Is the Trinity biblical? Is Jesus really God?

[civilwarbuff]

I don't see how you can ask those questions based on what I have stated.

Is that not what you are saying here:

Look at it this way: Jesus is God but God is not Jesus; the Father is God but God is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit.

 

[Free]

I asked.....will you answer them?......or will you simply claim modalism?

Everything is answered in my previous post, quite clearly actually. What I have given is Trinitarian, not modalism. I showed that disagreeing with what I initially stated actually leads to modalism. So that is your issue, not mine.

You asked: "What part of 'God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' and 'the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God' do you disagree with? Why cannot God be all three and all three be God? Being God works in both directions; it is not a one way street."

I disagree with none of that. It shows that you may not have read what I previously wrote closely enough.

Jesus is God but God is not Jesus; the Father is God but God is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit.

To say that God is Jesus would be to say that God is entirely Jesus, that is, only Jesus. Jesus and God would be interchangeable, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This would be the view of modalist/"Jesus Only" theology.

 

[Free]

I'll add a bit more:

God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is truly God, distinct from the other two persons. Jesus is God but God is not Jesus; the Father is God but God is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit.

Does that help, civilwarbuff ?

 

[Free]

the scripture says the Most High is not a man

sons of the Most High refers to Jesus, Adam, angels, believers, etc. are they all the Most High?

it makes no sense at all for the Most High to refer to Himself as "son of". He is the Father.

the doctrine comes from man. scripture is used to support it. and sometimes you have to create more doctrines to support the doctrine, deity of Jesus doctrine is used to support the trinity doctrine.


He is not a man but He is (according to the doctrine not scripture) a man. not sure about that one.


the Most High is not a son of anyone, in order to make it work you have to add something that is not there and we both know the Most High does not call Himself "son of". if He is a son, who is the Father of the Most High, the one that says He is the beginning and end?

Please go back and reread what I have given. I'm tired of repeating myself. And while you're at it, seriously study the use of "Son of God" as it is used of Jesus and note the context. I have asked this of numerous anti-Trinitarians and none have ever done so.

 

[jaybird]

Please go back and reread what I have given. I'm tired of repeating myself. And while you're at it, seriously study the use of "Son of God" as it is used of Jesus and note the context. I have asked this of numerous anti-Trinitarians and none have ever done so.

i would be more than happy to study this more. please give me a scripture where the Most High calls Himself "son of" and i will start there.

 

[Free]

i would be more than happy to study this more. please give me a scripture where the Most High calls Himself "son of" and i will start there.

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (ESV)

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

Joh 11:4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” (ESV)

Those are the verses where Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God. Being that he is truly God, there you have it.


Let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree with the following passages that Jesus is the only Son of God, why or why not?

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJV)

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father's side— He has revealed Him. (HCSB)

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. (ESV)

 

[whatgoeshere?]

I would object to the false label of "anti-trinitarian". "Anti" , as intended, seeks to make of those so labeled the adversary of the Trinity.
Whereas the scriptures speak plainly and whether or not they are seen as such is not the responsibility of those of us who do read them for what they teach.
It is indefensible in scripture to argue Immanuel, Jesus, Yeshua, Yeshua bin Joseph, was God. However, God was not Immanuel, Jesus, Yeshua, Yeshua bin Joseph.
It is indefensible using scripture to argue that the holy spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit. When the scriptures state in various places, God is Holy Spirit. For three separate identities to exist a person would have to and again it is indefensible using scripture, prove the scripture that says God is one, that has God himself saying he is and there is no other beside him, are not in the Bible. When they are.
Jesus was God but God is not Jesus? Jesus returned to the father so in that sense, yes, that's true, Jesus isn't separate in flesh of man anymore. He is one, as he was here in flesh, now with the father in Heaven.
It is all God. Hear oh Israel our God, our God is one.
Colossians 1:15-23 tells us, Jesus is Lord. A Lord? No, the Lord.

Deuteronomy32:39 — See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. (John 10:27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.)
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. (Mark 12:28-34)

1 Kings 8:60 — That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.


2 Samuel 7:22 — Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears

 

[Free]

I would object to the false label of "anti-trinitarian". "Anti" , as intended, seeks to make of those so labeled the adversary of the Trinity.

You are posting things against the doctrine of the Trinity, are you not? That makes you anti-Trinitarian. I can use non-Trinitarian if you prefer but that is a bit more dishonest since you are not simply something else other than Trinitarian, you are opposing.

Whereas the scriptures speak plainly and whether or not they are seen as such is not the responsibility of those of us who do read them for what they teach.
It is indefensible in scripture to argue Immanuel, Jesus, Yeshua, Yeshua bin Joseph, was God. However, God was not Immanuel, Jesus, Yeshua, Yeshua bin Joseph.
It is indefensible using scripture to argue that the holy spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit. When the scriptures state in various places, God is Holy Spirit.

Indefensible? But I show how it is the case, therefore it is not indefensible.

For three separate identities to exist a person would have to and again it is indefensible using scripture, prove the scripture that says God is one, that has God himself saying he is and there is no other beside him, are not in the Bible. When they are.
Jesus was God but God is not Jesus? Jesus returned to the father so in that sense, yes, that's true, Jesus isn't separate in flesh of man anymore. He is one, as he was here in flesh, now with the father in Heaven.

This is very confusing. I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.

It is all God. Hear oh Israel our God, our God is one.
Colossians 1:15-23 tells us, Jesus is Lord. A Lord? No, the Lord.

Deuteronomy32:39 — See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. (John 10:27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.)
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. (Mark 12:28-34)

1 Kings 8:60 — That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.


2 Samuel 7:22 — Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears

Yup. That all agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Indefensible? But I show how it is the case, therefore it is not indefensible.

I must have missed it, could you point to that post for me?

 

[Free]

I must have missed it, could you point to that post for me?

Missed what? That was not a response to you.

 

[jaybird]

Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

Joh 5:25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (ESV)

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (ESV)

Joh 11:4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” (ESV)

Those are the verses where Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God. Being that he is truly God, there you have it.

these are the passages in question. we already know Jesus calls Himself that that. your argument is that "son of" means Most High. we need a passage where the Most High calls Himself that or where someone refers to the Most High as that. i will save you some time and tell you there are not any.

Let me ask you this: Do you agree or disagree with the following passages that Jesus is the only Son of God, why or why not?

i agree Jesus is a/the Son of the Most High

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJV)

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father's side— He has revealed Him. (HCSB)

your very first scripture your twisting the meaning. the scripture says only begotten, not only son.

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. (ESV)

3439. monogenés
Strong's Concordance
monogenés: only begotten
Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace')
Short Definition: only, only-begotten, unique
Definition: only, only-begotten; unique.

we know Adam was a "son of" so i think we can conclude the word does not mean Jesus is the only Son of the Most High but rather Jesus is unique as He is the only one that was begotten.

 

[Free]

these are the passages in question. we already know Jesus calls Himself that that. your argument is that "son of" means Most High. we need a passage where the Most High calls Himself that or where someone refers to the Most High as that. i will save you some time and tell you there are not any.

The Bible shows that Jesus is God, so Jesus calling himself the Son of God answers your query. Even the Jews knew that Jesus, in referring to or implying that he was the Son of God, meant that he was claiming equality with the Father. Three times that occurs.

i agree Jesus is a/the Son of the Most High

The only point with these verses is clear: they all state that Jesus is the only Son of God. That you do not agree with. Your position is contrary to Scripture.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (NKJV)


your very first scripture your twisting the meaning. the scripture says only begotten, not only son.

There is absolutely no twisting. Please at least try and understand what is going on before you accuse someone of twisting the Scripture. I simply gave different versions which consistently show that Jesus is the only Son of God.

3439. monogenés
Strong's Concordance
monogenés: only begotten
Original Word: μονογενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: monogenés
Phonetic Spelling: (mon-og-en-ace')
Short Definition: only, only-begotten, unique
Definition: only, only-begotten; unique.

we know Adam was a "son of" so i think we can conclude the word does not mean Jesus is the only Son of the Most High but rather Jesus is unique as He is the only one that was begotten.

You will notice that the meaning of monogenes includes "only" and "unique." Regardless, the use of monogenes supports what I have been saying, namely, that when certain language is used of Jesus it has a more significant meaning than when used of anyone else. That has been my point and it has been sustained. Thank you for your help.

 

[jaybird]

The Bible shows that Jesus is God, so Jesus calling himself the Son of God answers your query. Even the Jews knew that Jesus, in referring to or implying that he was the Son of God, meant that he was claiming equality with the Father. Three times that occurs.

where does the bible say this, when the Most High says He is not a man, when Jesus says the Father is greater?

The only point with these verses is clear: they all state that Jesus is the only Son of God. That you do not agree with. Your position is contrary to Scripture.

There is absolutely no twisting. Please at least try and understand what is going on before you accuse someone of twisting the Scripture. I simply gave different versions which consistently show that Jesus is the only Son of God.

You will notice that the meaning of monogenes includes "only" and "unique." Regardless, the use of monogenes supports what I have been saying, namely, that when certain language is used of Jesus it has a more significant meaning than when used of anyone else. That has been my point and it has been sustained. Thank you for your help.

it can mean unique, only and begotten. its mindboggling you chose "only" when scripture have many others referred to as "son of". what do you do with all those passages? do you black them out with a marker and make believe they dont exist? Jesus even says all believers become sons of the Most High. but again, Jesus must mean something else being as the man made theology says different.

 

[Cygnus]

Good luck with that brother. John 10:30 makes it clear. "I and my Father are one."

In Phil 2...Jesus and God are presented as equal.

 

[Cygnus]

What part of 'God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' and 'the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God' do you disagree with? Why cannot God be all three and all three be God? Being God works in both directions; it is not a one way street.

I agree.
The anology isn't complete....but we have a body that is "us". We also have a spirit that is "us"...some argue we have a soul that is "us".....all 3 are different but all are us.

 

[whatgoeshere?]

Cygnus said:In Phil 2...Jesus and God are presented as equal.

True. And the scripture, when you have seen me you have seen the father. John 14:9.
And John 12:45 does not equivocate. It is Jesus speaking.
…44Then Jesus cried out, “Whoever believes in Me does not believe in Me alone, but in the One who sent Me. 45And whoever sees Me sees the One who sent Me.(http://biblehub.com/greek/1473.htm) 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in Me should remain in darkness.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Numbers 23:19
GOd is not a man....
GOd cannot lie
JAmes 1:13
GOd cannot be tempted
Malachi 3:6
GOd cannot change
1 corinthians 8:6
There is only one God the Father
Deuteronomy 6:5
Hear oh ISrael Yahweh your God is one
The greatest commandment is that there is only One God
Mark 12:29
Mark 12:32

and? What your conclusion from these verses?

 

[Papa Zoom]

I asked.....will you answer them?......or will you simply claim modalism?

He's not claiming modalism. Far from it. He simply is saying that Jesus is God but God is not Jesus. It's a matter of interpretation. I understood it to mean that

Jesus is fully man AND fully God
but
He is not God as in God the Father. That would be modalism. Jesus is a separate person as is the HS.

 

[Papa Zoom]

He's not claiming modalism. Far from it. He simply is saying that Jesus is God but God is not Jesus. It's a matter of interpretation. I understood it to mean that

Jesus is fully man AND fully God
but
He is not God as in God the Father. That would be modalism. Jesus is a separate person as is the HS.

I actually think I have a clearer picture of what Free means. Isn't trying to sort out the Trinity fun?!

 

[Free]

where does the bible say this, when the Most High says He is not a man, when Jesus says the Father is greater?

I have given you where. You keep asking where "2" is in the Bible. I have shown you how 1+1=2, yet you don't even address my points and continue to ask me to show you were 2 is. If you can't see how 1+1=2, then there is nothing more I can say to help you.

If you could start by addressing the points I am making rather than ignoring and just repeating your question, that would help.

it can mean unique, only and begotten. its mindboggling you chose "only" when scripture have many others referred to as "son of".

This shows that you are not at all reading what I am saying. I very clearly said, "You will notice that the meaning of monogenes includes "only" and "unique." Regardless, the use of monogenes supports what I have been saying." I never "chose" anything. I merely pointed out that it does include those definitions. That is why some translations simply have "one" or "one and only." There is nothing mind-boggling about simply pointing things out. Not to mention that "only" has nothing to do with "son of;" "only" is a meaning of monogenes, "son of" is not.

Again, the Bible makes abundantly clear Jesus is the only Son of God in a sense that is vastly different than any other referred to as a son of God.

what do you do with all those passages? do you black them out with a marker and make believe they dont exist?

Every passage fits the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, and only the doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus even says all believers become sons of the Most High. but again, Jesus must mean something else being as the man made theology says different.

The Bible very clearly states the believers become sons (and daughters) of God through adoption. That is significantly different than Jesus being the Son of God.