Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Der Alte]

.
You are missing the point, I did not say the Father did not love him between the foundation of the world, and his birth/incarnation. And what “Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, and Matthew 17:5” have to do with that time period, is beyond me.

You did not and still have not made your point clear. I explained why I cited Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, Luke 3:22, Matthew 3:17, and Matthew 17:5 in my previous post.

Jesus did mean what he said, only you understand it one way, and I understand it another way. If you believe Jesus preexisted as the God, then there will be a good chance you will see it this way. I know this from experience.

If, or since, you believe that when Jesus said "So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed," He did not actually, literally exist, did not actually have glory with the father, before the world existed then no you don't believe that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. Jesus was praying to the Father, not teaching His disciples or the general public so what possible reason could Jesus have had to use figurative language praying to the Father?

Anyway, Jesus could have simply said, You loved me before my incarnation/birth, and would have meant the same thing, but he is pointing us to before the foundation of the world. Are you not understanding, when I say it was written all through O/T scripture, that Jesus would be glorified, that God loved him?

And how does this preclude Jesus from meaning literally, exactly what He said in John 17:5? Reread what Jesus said in John 17:5 and provide evidence that it absolutely could not have meant what Jesus literally, actually said. What you think, suppose that it could have meant is not evidence that is does not mean literally, actually what it says.

Here is some help...

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge ...of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. . .20 Who verily was foreordained ...before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory [Who gave him this glory. That would mean “God” in this sentence would be referring to the Father]; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge [4268 prognósis - foreknowledge, previous determination, forethought, prearrangement] of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. Even John 17:24.​

All this was the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God the Father.

Same question as above, how does this preclude Jesus from meaning , literally exactly what He said in John 17:5? That the words of John 17:5, could have, might have, possibly meant something else is not evidence that they do.

We can put our faith in our fathers, or God. Israel went through the same thing. Their fathers got it wrong quickly after entering the land, God would send them prophets, but they would not listen to them, and they sure loved their gods. These things were written for us.

All scripture was written for us but not all scripture was written to us. If you think that the early church fathers were wrong you must prove it, not just speculate and dredge up something that some Israelites might have done centuries ago. Can you conclusively prove that Novatian was wrong or is all you can provide is speculation as you have done thus far. There is an old maxim about interpreting scripture. "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." It appears to me that you want to insist the John 17:5 is figurative simply to make it support your assumptions/presuppositions.
.

What do you mean you brought up Luke 6:5 in your post #595.

Then you should have addressed it in that post.

 

[Der Alte]

Because they did not understand Jesus. All through this chapter they were not understanding Jesus. Jesus even says to those that believed in him, “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.”

So it is your opinion that the Jewish leaders were willing to desecrate the most sacred place in the history of Israel, by murdering Jesus in the temple in front of witnesses, violating at least 15 of their laws just because they didn't understand Him?

I just showed you two in post #614.

All of the previous "I am" statements of Jesus are clearly distinguishable from John 8:58. All of the other "I am" statements have a clearly understood predicate. John 8:58, has no understood predicate.

 

[Berean777]

Jesus did not have God's nature on earth. It's not wrong, if Jesus is referring to God's character. God wanted to make man in His image, and Jesus was that image, and in him we move toward that image, in the sense of becoming that image.

3444. morphé does not mean nature.

What? It's not identity theft, God wanted to make us in His image.

We need to define our terms properly. Let's start with morphe....

3444morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential(inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inneressence.

Jesus Christ embodies the inner intrinsic essential qualities of God, that are completely in harmoney with the inner intrinsic essense of what makes God God. This is not a mere image, but the exact expression of the Father's being.

Scripture states.....

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. (Hebrews 1:3)

No created being can say that they are the exact representation of God's being. So morphe is talking of nature, where Jesus Christ is the exact nature of the one infinite Godbeing.

Read below the definitiin of what is inner intrinsic essence....

intrinsic intrinsical
inalienable, unalienable
incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
essential
basic and fundamental
built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, inherent, integral
existing as an essential constituent or characteristic
inner, internal, intimate
innermost or essential

Adam had the extrinsic image of God but he had not the intrinsic qualities of God who is sinless deity. Jesus Christ had the essential inner intrinsic workings of what makes God God. Jesus Christ was not an extrinsic copy of God's image, he is the exact representation of God's being and not an image as to allude to a copy, like Adam.

Antonyms:
extrinsic
not forming an essential part of a thing or arising or originating from the outside

 

[Berean777]

3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential(inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner-essence.

The word morphe is related to inner intrinsic qualities of God, that is his inner essense, that is his very being.

intrinsic
The intrinsic qualities of something have to do with its nature. An intrinsicquality of dogs is that they're loyal.

Anything intrinsic comes from within. Doing a job for only money is not intrinsic. Doing a job because you love it is intrinsic; the motivation comes from within. It's good to treat people as having intrinsic value. If you like someone for intrinsic reasons, then you have no other motivation. The opposite of intrinsic is extrinsic, for things that come from the outside instead of from the inside.

“"form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing"- John Dewey”

Philippians 2:6 (NIV)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Philippians 2:6 ( KJV)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

 

[Berean777]

Will you accept the clear and unambiguous definition of the word morphe? If not, why not? Please explain.

Note: You need to clearly convey why morphe relates to extrinsic image rather than intrinsic inner essense that points to nature/form.

 

[Goatee]

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM [egō eimi].”

It tells me, we obviously are not understanding him correctly. For just a few verses back he said...

24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He [egō eimi], you will die in your sins.

25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”

They did not clue in here. They did not say, He said God's name, the “I AM”, and he is saying, we must believe he is the “I AM.” In stead they asked “Who are you?”

And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning.” - He goes on to clarify again, “28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He [egō eimi],”

So, who is he claiming to be? The lamb that takes away the sins of the world. The one we were told to hear everything he says. Abraham saw his day, and was glad.

I am He [egō eimi] is used many time in scripture, and does not mean the “I AM.”

"I AM". Everyone knows what this means except you. God Bless you

 

[JoeP222w]

The teaching of the trinity skews the understanding of certain basic truths, and they are the following,

Jesus Christ, birthed in the beginning of creation, which is why he is called a "son", by the Father, whose identity is I AM, as the Father does not have a name, as he is not created as we are to have name, and was said to be "engendered" today, which was day one of creation. A son does not precede a father nor does a son come at the same time as a father, but a father comes first, then a son, and since the father never began, therefore the son did indeed begin, as that is the next natural order of precedence. Jesus Christ is also said to be "only son", and this is because he was the only being created directly by the Father, and then all life came into existence through Jesus.

Before Jesus Christ began speaking things into existence, the Father created first, which included preparing the heavens, founding the earth which had water, and bringing forth the spirit of God that bore upon the water. When these things came into existence, day one had begun, and in that same day, Jesus Christ then uttered his first words, "let there be light".

Jesus Christ was the spirit of God that bore upon the water, and this is the evidence of his pre-existence in the Genesis account, and the identity of this spirit was a mystery until his name was revealed thousands of years later, as Jesus, which is when he became incarnate of a virgin. This spirit of God, is also the one who started speaking, hence why Jesus Christ is also called the word of God, because he spoke things into existence, which included all life.

On day four of creation, when Jesus Christ spoke the luminaries of the heavens into existence, is the first day other living beings came forth into existence, which were angels. Of these angels, the angel YHWH became revealed, which was the name revealed to Moses when the angel YHWH gave his own name to Moses in a burning bush, and this was name that the Hebrews used to seek God in the old covenant until much later we were given a new name, for a new covenant, which is the name of Jesus Christ, which is even higher than the name of YHWH, and by whom only in the name of Jesus can a man now be saved. This angel named YHWH was the being Jesus Christ then spoke to on day six of creation, which is why Jesus said, "Let us...", as he was not speaking to the Father, as the Father already gave Jesus words to speak, but instead, it was Jesus speaking to this angel. This angel, was indeed a holy spirit, that then breathed into man the breath of life, as commanded, and thus demonstrated that life not only came by the utterances of Jesus Christ, but also by holy spirit giving forth breath to bring forth life. And this same type of life giving holy spirit, is the same kind of spirit that is said to raise Jesus Christ from the dead, and also all who are believers and sons of the resurrection as well, as it is holy spirit inside each that brings forth life.

There is not just one holy spirit, but many. Each believer receives a distinct holy spirit, which is indeed an angel given to each believer to inhabit the body of each believer, that is sent from heaven to guide, teach, reveal things of the future, give power, sanctify, and perfect.

For a deeper study on these topics, I recommend reading the following studies,

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/08/why-the-trinity-is-a-false-doctrine/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/1...-also-began-only-the-father-has-no-beginning/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2015/12/2...ng-that-lives-in-us-that-is-sent-from-heaven/

http://www.wisdomofgod.co/2016/01/15/the-power-of-the-spirit-and-being-baptized-in-holy-spirit/

When your post does not even provide Biblical references, from the outset it appears to be very weak arguments.

Where does the Bible say that Jesus was "birthed" at the beginning of Creation?

You have a false presupposition that God, the Father does not have a name. He does, His name is YHWH. And God have a name does not in anyway violate the truth that He is God.

-------
"was said to be "engendered" today, which was day one of creation."

No Bible reference here. However, God has always been male. He is never referred to as female in the Bible or genderless. He is always referred to as "He" or "Him".

------
"Jesus Christ is also said to be "only son", and this is because he was the only being created directly by the Father, and then all life came into existence through Jesus."

False. Jesus is not a created being and nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus is created.

----
"Jesus Christ was the spirit of God that bore upon the water, and this is the evidence of his pre-existence in the Genesis account"

You contradicted your previous paragraphs here.

----------
"Of these angels, the angel YHWH became revealed, "

There is zero, no Biblical support of this (that YHWH is an angel).

-------
"This angel named YHWH was the being Jesus Christ then spoke to on day six of creation"

Again, there is no Biblical support of this.

-----------
"There is not just one holy spirit, but many. Each believer receives a distinct holy spirit, which is indeed an angel given to each believer to inhabit the body of each believer, that is sent from heaven to guide, teach, reveal things of the future, give power, sanctify, and perfect."

And that would be heresy.

 

[7xlightray]

If, or since, you believe that when Jesus said "So now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed," He did not actually, literally exist, did not actually have glory with the father, before the world existed then no you don't believe that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. Jesus was praying to the Father, not teaching His disciples or the general public so what possible reason could Jesus have had to use figurative language praying to the Father?



And how does this preclude Jesus from meaning literally, exactly what He said in John 17:5? Reread what Jesus said in John 17:5 and provide evidence that it absolutely could not have meant what Jesus literally, actually said. What you think, suppose that it could have meant is not evidence that is does not mean literally, actually what it says.



Same question as above, how does this preclude Jesus from meaning , literally exactly what He said in John 17:5? That the words of John 17:5, could have, might have, possibly meant something else is not evidence that they do. There is an old maxim about interpreting scripture. "If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense." It appears to me that you want to insist the John 17:5 is figurative simply to make it support your assumptions/presuppositions.

I agree, there is no reason for Jesus to use figurative speech when speaking to the Father. And if Jesus is asking for the glory he had with the Father, which would have been before he was incarnated, then it would be odd not to say, “the glory I had with you before my incarnation,” because it would lean it to figurative language saying, “before the foundation of the world,” this is an odd way to ask for the glory he had with the Father before his incarnation. And it is totally odd for him to say “for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” The normal thing would be to say, “because you love me,” or at very least, “for thou loved me before my incarnation,” because the Father would have loved him at all times, so Jesus is obviously speaking of something specific.


The real question, seeing as you state, and believe Jesus is not speaking in figurative language to the Father, and he has no reason to be; and you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 5, then why don't you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 3, Father the only true God?

 

[7xlightray]

We need to define our terms properly. Let's start with morphe....

3444morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential(inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inneressence.

Jesus Christ embodies the inner intrinsic essential qualities of God, that are completely in harmoney with the inner intrinsic essense of what makes God God. This is not a mere image, but the exact expression of the Father's being.

Scripture states.....



No created being can say that they are the exact representation of God's being. So morphe is talking of nature, where Jesus Christ is the exact nature of the one infinite Godbeing.

Read below the definitiin of what is inner intrinsic essence....

intrinsic intrinsical
inalienable, unalienable
incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
essential
basic and fundamental
built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, inherent, integral
existing as an essential constituent or characteristic
inner, internal, intimate
innermost or essential

Adam had the extrinsic image of God but he had not the intrinsic qualities of God who is sinless deity. Jesus Christ had the essential inner intrinsic workings of what makes God God. Jesus Christ was not an extrinsic copy of God's image, he is the exact representation of God's being and not an image as to allude to a copy, like Adam.

Antonyms:
extrinsic
not forming an essential part of a thing or arising or originating from the outside

Jesus is the son of God, so something of God was in Christ, and that was God's word, which is God's mind, and that became flesh. God revealed His mind to us, so that we could know Him 1 Corinthians 2:10-12,16. It can't mean all of God, in every way God is, for the Word became flesh, and certainly all of God cannot become flesh. And as you even stated, gave up some things of being God, to fulfill his role. And we have scripture that states: Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15. And on top of that, was tempted, as we are.

 

[Der Alte]

We need to define our terms properly. Let's start with morphe....

3444morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential(inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inneressence.

Jesus Christ embodies the inner intrinsic essential qualities of God, that are completely in harmoney with the inner intrinsic essense of what makes God God. This is not a mere image, but the exact expression of the Father's being.

Scripture states.....

No created being can say that they are the exact representation of God's being. So morphe is talking of nature, where Jesus Christ is the exact nature of the one infinite Godbeing.

Read below the definitiin of what is inner intrinsic essence....

intrinsic intrinsical
inalienable, unalienable
incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
essential
basic and fundamental
built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, inherent, integral
existing as an essential constituent or characteristic
inner, internal, intimate
innermost or essential

Adam had the extrinsic image of God but he had not the intrinsic qualities of God who is sinless deity. Jesus Christ had the essential inner intrinsic workings of what makes God God. Jesus Christ was not an extrinsic copy of God's image, he is the exact representation of God's being and not an image as to allude to a copy, like Adam.

Antonyms:
extrinsic
not forming an essential part of a thing or arising or originating from the outside

Other than Philippians 2:6, the word "morphe" only occurs one other time in the NT in Mark 16:12 but this passage has been determined to be a later addition.

Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. ​

However a combined form occurs in Romans 12:2 μεταμορφόω/metamorphoo. Paul was not asking his audience to appear to or seem to change but to actually, literally change.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed [μεταμορφόω] by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. ​

 

[Der Alte]

I agree, there is no reason for Jesus to use figurative speech when speaking to the Father. And if Jesus is asking for the glory he had with the Father, which would have been before he was incarnated, then it would be odd not to say, “the glory I had with you before my incarnation,” because it would lean it to figurative language saying, “before the foundation of the world,” this is an odd way to ask for the glory he had with the Father before his incarnation.

A very feeble quibble. The world was created before Jesus' incarnation so Jesus saying what He did covered everything. When Jesus said "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" He also communicated to His disciples that He was not an ordinary mortal and existed long before the world.

And it is totally odd for him to say “for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” The normal thing would be to say, “because you love me,” or at very least, “for thou loved me before my incarnation,” because the Father would have loved him at all times, so Jesus is obviously speaking of something specific.

Same response as above.

The real question, seeing as you state, and believe Jesus is not speaking in figurative language to the Father, and he has no reason to be; and you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 5, then why don't you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 3, Father the only true God?

Strange that you make this argument. That deflection almost knocked me out of my chair. You want John 17:3 to be literal but you took 6 sentences trying to show how John 17:5 is figurative only 2 verses later. Before we go to John 17:3 lets finish with John 17:5. Did Jesus literally, actually mean what He said or not?

 

[Berean777]

Jesus is the son of God, so something of God was in Christ, and that was God's word, which is God's mind, and that became flesh. God revealed His mind to us, so that we could know Him 1 Corinthians 2:10-12,16. It can't mean all of God, in every way God is, for the Word became flesh, and certainly all of God cannot become flesh. And as you even stated, gave up some things of being God, to fulfill his role. And we have scripture that states: Hebrews 1:3; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15. And on top of that, was tempted, as we are.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

How many God-head is there? The Father maybe, Hmmmm.........

To answer your question....

It can't mean all of God

Yes it does mean all of God the Father. As I stated in my previous posts, the Christ is not a mere copy of God's extrinsic image or a portion of the Father's inner intrinsic qualities, the Christ is a perfect projection of ALL of the Father's inner essential qualities that makes him the one true God of the Bible.

 

[Berean777]

Other than Philippians 2:6, the word "morphe" only occurs one other time in the NT in Mark 16:12 but this passage has been determined to be a later addition.

Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. ​

However a combined form occurs in Romans 12:2 μεταμορφόω/metamorphoo. Paul was not asking his audience to appear to or seem to change but to actually, literally change.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed [μεταμορφόω] by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. ​

In most cases the form spoken of is not an extrinsic outer image as per say, rather it is related to the inner workings of being conformed to the intrinsic personage of our Lord, according to his beatitudes, by becoming more and more him as we are being sanctified throughout our life long walk by faith.

Morphé in Philippians is most certainly points to the inner intrinsic qualities of God. As the Christ is being compared to God, we are being compared to the Son.

As Jesus would say.....

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

This open invitation into adoption also gives us the title as sons of God.

A created being cannot invite us into sonship, unless the Son himself is the true God who made AT-ONE-ment for us through his works on the cross.

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced (Zech 12:10)

God reflects on his being through his Son, because the Son is the.....

radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, (Hebrews 1:3)

 

[Berean777]

Mark 16:12
Then after this, He appeared in a different form to two of them walking on their way into the country.

The definition of morphe is below...

3444morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential(inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner-essence

The usage of the word morphe is in a completely different context than Philippians 2:6. In Mark 16:12 the usage of the word morphe is according to the word that we have today, which is morphed
....

morph1
mɔːf/
verb
past tense: morphed; past participle: morphed

1. change smoothly from one image to another by small gradual steps using computer animation techniques.
   "the characters can be morphed on screen"
   • undergo or cause to undergo a gradual process of transformation.
     "the cute moppet has morphed into the moody moll of the indie world"

So it is self evident that the usage of the word in Philippians is a completely different variant to that of Philippians, because of the context that is tied to it.

For example the use of the verb word "appeared" in conjunction with "morphe" describes an outward expression of the same being, albeit in a different form as compared to the previous form, hence the previous form is morphed into another form. Philippians 2:6 states who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The word equal is used in conjunction with a being who is God, therefore since God is a person who is being compared to, then the word equal is used as a noun. Since equal is used as a noun when comparing the Son to God the Father, then the usage of the word morphe is within the context of intrinsic inner essence of what makes that being who he is, in this case the Son is being compared to God's qualifying characteristics, his very nature to what makes God God. It is self evident that the only place in scripture that morphe is used is in Philippians 2:6-7 and Mark 16:12 and one is considering instrinsic factors relating to inner qualities of being and the other is considering extrinsic outer expressions that relate to appearance, that is "he appeared" in a different form (morphe) or in other words he had morphed into a different form to the previous.

 

[7xlightray]

A very feeble quibble. The world was created before Jesus' incarnation so Jesus saying what He did covered everything.

How does this nullify what I said?

When Jesus said "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" He also communicated to His disciples that He was not an ordinary mortal and existed long before the world.

Jesus is not talking about preexisting, but about the glory he is about to receive.

Strange that you make this argument. That deflection almost knocked me out of my chair. You want John 17:3 to be literal but you took 6 sentences trying to show how John 17:5 is figurative only 2 verses later. Before we go to John 17:3 lets finish with John 17:5. Did Jesus literally, actually mean what He said or not?

What do you mean! That has been my whole argument on this passage, that Jesus is not speaking figuratively, and I made the very same argument, that Jesus is speaking to the Father not in dark sayings, in the thread “Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine” #284 On the other hand, we have a clear statement by Jesus speaking to the Father, so he is not speaking to the Father in parables, or dark sayings, he says, “Father, the hour has come...And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent [John 17:1, 3].

I think that's pretty clear.

And, I believe I made it pretty clear to you, speaking of John 17:5. I've answered that already a couple of times in this thread #619; #628 the very one you just replayed to, and I will even answer again. Jesus is not speaking figuratively, he means what he said.

So...
As you state, and believe Jesus is not speaking in figurative language to the Father, and there is no reason to be; and you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 5, then why don't you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 3, Father the only true God?

 

[Berean777]

Jesus Christ has the same mind as the Father, has the same will as the Father, has the same intrinsic qualities (morphe) as the Father, has the same name as the Father, has the same everything as the Father, yet according to some he is a completely different and lesser being to the Father.

Let's for a moment entertain the irrational thoughts of some by saying that the Son is a different being to the Father. So for those few who we have graciously entertained thus far, please kindly list qualifying characteristic points from scripture, how the Son is different from the Father, since the Father has no physical outward characteristics, we can only go by his inner intrinsic essential qualifies that makes God God, since God is Spirit (John 4:24).

What ever quality you find in the Father must be absent from the Son by a phrase that links to the two pronouns who is Father and Son. Just because the Father is greater than the Son, when the Son temporarily took the form of a servant, doesn't mean that the Son is lesser than the Father, the proof is your onus to show a pronoun-antecedent agreement EEROR. For example.....

Example #1 (Pronoun-Antecedent Disagreement - Number)
When an employee does not agree with their plural boss's decision, the employee singular should not support that decision.
Reasoning: This sentence contains an antecedent and a pronoun. Since the antecedent (employee) is singular and the pronoun (their) is plural, the pronoun disagrees with the antecedent, thus containing a pronoun-antecedent agreement error. You can correct this in one of two ways: either make both the pronoun and antecedent singular, or make both the pronoun and antecedent plural.

Example #1 (Corrected)
When an employee does not agree with his singular boss's decision, the employee singular should not support that decision.

John 14:28
"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

The word "me" is antecedent before the multiple pronouns "I Am", the projected idea using the verb "glad", indicates a notion of anticipation that once the subject pronoun (Christ) goes to the objective destination pronoun who is the Father, then the subject recieves that greater office of authority of the destination object who is the Father.

21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22And hath put all thingsunder his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (Ephesians 1:21-22)

The anticpation of the gladness that will be realised is after the transition happens after Christ's glorification, when he sat on the right hand of power as the almighty authority of the greater office from above.

Many have used the verse, the Father is greater than I as to allude that the Christ is lesser in quality compared to the Father when it comes to inner intrinsic qualifying factors. However the verse doesn't say that at all, in fact when proper grammar is understood, the greater office to begin with before the incarnation was Christ's all along and in this regard when Christ came into the world he put aside temporarily his glory for a short period of time to do the works on the cross, so that he who was from above can resume his greatest office of authority, that is of the Father. The Son has always run the show from the get go and it is not something that reflects the notion that the Father is better than him in terms of quality when he took on the servant form, rather it points to the glory that he had before the world was even created by him. So the gladness message to the disciples, would be it is better for him to go away and to resume his greatest office of authority that is of the Father. The Son is the one who sits on the throne of the Father and rules all of creation. The Son was never handed down authority, rather he had it to begin with throughout eternity and eternity to come.

When the Son created the world, he did this whilst sitting on the throne of the Father as the almighty God, otherwise it would be in opposition to the commandments, if as some say, that he is a created being who created other beings. For a created being to create other beings, is highly suggestive that the one who created is not the true God and this is unfounded within scripture. The one who creates is therefore the one true God who was always seated with the Father and on the Father's throne as the designated one to one representative of God, the LOGOS, who had authority to begin with as the almighty creator and almighty God.

 

[Der Alte]

How does this nullify what I said? Jesus is not talking about preexisting, but about the glory he is about to receive.

You are talking nonsense either this statement or the next one. You decide. How can Jesus' words in John 17:5 "the glory I had with you before the world was" NOT refer to Jesus preexisting? Yes it does refer to the glory that He will receive but that glory is the glory He had with the father before the world existed as Jesus said.

What do you mean! That has been my whole argument on this passage, that Jesus is not speaking figuratively, and I made the very same argument, that Jesus is speaking to the Father not in dark sayings, in the thread “Why the Trinity is a False Doctrine” #284 On the other hand, we have a clear statement by Jesus speaking to the Father, so he is not speaking to the Father in parables, or dark sayings, he says, “Father, the hour has come...And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent [John 17:1, 3].

If Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 17:5 what do the words "I had with you before the world was" mean? Do you still maintain that Jesus was talking about prophecy or God's plan in His mind, etc?

I think that's pretty clear.

And, I believe I made it pretty clear to you, speaking of John 17:5. I've answered that already a couple of times in this thread #619; #628 the very one you just replayed to, and I will even answer again. Jesus is not speaking figuratively, he means what he said.

You have not made it clear at all. Do the words "I had with you before the world was" refer to Jesus' preexistence or as you stated before prophecy, God's plan, or something else?

So...
As you state, and believe Jesus is not speaking in figurative language to the Father, and there is no reason to be; and you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 5, then why don't you take Jesus literally, and at face value in verse 3, Father the only true God?

Before we can address John 17:3 we need to agree what Jesus is saying in John 17:5.

 

[7xlightray]

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

How many God-head is there? The Father maybe, Hmmmm.........

Yes, He dwells ( I dwell in, settle in, am established in (permanently), inhabit) in him bodily.

Yes it does mean all of God the Father. As I stated in my previous posts, the Christ is not a mere copy of God's extrinsic image or a portion of the Father's inner intrinsic qualities, the Christ is a perfect projection of ALL of the Father's inner essential qualities that makes him the one true God of the Bible.

You stated he gave up his wisdom, that's a lowering.


Berean777 said #582: So when Jesus points to God as the only true God, he is not ruling himself out as the God of the Bible, rather he is projecting to the true God through himself. The only way we can see the true God is through the Son and when we do, we should be satisfied that we have seen the Father through the Son as Jesus told Philip.

You are denying your own doctrine, by this statement, you have turned the Father “Person”, into God the “What.” Jesus said Father the only true God, not God the only true God.

 

[7xlightray]

You are talking nonsense either this statement or the next one. You decide. How can Jesus' words in John 17:5 "the glory I had with you before the world was" NOT refer to Jesus preexisting? Yes it does refer to the glory that He will receive but that glory is the glory He had with the father before the world existed as Jesus said.

What you said, did nothing to what I said, in any meaningful way, that I could see.

If Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 17:5 what do the words "I had with you before the world was" mean? Do you still maintain that Jesus was talking about prophecy or God's plan in His mind, etc?

You have not made it clear at all. Do the words "I had with you before the world was" refer to Jesus' preexistence or as you stated before prophecy, God's plan, or something else?

The words “I had with you.” Jesus is the word, the word was with the Father, and was the Father. And refers to the glory the Father had planed for him. And that word became flesh, and is now returning to the Father.

Isaiah 55

4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Before we can address John 17:3 we need to agree what Jesus is saying in John 17:5.

Look, if Jesus did not preexist as a person, then there is no way it could be figurative.

 

[Berean777]

Yes, He dwells ( I dwell in, settle in, am established in (permanently), inhabit) in him bodily.

No, that is not what Colossians 2:9 states.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

You and I can not claim that we were and/or are God's own personal residence, as to say that God is exactly at home with us, because we were once strangers and we were homeless orphans and without a job, until the true HEIR came and called us into his Father's residence. To the Son it would be and forever was God's own personal residence. We were homeless orphans who were called from the streets friend, to be called into adoption and then and only then, were we called God's people as we entered his residence through his Christ's invitation. The way you are interpreting it is, as if the residence belonged to you all along and that you were never a stranger to that residence.

Romans 9:25
As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people

Seriously, we are not gate crashers are we, that is, we don't break into people's homes unless they invite us in as guests, right?

Unlike Christ we are only guests and can quite easily be kicked out, but the Son will never be kicked out as God's own personal residence.

Here is a gate crasher for you, as an example......

11“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless. (Gate crasher)
Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
For many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:11-14)

Therefore Christ is the Heir and also God the Father's own personal and exact home, for this is the proper contextual meaning of Katoikeo (2730). We can not make this claim as you have done, so please consider the context and term definition, in relation to the antecedent who is Christ the SEED of PROMISE. So that the Christ is God's home right down to the finest and exact details.

2730 katoikéō (from 2596 /katá, "down, according to," intensifying 3611/oikéō, "dwell, reside") – properly, settle down as a permanent resident, i.e. in a fixed (permanent) dwelling place as one's personal residence; (figuratively) "to be exactly at home."

[The force of the prefix (2596 /katá) suggests "down to the finest, exact details."]

Fullness represents the sum total of the pronoun who is the Godhead, the Godhead being the Father. No one, I mean, not you and neither I or even all the believers together for that matter, can claim that they are the sum total of the Godhead, for this would be blasphemy. The antecedent in Colossians 2:9, who is the Son alone, is the sum total of God the Father.

Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō).

The embodiment of the fullness of the Godhead is within the definition of pleroma, that is the sum total of what and who God the Father is in all his intrinsic essential qualities, where the Son alone is the Father's own permanent residence eternally. The Son wasn't born to be the own personal residence of God the Father, he always was eternally his residence, unless offcourse you are suggesting that at one time God was homeless.

4985 sōmatikṓs (an adverb, derived from 4984/sōmatikós which is an adjective derived from 4983/sṓma, "body") – bodily (used only in Col 2:9). It refers to "Christ's complete embodiment of the plērōma ('fullness of God')

You stated he gave up his wisdom, that's a lowering.

Christ never gave up his wisdom which is linked to his righteousness, rather he temporality took a leave of absense from his greatest office of authority on the Father's throne, by....

humbling himself and by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:8)

In essence he came not as the almighty judge of the Old Testament as the Angel of Yahweh's presence (epiphany of Christ), rather he came to serve. There is a vast contrast from his role when he rained down fire on Sodom and Gommorah as compared to the servant form that he took upon himself as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

Berean777 said #582: So when Jesus points to God as the only true God, he is not ruling himself out as the God of the Bible, rather he is projecting to the true God through himself. The only way we can see the true God is through the Son and when we do, we should be satisfied that we have seen the Father through the Son as Jesus told Philip.

You are denying your own doctrine, by this statement, you have turned the Father “Person”, into God the “What.” Jesus said Father the only true God, not God the only true God.

I am only the messenger. Jesus Christ said this.....

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

You may never know the "what", unless you know the "who" (Son) and only then can you see the Father through the Son's intrinsic qualities which are the sum total of the Father's being/nature.