Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote: I'm quite sure nothing preceeded God the father.

RickD wrote: Are you saying that the triune God hasn't existed eternally?

Is God a father? has he begotten a Son? I cannot deny his assertion it is one of the most consistent points he makes. We are told by his Son that his father is our father and his God is our God. I would say it is a safe bet that Christ came out from his father... when is up for speculation but it was definitely prior to the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Notice that even the devils recognize that Christ is the son of God otherwise wouldn't they address him simply as God;
Luk 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

I will surely confess that Christ is the son of God the father;
Luke 12:8-9 Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

Act 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus...
1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
2Jn 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

KBCid wrote:It is one thing to assert that a being lives forever or has always existed and quite another to assert that a being existed / exists outside of time. If you assert that God exists beyond time are you asserting that time is not perceived by him? Do his thoughts not happen in an orderly fashion one after another? or do you assert that all his thoughts happen at once? If we are made in his image and our thoughts occur in an orderly fashion does this not allow the inference that he is this way also.

I guess we need to clarify what time is before we can begin to answer this question.

Is time an actual product of the universe? Is it more than ticks on a measuring stick? Space too is just the distance between objects. It too can be considered as marks on a measuring stick. Einstein put the together and called it space/time, a fabric that can be distorted by gravity. His idea has been demonstrated by science since the early 1900's. The GPS satellites orbiting the earth bear this fact to have some credibility.

If time does not exist(except to measure change in motion in a relative manner), than your question is answered, that is: God exists (if there is a God) right along with the rest of the Universe, within it.

The idea that the Universe is that last island of existence is also a debatable issue that needs to be resolved before that question can be adequately answered.


John Ray

KBCid wrote:

KBCid wrote: I'm quite sure nothing preceeded God the father.

RickD wrote: Are you saying that the triune God hasn't existed eternally?

Is God a father? has he begotten a Son? I cannot deny his assertion it is one of the most consistent points he makes. We are told by his Son that his father is our father and his God is our God. I would say it is a safe bet that Christ came out from his father... when is up for speculation but it was definitely prior to the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Notice that even the devils recognize that Christ is the son of God otherwise wouldn't they address him simply as God;
Luk 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

S

Sorry, I've gotten into this conversation a little late. I have my setting on post-time/descending to get the latest report.

I assume, without reading all the messages, from the content above that the question of time and space and whether God exists within or without has already been answered?

If so, could someone point me to the area of messages where this issue was resolved in a way that respect both science and spiritualality, I would be gratified.

Thank you.
John Ray

moonstroller,

The God of the Bible exists outside of the space-time dimensions of the universe.

In the middle of page one I gave two research papers that show that time began with the beginning of the universe. As long as the universe or multi-verse expands, there is a beginning of time and space. These papers show that there must be a cause for the universe that exists beyond the universe.

At the end of the fourth page I made the Biblical evidence for this quite clear. Not to mention that the church has taught that time began with the universe for 2,000 years. Hawking was the first to prove this with his space-time theorems. He now uses imaginary time to try to find a natural way to create the universe, but admits that real time still has a beginning.

moonstroller,

You might also want to read this:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/tempora ... on-reveals

dayage wrote:KBCid, Ok, I see where part of the problem is.
1) Genesis one is not just the creation of raw material. It is the whole time frame in which God brought about the whole universe. In otherwords, from the singularity (13.7 bya) all the way down to the early earth (4.566 bya). So, space, stars, galaxies and planet earth were created during Gen. 1:1. This is why earlier I pointed out that "In the beginning" is always used for a period of time and not just an instant of time. Genesis 1:1 is a merism. It would be like me saying that I am having a party, I want you to invite young and old. "Young and old" here is a merism meaning all ages (everyone). I am not excluding the middle aged.

Ah good good. We are in accord that what Gen 1:1 is describing "is the whole time frame in which God brought about the heavens and the earth. I find it funny you reference a singularity as part of the occurances to include in Gen 1:1. You do realise that a singularity is a conceptual idea. You are thus marrying a human concept with the biblical text which is absolutely silent on such a thing. A futher note here, Gen 1:1 was not a command of God. God made no command until Gen 1:3. No command no creation. So, I agree with your assertion of time frame as not an absolute moment in time. I disagree with the addition of the concept of singularity based on the fact that it is a human imagining and not scriptually inspired.

As for Gen 1:1 being a "merism" a pair of contrasting words that express totality or completeness. I agree that this verse is used to describe the totality or finished creative acts that God performed. This verse describes the totality of the acts God performed during the creation and I would further say it is not in itself the assertion of a single initial act. It is literally an overview of the result of his creative acts described in vs's 1:3-31

dayage wrote: 2) In verse two, the earth being formless, is a reference to there not being any land or mountians. It was just a "smooth" water world. God changed this on day three. Each of our sources said, and what I was saying, is that Genesis 1:2 is describing what the earth (not raw material), which was created in verse one, looked like. In fact, that is what science says the early earth looked like.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

It would appear that we need clarification of concept here. If as you envision the earth was a smooth faced ball with the water described in vs. 2 as being on its surface then what is being described in;

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

If the entirety of heaven can exist between the waters on the surface of the earth then it must have been massive as massive as heaven because;

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

It should be quite clear that God would not have to divide the waters to make the heavens if the earth and its water are of present size since it is not even a spec relative to the heavens where the stars were placed. It is much more realistic to consider the earth and water as being the raw materials God used to arrange into the form of planetary bodies which fill the heavens. So vs. 2 is not an inference to there being a world of any type. It is fairly clear that infinite space (the deep) was full of the materials God called earth and waters and that he 'cleared a space' for his creations to be spatially placed when he would form them which of course had not yet occured.

in Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. "

we see that God is gathering together the raw materials into a specific 'place' within the 'space' which was still composed of the earth and water that were initially separated when he made the space for the heavens from Gen 1:6. If the planetary body we know as the earth already existed then he could have simply commanded "Let the waters upon the face of the earth (or ground) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear".

If by chance you wonder how I might logically make such an inference then consider these verses;

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth...
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth...
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth...
Gen 7:3 ...to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
Gen 7:4 ...and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground...
Gen 8:9 ...for the waters were on the face of the whole earth
Gen 8:13 ...the waters were dried up from off the earth...
etc... etc... etc...

I could quite literally keep on referencing verses where it clearly shows that God understands and verbally recognises the "face of the earth" when it is a planetary body. So it seems quite logical that the earth as a planet did not exist prior to vs. 9 otherwise he would have referred to it just the way he does in a plethora of places after that.

KBCid wrote:My reference information was intended to show that the waw disjunctive is a transition into the explanation of how God made the heavens and the earth. It is a transition from an outline of the overall job described in vs. 1 to an explanation of what he did to make the heavens and the earth. Thus, there is no disconnect between the two verses.

dayage wrote:As I pointed out, this is not allowed by the Hebrew. Each of our sources agreed that Gen. 1:1 was the first act, not a "title." Gen. 1:2 is a description of the newly created earth. I guess you could search for a new reference, because the one you used disagrees with what you are saying.

What exactly is not allowed by the hebrew? Each of our sources does in fact personally believe that the first vs. was describing an act. But their beliefs about the act are not what I was pointing out. The waw disjunctive is properly used as I am asserting, whether the verse was describing an initial act prior to the second verse or whether it was describing an act that was subsequently described by the following verses. The waw disjunctive follows a verb that described action and is at the beginning of a clause. So to re-refernce my original reference lets see what McCabe says a bit more specifically and make sure we are both on the same page for the difference between a waw consecutive and a waw disjunctive;

"The waw consecutive is clearly identifiable, for it is directly attached to a verb, and it generally expresses sequential action. A waw consecutive begins 1:3. For illustrative purposes, I could represent the first few words of v. 3 like this: “Waw-said God, ‘Let there be light.’” We should notice that waw is directly attached to the verb (the hyphenated words in my translation reflect the word units in the Hebrew text), and the verb stands at the head of the clause with the subject following it."
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-p ... ap-theory/

"For example, a waw consecutive is used twice in v. 3, twice in v. 4, three times in v. 5, twice in v. 6, etc. This reflects that Moses used the waw consecutive to show temporal sequence."

I have clearly pointed out that my assertion of how the 'and' (waw) is applied does not infer sequential action nor temporal sequence from vs. 1 to vs. 2; (the gap theorists assertion). I'm not stating that the beginning of vs. 2 should say “Then-the-earth was….

"The waw disjunctive appears at the beginning of v. 2. This type of waw is also easily identifiable. It is always attached to a non-verbal form, such as a substantive, pronoun, or participle; and it stands at the beginning of a clause. For example, we could illustrate the waw disjunctive found at the beginning of v. 2 in this manner: “Waw-the-earth was….” As a waw disjunctive relates to its preceding clause"

I am specifically stating "and-the-earth was….", because..... 'and' relates everything immediatly after it back to what immediately preceded it. Verse 2 begins the description of what occured in the time span refered to in vs. 1 as "in the beginning". Now let's see if what I am trying to say makes any more sense to you with some commentary added;

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth....."

This first verse begins by asserting that God -The uncaused cause- performed the -past act- of having "created" two specific things. The heavens and the earth. Do you see that the use of the word 'created' means already done.... finished.... complete. This is why the beginning of verse 2 cannot be a waw consecutive. A consecutive if used to begin vs 2 would indicate that vs.2 was the next thing to occur a temporal move, Movement in time.
The verse does not say "In the beginning God [started] or [began] to --create-- the heaven and the earth....."
"In the beginning" is clearly a statement that defines a period or span of time that has already occured. it is past tense. It is in fact a parallel to the time described from gen 1:2-31... 6 days.

Then in Gen 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The word 'and' is properly used as a waw disjunctive because it connects the described and already completed act God performed when he created the heaven and the earth in vs. 1 to the parallel view that begins the complete description of all the individual acts that were involved and performed in all the "waw consecutive" or sequentially connected verses which indicate the temporal movement (waw consecutive) from verse to verse.

Bottom line here is that Gen 1:1 describes all the work God performed up to the time he rested. Gen 1:3-31 gives a closeup view of all the actions involved in Gods work week. Another way I can say this is if I reword things a bit here and say;

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning (over the course of 6 days) God created (worked) (and the result was) the heaven and the earth (followed by)
Gen 1:2 And (when he began) the earth was without form (without design), and void (spread across open space) ; and darkness (no light created yet) was upon the face of the deep (infinite space). And the Spirit of God moved (God surveys the material he is about to create with) upon the face of the waters."

And then The eternal God makes his first command!!!
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
These were the very first words uttered by God....
The very first act of our father was to speak...
and what was the first thing to come from God?
his WORD(s)...

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Do you not understand what john is saying here? NOTHING was made without the word of GOD. Prior to the occurance of the word of God nothing was created. The word of God does not occur until Genesis 1:3 and that word from God the father said "Let there be light". Light was the very first act of creation by God the father through his Son (the word) and together they continued to create the complete heaven and earth as described in Genesis 1:3-31 Then at that point in the story we are told that;

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished

This is what was exactly described in verse 1... God (through his word) "created" (built completely) The heaven and the earth.

KBCid wrote:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Do you not understand what john is saying here? NOTHING was made without the word of GOD. Prior to the occurance of the word of God nothing was created.

KBCid, I'm not sure if you are realizing that you seem to keep saying that The Word(Jesus Christ, the Son, the second person of the Trinity), is not eternally existent, as the Father is. You said, "Prior to the occurance of the word of God". If something occurs, that means that it happens, or takes place. To say that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, "happened", then that is saying that God is not eternal, and unchanging. Whether you realize it or not, you are contradicting scripture. For God to be "the one and only" true God, He cannot change. This isn't the first time you've insinuated that Jesus Christ was created by the Father.

KBCid wrote: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Do you not understand what john is saying here? NOTHING was made without the word of GOD. Prior to the occurance of the word of God nothing was created.

RickD wrote:KBCid, I'm not sure if you are realizing that you seem to keep saying that The Word(Jesus Christ, the Son, the second person of the Trinity), is not eternally existent, as the Father is.

I know Rick it may seem that what I am saying infers that Christ is not eternally existant and for many people the concept is hard to understand. Bear with me for a moment pls.
God the father who is a unique being is eternal existing always.
God the father begot his Son Jesus (the Christ)
Christ (the word) who is the express image of his father came out of his father prior to any creative acts depicted in the bible.
Christ is composed of the same form that his father is since he came out of his Father.
therefore, Christ is also eternally existant. He is simply another unique being which is why he can converse with his father. this is why in the scriptures we can see Christ speaking with his Father;

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...

There cannot be an 'us' or an 'our' unless there are minimally two unique beings making and exchange. God the eternal father and Jesus (the word) his only begotten son. I did not write the bible, I simply read it and see what is meant by the words. If there was never any writing depicting a conversation between two unique entities then I would have no grounds for understanding it that way.

RickD wrote:You said, "Prior to the occurance of the word of God". If something occurs, that means that it happens, or takes place.

I didn't write Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. This was written long before I ever read it and it clearly states that God 'said'. It didn't say God 'thought'. God spoke. When a being speaks what 'comes out' from them? Words.
Christ (Gods Word) definitely came out from God in Gen 1:3 to initiate the first creative act of God which is confirmed in;

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Every single creative act that occured in the beginning occurs when God speaks and his Word comes out and performs the act. We can list these acts since it occurs ever time it is written that 'God said'. When God speaks his word comes out and things happen.

RickD wrote:To say that God, in the person of Jesus Christ, "happened", then that is saying that God is not eternal, and unchanging. Whether you realize it or not, you are contradicting scripture. For God to be "the one and only" true God, He cannot change.

You should understand that I am not saying something from my own conception. It is written fairly clearly that Christ comes out from the bosom of his father when his father speaks;

Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Christ is the 'living word' of God the father who performs the acts at the point when God the father speaks.

RickD wrote:This isn't the first time you've insinuated that Jesus Christ was created by the Father.

I believed I clarified my original error of asserting a creation several posts ago. We were created. we were a design put together by The Father and his son. Christ was begotten. He was not designed nor created. He came directly out of his father as the word so there was no creative design involved. Christ emerged from the Father and has all the same unique qualities of his Father.
Christ emerged from his Father and became flesh and since he has all the same qualities as his father then when we know him we also know the Father who begot him. Both the father and the Son are eternal since this is a quality of the Father from which Christ emerged. Unlike Jesus who is directly begotten from the father we can only be adopted sons. We can never know the joy of being the directly begotten of the father. We are simply a creation and Christ is a direct emergence from the Father.

Does this clear up any misunderstandings?

I think Rick's issue is that, if at one point The Father and The Son did NOT Co-exist eternally then at one point God ( the father) would have had to change and begotten The Son and if that is the case then God is not eternal and unchanging.
He Changed from God to God the Father and God The Son.

Begotten would relate to the dual nature of Christ in the flesh.

Probably one of the most confusing and mind twisting aspects of the incarnation. One, that for me (at least if I'm being honest) seems to raise questions about the unchanging nature of God. I'm only saying raise questions, not challenging the immutability of God.
"but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Phil 2:7

K, it would seem to me that you are putting the incarnation, which is where the begotten nature comes into play, and imposing it upon the pre-incarnate eternal nature of the Word. The view in Classical Theism is that God is really completely seperate from the universe. So, when Jesus came to be, we see how Phil. 2:7 is incredibly amazing.
In the beginning, the Word was both with God and God. Can anyone here really understand that? Honestly?

Then the Word BECAME flesh. (John 1:14) And let us not forget that is says, Christ, being in the form of God "made Himself nothing, TAKING the nature...."

dayage wrote:moonstroller,

The God of the Bible exists outside of the space-time dimensions of the universe.

In the middle of page one I gave two research papers that show that time began with the beginning of the universe. As long as the universe or multi-verse expands, there is a beginning of time and space. These papers show that there must be a cause for the universe that exists beyond the universe.

At the end of the fourth page I made the Biblical evidence for this quite clear. Not to mention that the church has taught that time began with the universe for 2,000 years. Hawking was the first to prove this with his space-time theorems. He now uses imaginary time to try to find a natural way to create the universe, but admits that real time still has a beginning.

I understand, but the theories proposed by these scientists and theorists, (they are all just unproven theories) are just a few of the many that abound.

I prefer to do my own math on the issue:

This is the math:

0+0=0
0+1=1
1=1

This is the theoretical deduction:

If in the beginning there was nothing (0)there is nothing to alter this situation with, therefore a beginning with nothing would yield nothing of substance.

If there never was a beginning and you have something to work with, then something (1) could be manipulated to produce something of substance: ex. The entire universe, as we know it, was produce by the abundant supply of hydrogen, which consists of one atom made up of one proton and one electron. No one disputes this fact.

If something has to exist because nothing can produce nothing of substance then we have to assume that something (1) has always existed, therefore, eternity is a fact.

The one pitfall of most theories about creation is that they fail to prove that eternity has to exist in order to derive a universe of substance. We are constantly baffled by the fact that most of what we consider as having substance must exist inside of some framework (a system of connections), a container of sorts. This automatically inferences the idea that a container is contained by a container (multi-verse), etc. on into infinity. But we never define infinity (the container-verse).

There is no reasonable math from which the idea of infinity can be derived, that I'm aware of. The simple arithmetic I discovered above, is the best mathematical analogy I can come up with. I believe it proves the existence of Eternity. This is the container in which all reality can exist and also insures that reality will always exist. There is no end of things. It is the ultimate and supreme container. Time, in such a container is rendered meaningless and rendered into a simple device of measurement, like a ruler.


If there exists a God, it would be within this container (eternity), not without, because there is no without in eternity. Being Jewish, This limits the Function of a God to one that is within the grasp of all living and self-aware beings. That is, that we can all rise to the function of a God but never exceed the realm of reality because there is nothing outside of eternity. Eternity encompasses all that can possibly exists, therefore, God is a function of reality (contained within reality), not the other way around.

Hawkins space time theorems, only exist inside the Universe, not without. Hawking has stated that he is baffled by what caused the big bang (as are all scientists) and would not ponder the idea. The only thing that science can suppose in the realm of universes is the idea of Multi-Verse, which is far from developing a theory that produces the idea of Eternity.

In all of (known) Science, Eternity is a supposition.


I have demonstrated here that eternity is a fact.

John Ray.

jlay wrote:Begotten would relate to the dual nature of Christ in the flesh.

Probably one of the most confusing and mind twisting aspects of the incarnation. One, that for me (at least if I'm being honest) seems to raise questions about the unchanging nature of God. I'm only saying raise questions, not challenging the immutability of God.
"but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Phil 2:7

K, it would seem to me that you are putting the incarnation, which is where the begotten nature comes into play, and imposing it upon the pre-incarnate eternal nature of the Word. The view in Classical Theism is that God is really completely seperate from the universe. So, when Jesus came to be, we see how Phil. 2:7 is incredibly amazing.
In the beginning, the Word was both with God and God. Can anyone here really understand that? Honestly?

Then the Word BECAME flesh. (John 1:14) And let us not forget that is says, Christ, being in the form of God "made Himself nothing, TAKING the nature...."

For Humans to understand the nature of God, in terms of intellect and without the HS, is like an ant trying to understand a Human.
I just don't know if it is possible to grasp other than how we RELATE to such a thing ( Thing being God to Human and Man to ant).
That God, Son and HS existed before the universe came to be is clearly stated in the bible ( OT and NT).
What isn't stated clearly is if all 3 have existed eternally ( from the moment GOD came to be, God was Triune in nature).
I believe that ARE and I based that on what is implicit in the NT (more so than the OT).
I think the notion that can cause confusion is not only the fact that TIME never existed before creation ( as we know and understand time), its also that the terms we use "Father and Son" tend to denote one being first/before the other because that is how WE see things in THIS universe.
Not the case with God.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think Rick's issue is that, if at one point The Father and The Son did NOT Co-exist eternally then at one point God ( the father) would have had to change and begotten The Son and if that is the case then God is not eternal and unchanging. He Changed from God to God the Father and God The Son.

The ultimate question here is why does God assert he is a father and that he has a son. We all are a designed creation and he gave us the understanding of what a father is and what a son is so, if God did not mean that he is a father and Christ is not his son then why write it that way. God is not short on understanding nor is he limited in his ability to make us understand. Thus if we are to question the definitively defined relationship of father and son as God and his Son have caused to be written what other inference can be made? You have a limited amount of interpretational choices here;
1) God is a father to his Son who emerged from him
2) God is not the father of a Son and he alone plays the part of himself and a Son.

I personally choose not to assert that God is any less than a Father to a Son and that Jesus is anything less than a Son to his Father. This is how 'they' chose to portray themselves to us. Who am I to question the multitude of references that were written that specifically define the relationship of father and son. How can anyone read this;

Mat 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

and assert that God and his Son are not two unique entities. How could God rightly be both of the personas within this verse? If anyone were to assert that God is really a single persona here and writing it this way then he could not possibly be his own son and there would ultimately be a denial of fatherhood and sonship. This would be like a multiple personality thing.
God made us and our unique method of reproduction so that we could experience being both sons and fathers. We are told that we are made in his image. If a son did not come out of a parent and a person can be considered both a father and son at the same time then there is a major disconnect in meaning between our maker and us.

As I also pointed out in a previous post even the devils recognise that Christ is the Son of God and address him as such. If God and Christ are really just the same persona then wouldn't satan and his horde know this since they originated in a place much closer to God than we did. They were angels who left their first estate. So for me if God says it and Christ says it and their enemies say it then I am going to honor it the way I am told to.
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God the father. I will certainly not be the one who is going to change this view.

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Notice that Christ is commending 'his' spirit into his fathers hands. If they were not unique then how does God commend his own spirit to himself?

KBCid, this article explains what "only begotten son" means. And why the terms "father" and "son" were used to help explain the relationship between the persons of the trinity. See if it makes sense to you:http://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

RickD wrote:KBCid, this article explains what "only begotten son" means. And why the terms "father" and "son" were used to help explain the relationship between the persons of the trinity. See if it makes sense to you:http://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

...The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16. In fact, John is the only New Testament writer who uses this word in reference to Jesus (see John 1:1418, 3:16, 181 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses this word to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters through faith.
http://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

As I have noted many times now... Jesus is unique. He is the only Son of God. Jesus shares the same divine nature as his father because he came directly out from the father. So where is there a problem with these same words I am now repeating so many times? You have yet to specify what exactly I may be asserting incorrectly.
We either agree that Christ came out from the father or he did not. If you don't believe Jesus came out from his father and has his fathers nature then that would be your free willed choice to so believe. But I fear God and will in no way make such an assertion.
Remember my goal is to test my understanding based on other peoples understanding so if we have a differing opinion here then it should be quite easy to say "here is where you are wrong" and "here is the scripture which explains why it is wrong".