holy THING which SHALL BE BORN of thee SHALL BE CALLED the Son of God." The Bible says- Gal 4:4 "But WHEN THE FULNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME, God sent forth his Son, MADE OF A WOMAN, made under the law," QUESTION #92) If the "word" was "eternally" a "son" before the Incarnation, who is His eternal mother? (At this point I would like to point out to you that at YOUR (but by no means my) precious council of Nicea, where the Trinity doctrine was first given "official" recognition, there actually was a group of YOUR brethren there who believed the Holy Ghost was the virgin Mary- "Is there one, who fears God, and who reads these lines, who would not admit that Paganism alone could ever have inspired such a doctrine as that avowed BY THE MELCHITES AT THE NICENE COUNCIL, THAT THE HOLY TRINITY CONSISTED OF 'THE FATHER, THE VIRGIN MARY, AND THE MESSIAH THEIR SON'? Is there not one who would shrink with horror from such a thought? What, then, would the reader say of a church that teaches it's children to adore such a Trinity as that contained in the following lines?- 'Heart of Jesus I adore thee; Heart of Mary, I implore thee; Heart of Joseph, pure and just; In these three hearts I put my trust.' If this is not Paganism, what is there that can be called by such a name? Yet this is the Trinity which now the Roman Catholics of Ireland from tender infancy are taught to adore..." Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons. He quotes from the Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, July 1852, p. 244 for his statement that the Melchites at the council of Nicea claimed Mary to be part of the Trinity.) Questions 93 through 99-Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemene. ((Another statement that I want to deal with is the one Paul made when he asked you, "Who did Jesus pray to in the Garden of Gethsemene?" "Good question", I thought. But when you replied, you avoided the question altogether, by saying, "Would you have God praying to another God?")) QUESTION #93) What, answering a question with a question is not a legitimate response? Let me remind you that Jesus did it! If this isn't speaking of the humanity of Christ, if he was praying AS a Separate Person of the deity- could he be a God and need to pray to another God for anything? QUESTION #94) If Jesus was NOT praying merely as a priest and as an example, and then only in the days of his flesh, where do we see Jesus praying to the Father anywhere in scripture, while in heaven (before the incarnation or after He rose from the dead)? QUESTION #95) If Jesus was a co-equal but "Separate Person" from the Father, why would the Son "need" to pray to the Father in respect to his Divinity? Is your "God-the-Son" subordinate to the Father? How have you NOT made your "God-the-Son" subordinate to the Father in formulating this doctrine that it was one God-Person praying to another God-Person? QUESTION #96) In what sense did Jesus become a man if he didn't hear, learn, receive, and pray as a man? Did Jesus, in your perception, also hear, learn, receive and pray as to His Divinity, or as to his humanity only? QUESTION #97) Did Jesus stop being God then, according to your Trinitarian dogma, in order to become a man? Did Jesus cease to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal when he became also a man? QUESTION #98) Can God stop being God and still be eternal? If God stopped being God, how could your God-the-Son still be, or have ever been, God? QUESTION #99) Did your God-the-Son surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how can He still be God? (Reader, please remember that the term "God the Son" is extra/non-biblical. It is another "word" that was added by Trinitarians in a manner that the Bible specifically commands us Pro 30:6 "ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, LEST HE REPROVE THEE, AND THOU BE FOUND A LIAR.") Questions 100 through 101- Trinity is confusing. First and last = second person? 1 Cor 14:33 "God is not the author of confusion" My goodness but your Trinity God is confusing! How different from the Biblical God- Mar 12:29 "God is one" Col 3:11 "Christ is all" Col 2:10 "And ye are complete in him" Joh 8:14 "Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I BEAR RECORD OF MYSELF, yet my record is true... 24 I said therefore unto you, that YE SHALL DIE IN YOUR SINS: FOR IF YE BELIEVE NOT THAT I AM (HE), YE SHALL DIE IN YOUR SINS... 27 THEY UNDERSTOOD NOT that he spake to them of the Father." Col 2:9 "For in (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I AM THE FIRST, AND I AM THE LAST; AND BESIDE ME THERE IS NO GOD." Isa 48:11 "For MINE OWN SAKE, EVEN FOR MINE OWN SAKE, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I WILL NOT GIVE MY GLORY UNTO ANOTHER. 12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I AM HE; I AM THE FIRST, I ALSO AM THE LAST." Rev 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST: 18 I AM HE THAT LIVETH, AND WAS DEAD; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen;" Rev 22:12 "...Behold, I COME QUICKLY... 13 I AM... THE FIRST AND THE LAST... 16 I JESUS... I AM THE ROOT AND THE OFFSPRING of David... 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20 He which testifieth these things saith, SURELY I COME quickly. Amen. Even so, COME, LORD JESUS. QUESTION #100) Is there a "First and the Last" other than Jesus Himself? QUESTION #101) Would He that is "First and the Last" say that "Beside me there is no God" if there were a Trinity of persons? As to your statement that- (("God is One-Christ is all" - you just spliced two separate portions of Scripture together, that my friend, is bad hermeneutics. You've heard of this one, "Judas hung himself", and "Jesus said, 'Go and do likewise'" - that is what you are, in fact, doing with Gal. 3:20 & Col. 3:11.)) The point is- "Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition... Making the word of God of NONE EFFECT by your tradition, WHICH YE HAVE DELIVERED..." -Mk 7:6-13. Obviously, There is no command for us to hang ourselves. That would actually be contradictory to the commandment- 1 Cor 3:17 "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." "God is one/Christ is all" does NOT break any commandments. "God is three separate persons" DOES break the commandment- Mar 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord OUR GOD IS ONE Lord" And it breaks it very specifically by the traditions of men- "Laying aside the commandment of God (OUR GOD IS ONE ), ye hold the tradition of men... (God is three separate persons) FULL WELL YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR TRADITION... MAKING THE WORD OF GOD Of NONE EFFECT by your tradition, WHICH YE HAVE DELIVERED... -Mk 7:6-13. Questions 102 through 104- The full Deity and full humanity of Jesus- Jesus prayed. ((Then you proceeded to tell why you thought Jesus prayed. The purpose of Paul's question was to deal with the fact that two people were interacting - Jesus and the Father. BTW - you still have to answer this question.)) You, Pilgrim, are contradicting yourself here. You yourself specifically said- "God is 3 distinct persons (not people)." And now you are arguing that they ARE TWO PEOPLE. QUESTION #102) Why do you Trinitarians emphasize that the Son praying to the Father means- "two PEOPLE were interacting"?!? What SCRIPTURE specifically says this? (Allow me to point out that the burden of proof IS on you, not me, since it is YOUR doctrine that compromises and makes of none effect the first commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ- The Lord our God is ONE LORD" -Mark 12:29.) Jesus was fully God, AND fully human- Deity- Ruler whose goings forth are from everlasting
-Micah 5:2; Humanity- A virgin conceives, and brings
forth a son -Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:21-23, ((But in regards to your response that Jesus prayed to fulfill the law. Your claim is that the ground for prayer as being part of the Law is found in Psalm 65:2. This verse doesn't speak of prayer as being part of the Law of God (c'mon TomR.) - please read it again.)) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." -John 1:1,14. "...As concerning the FLESH CHRIST CAME, WHO IS OVER ALL, GOD blessed for ever. Amen" -Romans 9:5. "And every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God..." -1 John 4:3. "O thou that hearest prayer, UNTO THEE SHALL ALL FLESH COME" -Psalm 65:2. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, *OR THE PROPHETS*: I am not come to destroy, but TO FULFILL" -Matthew 5:17. "For I have given you an example, that ye should DO AS I HAVE DONE..." -John 13:15. "And He said to them all, If any man will COME AFTER ME, let him DENY HIMSELF, and take up his cross daily, and follow me" -Luke 9:23. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who...made Himself of no reputation, and TOOK UPON HIM THE FORM OF A SERVANT, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion AS A MAN, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death..." -Philippians 2:5-8. "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, LEAVING US AN EXAMPLE, THAT YE SHOULD FOLLOW..." -1 Peter 2:21. QUESTION #103) How could Jesus leave us an example AND NOT PRAY? QUESTION #104) Since- Col 2:9 "...In (Christ) DWELLETH ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD bodily. 10 And ye are COMPLETE in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" how could Jesus NOT pray in the direction of ONLY THAT part of HIMSELF that was NOT HUMANITY? If He were to pray to HIS NAME, His name ALSO signifies His humanity, and since He sets the example for us, we would be thus empowered, and legitimized, to pray to OUR name. If He prayed IN GENERAL "to Himself," then, as our example, WE could pray to ourselves. Since He prayed to that which is Deity alone, WE CANNOT PRAY TO ANY PART OF OURSELVES, since NOT one part of OURSELVES is Deity! Therefore, HE HAD TO PRAY, AND, being our example, He had to pray directing His prayer TO THE FATHER (DEITY ONLY), ALSO IN ORDER TO CONTRADICT HUMANISM! Do you not see that? Please continue with the 226 questions disproving the doctrine of the Trinity. QUESTION 105 Return to the Table of Contents for the 226 questions Return to the preface for the studies on the doctrine of the Oneness of God in the name of Jesus Christ. Read real conversations on the topic of Oneness vs. Trinity. |