Where or who is the right god for a start?

Its quite uncanny how every group or clique has its pet theme or barrow to push.  And through subtle peer pressure likes to hear its spiritual idiom spoken by its adherents, to qualify its stance and spiritual course taken.  This is a sort of religious 'comfort zone' thing, adopted by religious clubs where its jargon plays a big part. To the outsider, it is usually a big giveaway that is is indeed ... just another sect or personality cult.

Here, you have the "church restorationists' in one department (oh how dey luv de "original" Greek), who make a big luvy-duvy thing about "the Father".  In other words, when they 'talk their talk' they think it is historically acceptable or authenticated to always refer to the Lord as "the Father" ...  "I was speaking to the Father today and the Father told me such and such ... !"  More ...  "Your own personal view depends on whether the Father approves it or not.  After all, the Father's ways are not our ways ... "  "The Father", "the Father", and so forth.  Almost drives you crazy ... like you are hearing an empty shell absent of substance.  Like acknowledging God always as the Father is the kool or in vogue thing to do (being biblical becomes almost secondary).  Coz, if you don't,  "You aint got the latest and greatest revelation Brother!"

Same goes for those who are on some sort of "Jesus" trip and over stress His name (like they were really trying hard to prove something - as some "try hard Christian" do?) to the point the most precious name comes across as being used too facilely and flippantly.  You know ...  "give us a J, give us a E, give us an S", and so on, sort of thing!  It starts off with something bordering innocence doesn't it?  Like the term "Jesus music", where you end up, taken further, with such religious commodities as "Jesus T-shirts" or "Jesus badges", and even worse.

Then we have another bunch who have a problem with de "original" Greek and have to go the other extreme to the elusive "Aramaic" (as if God's English Bible is not good enough) and ban 'God' written as 'God', but replaced as 'G-d', where they are forbidden to call 'God' "our Father" but "El Shaddai" or something.  Not to forget "Yahweh" of course!  Moreover, not to forget replacing the "inaccurate" "Jesus" with one of the many apparent Hebraic substitutes from "Yeshua" to "Yahshua" (and many, many more), depending on what's been approved by their "tribes" guru or not. Get the drift?

However, my Bible says a lot about the begotten Son coming and manifesting the fullness of God and saying how everything about God was in the Son.  Moreover, how the Son was exalted above all to have the pre-eminence above all.  Meaning, if we are going to get a real gist on God then we need to look at all aspects of His Sonship as well as compared with His eternal deity and being.  No other way really!  Therefore, please feel free to check this out and read on.  I trust my motive is not to brainwash you or become your guru  (I will leave that to others itching for ministry and platform) but to motivate you into the scriptures in order to reinforce your walk with the true, biblical, living God, only found in His Son.  Here we go then ...  grab your Bible (the right one of course):

Sons eternal or sons begotten?

Okay, no doubt you have heard of the eternal Word and the begotten Son!  Moreover, no doubt there's two different functions here!  This is where one is eternal and the other being birthed in time, but the same person and same God nevertheless!

Following up on my very first treatise exposing the Trinity, "The Three Witnesses of Jesus", an interesting situation has arisen from those who oppose my stance of claiming the three witnesses in 1 John 5:7 are in reference to the divinity of Jesus and are not an endorsement from God to "the Holy Trinity" tradition of Christendom at all (a verse removed or in controversy with modern bible versions).  This situation has come as a protest from those who believe that a 'son' biblically can be 'a son' eternally, without the process of being begotten, conception or birth.  There lies the great debate ...  what makes 'a son' qualify to be 'a son', scripturally speaking, as well as in general terms?  Simplified as three as one and the same. To clarify by breaking it down:


Therefore, at this point in time I would like us to go to Genesis Six in regards to the "sons of God" controversy, because here lies the crux of the whole issue to whether 'a son' is 'a son' without conception and birth.  If it is proven to be true that 'a son' in scripture can only be 'a son' through conception and birth, then you see the whole doctrine of "the Most Holy Trinity" which Christendom in general agrees to, is shaken to its very foundations by one clean sweep.  Therefore, as students of the Bible and followers of Christ, is it essential that we look fully into this issue and allow scripture to speak and prove which doctrine is from God.  The doctrine this website supports is emphatic that 'a son' has to be part of a maturity process from being begotten, to conception, to birth and beyond, as opposed to 'a son' being qualified 'a son' without being begotten, and with the absence of the conception and birth process.  Moreover, without biblical support apart from two (misconstrued) references in Genesis Six and the passage bridging Job chapter one and chapter two.

For those of you who wish to look at this in more detail, I deal with this extensively in my treatise called "Giants, Angels and the Sons of God".  On this page you will see clearly from scripture that 'a son' cannot be 'a son' unless it is growing into manhood from conception; thus rendering the "sons of God" fable (sons being angels not men) just that ...  a fable!

Here is the issue:  Firstly, is it scriptural to call angels sons (in any form) when they have not experienced birth and childhood?  Secondly, if angels are not sons (in any form) because they have not experienced birth and childhood, then can the eternal Word (the Lord Jesus Christ) be called "the Son" previously before having been begotten, and before His conception and birth, outside the sure word of prophecy?  The answer you will find will be a big NO!  Let's summarize these points raised for the sake of clarity and we will come back to the 'eternal son' concept later in regards to Jesus and the Trinity aspect:

Can an angel be called 'a son' in any sense of the word?  Especially when angels don't have gender, cannot engage in sexual intercourse, cannot procreate, and when only two of kind on earth can reproduce according to Genesis 1:11-25!  Or putting it in other words:

Can an angel be called 'a son' in any sense of the word when ...

 ... it has not been physically conceived or born but created
 ... is not a sexual flesh and blood creature
 ... has not experienced childhood or growing into an adult angel
 ... or when God has placed a limit on His creation that only two of a kind can reproduce?

Now I would like to make some factual statements.  Actually ...  scriptural statements.  This will be fully backed up later from the written word of God:  The difference between angels and man is in origin, function, and location.  They are not the same species.  They are not two of one kind like man and woman, male and female. One is earth bound while the other is angelic.  One is physical while the other is spiritual.  One has opposite genders while the other has only one.  We must also remember what Jesus said in John 3:6, which is of utmost importance here:

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Paul goes a little bit further and deeper here (1 Cor. 15: 38-40) to clarify this point  when he says, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body (v. 44)":

Therefore, the body of man is natural whereas the body of an angelic man is spiritual!

"But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body (angels and men can't mix reproduction wise).  All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds (1 - that's dealing with the natural).  There are also celestial bodies (2 - spiritual), and bodies terrestrial (1 - dealing with the natural again): but the glory of the celestial is one (spiritual), and the glory of the terrestrial is another (natural)."

Repeating again ...  "but the glory of the celestial (heavenly - spiritual) is one, and the glory of the terrestrial (earthly - natural) is another."  The two are separate and cannot marry or find physical mutual intercourse.  Here's that threefold witness again:

1. A natural body is a flesh body from man to beast, in the physical realm, according to Paul.

2. Then there is a terrestrial body which is a planet or star, but still in the physical realm, according to Paul.

3. Lastly, there is the celestial body, which is in the spiritual realm (either the existing angelic or the changed glorified natural state), according to Paul.

Remember, (1) has nothing to do, and can have nothing to do with (2), while it remains in its natural (procreation) state ...  "and to every seed his own body"!  Just can't happen, end of story!

Additionally, and with regards to angels mingling their so-called seed with man, according to the Nephilim theory from the Apocrypha; apparently relating to Genesis Six (being extra biblical commentary supported by the modern versions), how can what is flesh be born from what is spirit?  Jesus said it simply could not be done.  As just stated ... should this not be the end of the story while putting to rest the unscriptural gibberish we have been confronted with, by twisting a couple of verses, to prove the rest of the Bible does not mean what it says?

Therefore, as only two of a kind can bred, it is therefore impossible for angels and humans to breed together.  Only man has been created with a seed to procreate and multiply (created as one individual), not angels.  Who were no doubt created en masse and not to procreate (Heb. 1:7).

Here is indisputable proof from Nehemiah 9:6 that God made angels (the host of heaven) en masse.  Angels were never created just as a pair to procreate whereas earth bound creatures (including man) were ... namely, Adan and Eve!  Understanding God made the things of the earth in two (male and female) just as the new world (after the Flood) was once again re populated in twos ...  male and female (Gen. 6:19):

"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone (ONE person - not two or three); thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host (the spiritual), the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein (the natural), and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee (not them)."

Mankind was created as just one individual man and one individual woman (Gen. 5:2) to populate the earth with gender and reproductive ability to go forth and multiply and have dominion over the earth.  That's under their Maker!  In contrast, angels were created en masse with no need for reproductive organs, functions or gender.  Furthermore, angels are likened to stars in the Bible.  Look up into the masses in the sky at night?  Can you count stars?  "Science falsely so called (perverted science)" claims the physical stars were birthed (went through an evolutionary process in other words).  My Bible says they were created (Gen. 1:16) just as angels were.

The angels never experienced childhood, and therefore cannot be called children!  That's sons or daughters of God!  They have never experienced redemption and can never experience adoption either.  Only children can!  Their function and purpose is totally different.  Also, because man can be redeemed unlike fallen angels (fallen stars), he can be adopted into a family.  And those who become sons of God are those who have been adopted into God's family.  Angels cannot ever be adopted because firstly, they are not born as sons but created en masse.  Whereas secondly, they never get a second chance; redemption is not and was never purposed for them.

From the OT perspective

A simple and brief summery:

Ps. 82:6 ...  "and all of you are children of the most High (sons and daughters of God)."

Deut. 14:1.  "Ye are the children of the LORD your God (that's saints not taints!)"

Ho. 1:10.  "Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea (in the future through reproduction and the principle of multiplication), which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God".

Is 43:6.  "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth (nothing to do with the sons of God coming down from heaven)."

Gal. 3:26.  "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

John 1:12.  "But as many as received him (that's Christ), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name"

Then once in heaven, the adopted sons of God (Christians) become like the angels (not are angels but become like angels) who cannot produce offspring or have sons, or daughters, or families.  This is where the natural body becomes the spiritual, the terrestrial becomes the celestial, where the mortal must put on immortality, and where the corruptible becomes the incorruptible.  It can't happen any other way outside resurrection power through the cross.  This is also in direct contrast to those religionists who do err not knowing the scriptures, by building doctrines on either tradition or presumption, as in the case of Matthew 22:29-30.  Jesus is speaking to the deceived religionists here:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.  For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage (can't be reproduced through marriage), but are as the angels of God in heaven (not "as the sons of God" - they are the sons of God! - now glorified with new angelic type bodies).

There we have it!  We are sons of men on earth through procreation and birth ("given in marriage").  Then we become the sons of God through rebirth and adoption.  Then we enter heaven (putting on our new bodies) being like (as) the angels because they are not the same creation, who were created with the purpose and function to procreate like earth bound man.

Looks like a huge difference to me!  Jesus NEVER took on the nature of angels by coming down to earth as the manchild.  In the Old Testament He came as the angel of the Lord but in the New  Testament He takes on the seed of Abraham, a man, and becomes lower than the angels in this instance ...  "who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Heb. 2:9)"!

The nature of angels and the seed of Abraham being two distinct things.  Angels don't have families to bring up whereas Abraham had a family.  He was also begotten (Gen. 11:26).  He also had a time of conception and a time of birth.  And those that are adopted into this family are known as sons of Abraham.  A picture of the sons of God in God's promised family.

Quick summary in the levels of glory as that threefold witness again (never in equality or coequally):


Therefore, Jesus is found at various levels due to His humility, His taking on humanity, and glorification.  But NEVER as one consistent, coexistent, coequal, co eternal, God the Son.  NEVER being always of the same equal substance, the second Person only of the Godhead, always within the ongoing so-called Trinity.

There is also no symbolic pictures or typology or shadows in scripture, portraying angels as sons either.  Only of  the sons of men and those who get adopted into God's family.  Therefore, we must have turned over about every stone and have conclusively found that sons have to be begotten, conceived and born to be sons.  Jesus could not have become the firstborn of many brethren, nor become a son in any sense of the word either, unless the prophesied Word had become flesh, was born of a woman, was born in the likeness of sinful flesh, and was born as "the firstborn among many brethren".

Here is an important verse from Hebrews 5:1:

"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death".

Jesus was never a son BEFORE, because He was never a flesh and blood man BEFORE.  An angelic man?  Yes!  However, the days of His flesh was to come in the future.  Then fulfilled when He came as the manchild.  When He came to earth as flesh and blood.  Dependant on His Father (as man) for everything.  After arriving as the baby Jesus, as a man child or Son.  There had NEVER been "in the days of his flesh" before.  Therefore, He could NEVER have experienced being a son before.  Quite obvious really ... once you examine these scriptures over again, prayerfully and relying on God above man for His revelation.

Adam was a son of God according to the seed lineage, recorded back to Adam.  Who were sons of God also (Luke 3: 23-38).  Jesus, the second Adam, became the Son of man born into this lineage.  Because He was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin, and came from heaven, this was the eternal Word becoming flesh ...  Jesus the only begotten Son of God!  Thus, this being a true statement ...  Jesus is not only the ETERNAL Word but is also now the BEGOTTEN Son!  Two different functions, but the same person and the same God.  Hence, the title of this treatise!

In conclusion, what does this tell us here?  Quite plainly, there was and is no coequal God the Son existing eternally in the Godhead as a second person of a Trinity.  Jesus is God the Creator, the everlasting Father, from the beginning to end, and not the Son of God, until He was born of a woman.  Or there is no reason for a son to be begotten, conceived, born, and experience growing in statue and grace, in the first place.  Jesus did indeed do all these things to qualify to be called a Son ...  Psalms 2:7:

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

That's the prophetic word!  Prophetic ...  meaning, the word foreseeing and looking ahead.  Here is the evidence that the word (okay taken further) ...  the scriptures can foresee the future and declare authoritatively, with 100% accuracy, what was going to taker place and be fulfilled to a Tee, in the future (Gal. 3:8):

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith (the coming of the Son to kiss and behold), preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

What did the scripture foresee and predict in advance about the coming Son, who had not been begotten at this stage?

"Thou art my Son; (because) this day have I begotten thee"!

Because Jesus was begotten, it could be said of this day He become the Son.  Fulfilled in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5, as well as Hebrews 5:5 (there's those three witnesses again confirming the truth):

"Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."

Why His Son?  Because He was begotten on that day!  There had to be a day.  Followed by this statement, which could now be made a reality:

"I will (future tense) be to him (Jesus) a Father, and he shall (future tense) be to me a Son?"

This never happened before.  Meaning, Jesus could not have been a Son to the Father before.  This cancels out the so-called eternal coexisting Sonship of the eternal Trinity, creating a huge flaw in its theology, and therefore rendering the Trinity unbiblical and a very subtle way to undermine the divinity of Jesus.

Always God, but not always the Son - Always God, but never three people

Even the full name the Lord Jesus Christ is the threefold witness in itself.

Lord ...  The highest authority - God
Jesus ...  The Word become flesh - God as man
Christ ...  The fulfillment of this promise - the anointed one from God

All God and all the same person!

 ... "thou art God alone"!

Furthermore, here's something strong to think about in concluding this treatise, taken from 2 Cor. 13:1.  This is in regards to God's threefold witness to Jesus, and in regards to the threefold cord (or equilateral triangle) that cannot be broken:

"This is the third time I am coming to you.  In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

Paul was going to make a third visit to the brethren here and he is actually using the scriptural principle of the three-tier witness to confirm and reinforce what he was saying as being true.  Was Paul coming as three distinct persons?  Nope!  Or three distinct personalities or characters?  No way!  It was Paul making his third visit, being the one and same bloke and same brother and same person, the Corinthians could identify with.

Paul was saying that by the fact of his THREE appearances coming to reprove this local church, this was decreed as a 'three witness' biblical principle.  This proves without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus coming as either two or three witnesses (Father, Son or Holy Ghost), constituted to Him still being the one and same  person, just like Paul being in this case.

Yes, the one and same Person!!


The Whole Trinity Series:

Introduction to the Three Divine Persons
The Threefold Witness of Jesus
The Eternal Word and the Begotten Son
Jesus - God and Man
The Traditional Trinity - vs - The Biblical Godhead
The LORD and the Lord
"Behold the Man" - The Fulness of God
The Satanic Trinity in Progress
Another Pilgrim - Without the Camp
Jesus