Hebrews 2:14, 17 NIV - “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- …. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way …”

1 Timothy 3:16 states that “God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit …”

Luke 1:35 NASB – “The HOLY SPIRIT WILL COME UPON YOU and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and FOR THAT REASON the holy child shall be called THE SON OF GOD.”

Matthew 1:20 NASB – “… the child who has been conceived in her is OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.”

The scriptures inform us that the Holy Spirit of God who descended upon the virgin in Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:20 “shared in their humanity.” Hebrews 2:14-17 proves that someone pre-existed to partake of flesh and blood in order to “share in their humanity.” Who then is the He who partook of flesh and blood in Heb. 2:14? Who then is the He who was manifested in the flesh in 1 Timothy 3:16? Who then is the He who pre-existed the life of Abraham in John 8:58? Who then is that “Yahweh who” would “become” our “salvation” as “the stone which the builders rejected?” Psalm 118:14-23 says Yahweh, but Mark 12:10-11 says Jesus. And who is the One who's “holy arm” was “revealed” as a true man. Isaiah 52:10 and Isaiah 53:1 says Yahweh, but John 12:37-39 says Jesus.

The Son of God could not have pre-existed as a Son because the word “Son” means an “offspring” or an “inheritor.” Only a true offspring of someone else can be a real Son. That is why Hebrews 1:5 cites 2 Samuel 7:14 to prove that God the Father said, “I will be a Father to him, and HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME.” Hence, God the Father said in the Old Testament that He would be a Father to the Son and that the Son would be a true Son to the Father in the prophetic future rather than in eternity past. For Heb. 2:17 states that the He who partook of flesh and blood was “made fully human in every way” just like all men are. That is why Jesus is called a child born and a Son given.

God as God never had a mother, but “God with us” as a true man (a true offspring of God) could have a mother. Therefore we know that there is a definite distinction between God as the omnipresent Father whose Holy Spirit has always filled “heaven and earth” (Jer. 23:24), and that “God with us” (Matthew 1:23) who was “manifested in the flesh” (1 Timothy 3:16) as a real man. Hence, the only true God is the unchangeable Father (Malachi 3:6) outside of the incarnation, while the Son of God is the offspring of God as that same God with us inside the incarnation as a true man who was miraculously conceived and born by the Holy Spirit of that only true God Himself.

If Jesus is not God who also became man, then how is it that Jesus can now hear and answer prayer (John 14:14)? How is it that Jesus now “fills all things” (Ephesians 4:10). And how is it that Jesus' Spirit now indwells all true believers who have faith in him (John 14:16-18; Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:9)? When God became a man “He had to be made like them”, “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17 NIV), in order to save humanity. Since God is not ontologically a man (Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man”), we know that the Son of God could not be God as God, but only God with us a true and legitimate man.

Wherefore, inspired scripture proves that the Holy Spirit of God who became a man via incarnation through the virgin was made exactly like all men with a human spirit as well as a human body. This explains how Jesus had a true human nature and how he could legitimately experience temptations. This also explains how Jesus had a genuine ability to pray and have a loving relationship with God as his Father just as any true man could.


Early Christian writers such as Ignatius and Mathetes who were taught by the original apostles within the first century did not believe that the Son of God always existed as a Son. Ignatius had taught that “God (had) become (a) man (Ephesians 7:2)” rather than a Son becoming a man.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Ephesians (7:2),

“There is One Physician both physical and spiritual, born and unborn, God become man, true life in death, sprung both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering, and then incapable of it. - Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Trinitarians allege that a God the Son was “eternally begotten” which is the same thing as saying, “eternally born.” Yet the earliest Christian witness of Ignatius and the Christians of Asia Minor who lived during the lifetime of the original apostles taught that the true identify of Jesus Christ was “born and unborn” because he eternally existed as the unborn God before God also became a man within the virgin. Hence, the Son of God was “sprung both from Mary (from humanity – Gal. 4:4) and from God (from Deity via the Holy Spirit of God – Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35).”

Ignatius’ seven genuine epistles to the churches in Asia Minor in the early second century (about 107 A.D.) prove that the early Christians of Asia who were taught by the original apostles believed that the Son of God is “God become man” by being “sprung both from Mary and from God.” Since the churches of Asia Minor were in fellowship with each other, it is highly unlikely that their teachings differed from that of Ignatius and the original apostles. Wherefore, the Apostolic teaching of the earliest Christian witness was that God became a true man who “sprung both from Mary and from God.” This means that the Christ child was formed from Mary’s human DNA united with the indescribable divine DNA (with male chromosomes) provided by the Holy Spirit when God incarnated Himself as a man through the virgin. For if Jesus had been conceived from just his human mother then he would have been a mere clone of Mary as a female rather than being conceived and born as a man child. Therefore God Himself had to have miraculously provided male chromosomes within the virgin egg of Mary for the Christ child to have been conceived and born as a male offspring.

In the 11th chapter of his Epistle to Diognetus, Mathetes presents himself as, “having been a disciple of Apostles, I come forward as a teacher of the Gentiles, ministering worthily to them.”

Mathetes wrote in his Epistle to Diognetus Chapter 11,

“This is He who, being from everlasting, is TODAY CALLED THE SON …”

Notice that Mathetes spoke of Christ as being the “He” who is “from Everlasting, is today called the Son.” According to Mathetes, the Son was not called the Son until “today.” Mathetes identified the Son as the Father in his Epistle to Diognetus chapter nine (“…having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life ...” – Mathetes, Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 9). So according to Mathetes (who was a disciple of the original apostles), the Son is the man who “is today called the Son”, but the “He who” was “from everlasting” is the Father.

GOD being manifested as A MAN (THE SON – 1 Tim. 3:16), and man displaying power as God. But neither was the former a mere imagination (GOD before being manifested as a man), nor did the second imply a bare humanity (THE SON); but the one was absolutely true (GOD), and the other an economical arrangement (THE SON). Now THAT RECEIVED A BEGINNING (the Son) which was perfected by God.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter 19)

Ignatius had identified the Son as “an economical arrangement” rather than as a living pre-incarnate Son before “God” was “manifested as a man.” Ignatius did not merely affirm that God was manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 1:14), but that God was “manifested AS A MAN (Heb. 2:17 NIV – “he was made fully human in every way” in that he was “made” exactly “like unto his” human “brethren” - KJV).” Hence, according to Ignatius and the earliest Christian witness, our God not only came in the flesh, but He also came by being manifested as a true man, and as a true man, the Son displayed the “the power of God.”

Ignatius clearly described the Word (logos) as an impersonal “THAT” before it received “a beginning” as the child born and son given. The apostle John did the same in 1 John 1:1 when he opened his first epistle by saying, “THAT which was from the beginning” rather than “He who was from the beginning.” Since there is not a single early Christian writer on record (before the third century) who ever believed that the Son always literally existed as a Son throughout eternity past, the historical data proves that there were no true Trinitarians within the first few centuries of Christian history.


Hebrews 1:3 informs us that Jesus as a Son is the Father’s Person “reproduced” as the express image of the Father’s “Person” as a human person.

“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person …” (Heb. 1:3 – KJV)

Rather than being the brightness of His own glory and the exact image of His own divine person, Jesus as the Son of God the Father is the brightness of God the Father’s glory and the exact image of God the Father’s person as a human person. This is not what we would expect if the Son of God has always existed as an alleged coequal and timeless God the Son Person throughout eternity past. Since the Son radiates the Fathers glory and is the exact “imprint,” “copy,” and “reproduction” (“express image” is translated from the Greek