DoctrinesofGraceBapt
Well-known member
I agree. So, John 1:1 then clearly teaches a distinction between the Father and the Son prior to creation. That doesn't help your case. Connect it to John 1:1 or not, John 17:5 expresses there was a distinction between the Father and the Son prior to creation.
I don't disagree that the "Son of God" is called that because of his actual humanity, but that doesn't answer the fact that the one who walked on earth with the name Jesus, with the title the Son of God, was distinct and experiencing glory with the Father before the world was.
Singular "me" because there is a singular God. No problem for Trinitarians. Why would words Trinitarians use to distinguish persons necessarily have to correlate a word relating to God being creator? Category error. This final bit simply expresses utter confusion on what we are talking about.
You're conflating the "Word" and "Son". The Word is eternal because there was never a time when the Father didn't have His own Word. The "Word" of John 1:1 is a functional distinction similar to you and your word can be distinguished. The Father's own presence glorified His Word. When the Word became flesh, the distinction became more than functional, but the distinction brought about by His genuine humanity began. The Word became the son, and a literal "Son" begins at Luke 1:35. In God's mind and plan, the Son and His crucifixion and his glorification was known before the world began, but its literal fulfillment began at Luke 1:35/Galatians 4:4 in the fullness of TIME.
That's a nice narrative, but none of this interacts with the wording of either John 1:1 or John 17:5. John 1:1 says the Word was face to face with God. John 17:5 says "I had with you". If I and you both didn't exist before the foundation of the world as an I and you, then Jesus lied when he said "I had with you". Both of these express a clear distinction, before the world was, that goes far, far, far beyond God having his voice/plan/idea(word) with him. This works if you want to placate a questioner in your congregation, but it simply ignores what John actually wrote.
I'm not conflating anything: The Word in John 1:1 is a title for the one who walked around as a human with the name Jesus prior to his incarnation. And, John 17:5 expresses that the I/you distinction between the human Jesus and the Father existed prior to the world existing. That's what this verse says, and no storytelling is going to change what John 17:5 says.
In short, deal with the text. I don't care how you like to explain it in your church. I only care right now about what the text says in John 17:5 and John 1:1. And, you simply didn't speak to it. It says "I had with you", and you talked about Jesus getting glory because of a plan God had for him at that time. That's not having glory. Jesus said "I had with you".
When the Son was first named Son is irrelevant. Why the Son was named Son is irrelevant. That God had a plan that was fulfilled in the fulness of time is irrelevant. None of this expresses how Jesus had glory before the world was with someone else, the Father.
Luke 1:35 says "And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God." It does not say "a literal "Son" begins."
Like most Trinitarians, in practical terms you see his human flesh as window dressing. That is, the distinctions between Father and Son were eternal and this Father and Son distinction simply was carried forward into the incarnation with the exception we got to see it for the first time due to his flesh.
How does that make his human flesh a window dressing. It sounds like you heard this analogy somewhere and are repeating it without ever really thinking about it. We believe the distinction existed prior to the incarnation because that's what Scripture says. How doe this have any relevance to Jesus' human flesh? Answer: there is no relevance. You just repeated something someone else said.
Finally, the singular "me" is most certainly a problem for Trinitarians. "NONE BESIDE ME" is not logically or grammatically the same as "NONE BESIDE US". Trinitarian theology is schizophrenic in that it characterized by the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic elements. Trinitarians strain at Genesis 1:26 to read into the word "US" as "three persons" because they find a rare instance of a verse they can construe into a plurality, yet demand that there is no problem when a singular God who is called "I AM" says "none beside ME".
In reality, the fact that we are monotheists means there is no problem here for Trinitarians. That you think we are not monotheists is the real reason why you reject the Trinity.
God Bless