Can the Binity and Trinity doctrines explain when and where and how the “word was made flesh” in Jesus? Or, can we explain how the “word was made flesh” by using the premise found in the testimonies of the Apostle John and John the Baptist?
When we examine the monotheistic religions of the world we find that there are three notable religions that claim a common heritage in the patriarch Abraham, whose God is considered to be the God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Noting that Judaism upholds the belief that God is one being—as does Islam—with the exception being Christianity.
That is to say that among the various Christian denominations there is a belief that God is more than one individual being or reality (hypostasis), who is said to exist as one essence (ousia), or as one unified mind, called God. Which creates much debate and no small amount of controversy as some attempt to explain how we can have more than one being or reality who is God, but still have only one God. (The concept of a “triune” God is found in other religions other than Christianity.)
Something that is quite apparent in the doctrinal paradigms of the Binity and the Trinity that have been cultivated over time in an attempt to explain how two beings or three beings can be “one” God.
Now, historically speaking the development of these two paradigms reveal that the Binity and Trinity doctrines are late Christian interpretations that began to evolve some years after the apostolic period, and each of these two paradigms uses a common premise that defines and interprets the logos of God as a distinct individual and intellect apart from God the Father. This interpretation is then assumed and applied as a foregone conclusion to the writings of the Apostle John, with the hope of explaining how the “word [logos] was made flesh” in the person of Jesus.
Meaning that if the logos was a separate being from God the Father, possessing his own individual intellect and was made “flesh” as the person of Jesus, then we would have to conclude that Jesus was God before the logos was made flesh as the person of Jesus.
However, the premise for the Binity and Trinity doctrines is not derived from Scripture and certainly not from the gospel of John, which means that these two paradigms are a significant contrast to the premise found within the testimonies of John the Baptist and the Apostle John.
For according to the Apostle John there was a time when the holy spirit was seen to descend from heaven and come upon Jesus after his baptism, and this was witnessed by John the Baptist. And the Apostle John further testified that there was a “beginning” associated with the event of Jesus’ water baptism, and also the baptism of the holy spirit, that was seen by the prophet John who “saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,” which is the only context given by the Apostle John to explain how the “word was made flesh” in the person of Jesus (Jn. 1:32-34).
Meaning that “in the beginning” the logos was with God the Father when the prophet John saw a manifestation of the spirit come from heaven and descend upon Jesus, which would mean that Jesus was not God, but rather God was in Christ, and therefore Jesus was not the logos before God was manifest in the flesh in the person of Jesus.
Consequently, when we attempt to understand how the “word was made flesh,” we find ourselves faced with two diverse choices: 1) to accept the Binity and Trinity paradigms that are established on—in some measure—Stoic thinking, or 2) accept the testimonies of John the Baptist and the Apostle John as the explanation of how the “word was made flesh” in the person of Jesus.
Nonetheless, a comparison of these two interpretive approaches is most revealing when we see how they are applied to what was written by the Apostle John.
Now, it is obvious that the Binity and Trinity paradigms take some liberty with the premise that Jesus was the logos at some undetermined time before his birth as the firstborn son of Mary, which reveals to us that such a premise does not allow us to determine “the beginning” that was addressed by the Apostle John. Which means that by applying a premise that is outside of Scripture and by imposing it upon the writing of the Apostle John, we are not able to explain when and where and how the “word was made flesh” in Jesus, except by assuming that a transformation took place to where spirit changed into flesh and became Jesus.
But, if we use the context established by the Apostle John, who established “the beginning” on the event of Jesus’ baptism and the receiving of the holy spirit as witnessed by John the Baptist, then we can—relatively speaking—determine when and where and how the “word was made flesh” in the person of Jesus. Overturning then the Binity and Trinity doctrines by discarding their Stoic-based premise regarding the logos and using the premise associated with the testimony of the prophet John who saw a manifestation of the spirit of God come from heaven and descend upon Jesus after Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, which explains how the “word was made flesh” in the person of Jesus (I Jn. 1:1; 5:6, 11).