Is this a true statement?

[alkech]

"The Bible teaches us that God is one and only one being. This tells us that whoever or whatever Jesus was before his human incarnation, he could not have been a separate God from the Father."

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

"The Bible teaches us that God is one and only one being. This tells us that whoever or whatever Jesus was before his human incarnation, he could not have been a separate God from the Father."

Hi Alkech. Let's look at this question.

This is what I call a "loaded question." It's simply that because so much of the terminology is mistaken and if you accept what they mean by the terminology, then you have to accept their conclusion. Let us be clear on what Trinitarianism teaches.

Trinitarianism teaches that God is one being.

Trinitarianism teaches that there is one God.

Trinitarianism does NOT teach that God is unipersonal.

When the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 says that God is one, Trinitarians agree entirely. One what? One being. One being does not equal one person. We can say then that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit all possess fully the attributes that make God God, without having any contradiction.

Thus, the terminology of a separate god is even misleading. Jesus is not the same person as the Father though I no longer like to use the term separate as it too often implies physicality when deity is essentially bodiless. (A body is not required for a person in the Godhead to be God, though the second person of the Trinity did take on and does dwell in a body.)

The answer then is that I don't accept the question because I don't accept the terminology. Let this be a note also to any interested in apologetics. Remember that before answering some questions, make sure that you don't accept the terminology snuch into the question. Sometimes, the question has to be qualified first.

Hope this helps!

[betzerg]

"The Bible teaches us that God is one and only one being. This tells us that whoever or whatever Jesus was before his human incarnation, he could not have been a separate God from the Father."

Col. 1 calls jesus the "firstborn of all creation..." As a created being there was a time when HE DID NOT EXIST. This is precisely why he cannot be G-d.
G-d has no beginning and no end.

Jesus is not G-d.

Shalom,

BETZER

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Col. 1 calls jesus the "firstborn of all creation..." As a created being there was a time when HE DID NOT EXIST. This is precisely why he cannot be G-d.
G-d has no beginning and no end.

Jesus is not G-d.

Shalom,

BETZER

Hi Betzerg. Let's look at this idea of firstborn of all creation and what it would mean.

First off, if you were following the order logically, Jesus would come AFTER the created order. After all, which comes first? The firstborn of Jacob or Jacob? Jacob comes first. Is the firstborn of Abraham prior to Abraham? No. However, when it comes to Jesus and creation, the language suddenly changes.

Secondly, consider the belief that Colossians was written to counter a pre-gnostic heresy. The belief was that a good God would never create matter so the good God created several lesser gods called aeons and one of these lesser gods created the material world. You could worship Jesus, but Jesus is an aeon. To reduce Jesus to less than God is to make him an aeon and defeat the purpose of Paul writing the letter.

Thirdly, this would also make God dependent on Jesus to keep his creation alive. The passage makes it clear that it's through Christ that all things exist so that if Christ was not, neither would anything else be. (This would also present a problem for JWs if they say Jesus ceased to exist on the cross and anyone who looks at the cross with a supposed brilliant argument of "God can't die!")

Lastly, the book itself later states the full deity of Christ in Col. 2:9.

Now this really isn't a debate forum. If you wish to start a discussion on this topic, I suggest starting a thread in unorthodox theology.