Proof of Trinity

[LovethroughDove]

You have to tell me what you were trying to say but it looks like you are describing Subordinationism--which teaches that the Son is not equal to the Father, and is considered heresy.

https://carm.org/subordinationism

Philippians 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I believe what scripture says. It is both. He is God, but under the Father.

 

[Free]

Philippians 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I believe what scripture says. It is both. He is God, but under the Father.

You're close then and perhaps you will agree with the following. What Scripture says, and this passage in particular, is that the Son is equal to the Father as God, but subordinate in what is referred to as the Economic Trinity--the Trinity as it relates to us and the plan of salvation. Jesus "emptied himself" to become one of us and as the God-man he submitted to the Father while doing his work on earth.

 

[Randy]

Your question does not show anything. Jesus is the God-man, God incarnate (John 1:1-3,14; Phil. 2:6-8), so there is no conflict with Jesus saying to the Father that he commits his spirit into his hands.

.

God is Spirit there certainly is a conflict with a ONE God outlook if you believe Jesus always was and always was God.
Again you side stepped what I asked . And I am not against Father, Son, Holy Spirit. I would state I am explaining the trinity in terms of what the scripture states.

Jesus calls the Father the One true God. If Jesus always was and always was God how then do you believe in ONE God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit MY SPIRIT" God is Spirit and Jesus clearly identified the FATHER as the One true God. There can NOT be two Spirits who are divine. The HS is the Fathers Spirit. The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord. Not a Separate distinct
person from God the Father.

Its clear to me the Son that was, (His Spirit), was in the tent of the body that God prepared for Him. Jesus was not emptied of the Father. He may not have walked the world with all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge and in a fully human body but God the Father was with Him every step of the way. Jesus =>It is the Father in me doing His work.... Oneness as Jesus taught.

I don't believe Jesus is God. I believe He is Gods Son. One in whom God, (The Father ). was pleased to have HIS fullness dwell in Jesus so then Jesus has all the fullness of God in Him. (The FATHER) In that CONTEXTJesus is ALL that the Father is. Called Mighty God.

The Spirit of Christ - The Spirit that was sent was sent in Jesus's name. The Holy Spirit represents the will and mind of Jesus in a christian But it is the one and same Holy Spirit and the Spirit was promised by the Father as in "pour out My Spirit" and the Spirit Jesus sent He received from the Father. If Jesus wanted to communicate with you He simply has to will what He wants to state and the Spirit would convey (speaks what He hears) the message. Jesus does not have to come down to earth. Jesus has been given a place on the Fathers throne. He wills and the Spirit acts. The Father gave Him that authority.

As I read Jesus is not a God who always was but a Son who was glorified by the Father.

There is no scripture that states God always was let alone His firstborn.

In the context of A God the Father states there was no God FORMED before Him. So "formed" was not a foreign ideas in regard to A God to the Father. Was the Father formed? I don't know. Has the Father always existed? I don't know but I do know there is no other God but Him and He created all things and all things were created by His will and of course what He created was created through Jesus. Was Jesus formed? YES by His God. The Firstborn has His own Spirit (not God) but has all the fullness of God IN Him. (The FATHER).

Are you suggesting the spirit in Jesus was not God because of the incarnation. If so then what part of Him was God? You can not have two separate distinct divine spirits or you have two Gods. And again Jesus clearly stated the Father was the One true God and His God. Jesus has been glorified with where He was before and He still called the Father His God. He uses truth.

Randy

 

[childeye]

If I speak, then my word is my expressing myself, and my word is me in that sense. It is reasonable to say that my word did not exist before I spoke, but yet it also can also reasonably be said, that it did reside within me, as me, even before I spoke it.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If I speak, then my word is my expressing myself, and my word is me in that sense. It is reasonable to say that my word did not exist before I spoke, but yet it also can also reasonably be said, that it did reside within me, as me, even before I spoke it.

Whatever you say, but I still can't hear you.

 

[childeye]

Whatever you say, but I still can't hear you.

Are you saying you don't understand what I said? Why is it that no one understands what I say?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Are you saying you don't understand what I said? Why is it that no one understands what I say?

You are too poetic.
Speak to us 4th graders.

 

[Free]

If I speak, then my word is my expressing myself, and my word is me in that sense. It is reasonable to say that my word did not exist before I spoke, but yet it also can also reasonably be said, that it did reside within me, as me, even before I spoke it.

I do not believe that is what John means by the use of "Word." Words are speech or in thought and cannot be said to have personhood. It would also mean that at some point the Word came into existence, which contradicts John, Paul, and Jesus.

 

[childeye]

I do not believe that is what John means by the use of "Word." Words are speech or in thought and cannot be said to have personhood. It would also mean that at some point the Word came into existence, which contradicts John, Paul, and Jesus.

I believe that I understand your two points, and I also feel I have addressed them. The term "Word" is used for a reason. I feel we must take it at face value. If God's Word is not His Person, then it would be inconceivable that the Word could be made flesh. John 1:14. God's Word is Him, and His Word are His thoughts being expressed, and so His Word is His Person. John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

As for it having to mean that the Word came into existence, I also have shown that it is reasonable to claim both; That His Word existed Eternal with God as Him, and yet also came into existence when spoken. This would therefore be an issue only because of semantic confusion. It is no different than saying that the Father precedes the Son in the literal sense, but yet the Son is the Father and resided within the Father. Word, Father, Son. These are the temporal terms John uses, and Christ uses for our understanding of an eternal concept.
John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then,Show us the Father?

 

[WIP]

I do not believe that is what John means by the use of "Word." Words are speech or in thought and cannot be said to have personhood. It would also mean that at some point the Word came into existence, which contradicts John, Paul, and Jesus.

Rather than the Word coming into existence perhaps it was manifest as in being revealed or made known?

 

[childeye]

Rather than the Word coming into existence perhaps it was manifest as in being revealed or made known?

How about the Word being the means, or energy of creation so that it is 'existence', as we understand existence from a temporal view. Because a temporal view has a beginning while an Eternal view has no beginning. 1 In the beginning was the Word,

 

[childeye]

Rather than the Word coming into existence perhaps it was manifest as in being revealed or made known?

By the way, after reading this a second time, I think it is quite proper both in thought and choice of words. Well said.

 

[childeye]

You are too poetic.
Speak to us 4th graders.

Too poetic? I have been told that I do tend to come across as a mystic. I can't help it. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I would not be able to comprehend any of this subject matter when I was in fourth grade.

 

[jocor]

I believe "the word was made flesh" refers to the Father's spoken words and thoughts being made a human being. Yahweh spoke His Son into existence by creating a sperm with the exact DNA necessary to produce a male child when joined with Mary's egg. The "logos" was an "it", not a "him". Do not be misled by the capitalization of "Word" which leads one to believe it is a proper noun labeling a person rather than a thing (Yahweh's spoken words and thoughts). The Son is being read into John 1:1-4. English Bibles prior to the KJV such as the Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible and The Geneva Bible all render John 1:3-4 as, "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

 

[childeye]

I believe "the word was made flesh" refers to the Father's spoken words and thoughts being made a human being. Yahweh spoke His Son into existence by creating a sperm with the exact DNA necessary to produce a male child when joined with Mary's egg. The "logos" was an "it", not a "him". Do not be misled by the capitalization of "Word" which leads one to believe it is a proper noun labeling a person rather than a thing (Yahweh's spoken words and thoughts). The Son is being read into John 1:1-4. English Bibles prior to the KJV such as the Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible and The Geneva Bible all render John 1:3-4 as, "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

When I capitalize the word "Word", I do this because it is meant to denote something more than just any other word. It is the Word of God. I capitalize God because it signifies thee True God, rather than a false 'god'.

The term 'it' does imply a thing, and I use 'it' myself as such, when describing the energy that created all things. But the Personhood of the Word made flesh is also viable when contemplating the Christ as the True Image of God, which is meant to be understood in a personal way. After all, We ourselves as persons, are made of the same energy, and 'it' is our life and our light. So note the King James translation John 1:3-4
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

[jocor]

The term 'it' does imply a thing, and I use 'it' myself as such, when describing the energy that created all things. But the Personhood of the Word made flesh is also viable when contemplating the Christ as the True Image of God, which is meant to be understood in a personal way.

The "Personhood" of the word made flesh can only exist once the word was made a person. There is no "personhood" prior to that except in Yahweh's plan of salvation that existed in His mind, IMHO.

 

[childeye]

The "Personhood" of the word made flesh can only exist once the word was made a person. There is no "personhood" prior to that except in Yahweh's plan of salvation that existed in His mind, IMHO.

This is a semantic issue which has caused controversy for millennia. Please consider that even the meaning of the term 'person' is not a settled issue. In law, even a corporation is a person. Meanwhile some people will say only humans are persons and then go and call their dog a he or she which denotes a person in some aspect.

In my view, a person is a form of intellect not meant to be associated with a thing that cannot feel. Persons have feelings, as in emotions, which is the same meaning implied by the word spirit or animus, that which animates. It is therefore not plausible to me, that the Word, which is spirit and animates us, has no feelings or emotions to begin with. In my mind a person is greater than a thing, so I don't think we can be created as persons by some thing lesser than ourselves that doesn't even comprehend what a person is.

You are talking to me with your words, and they are your person in my perception, full of feelings descriptive of you.

 

[Free]

It is no different than saying that the Father precedes the Son in the literal sense, but yet the Son is the Father and resided within the Father. Word, Father, Son.

The Son is not the Father. That is the heresy of Modalism. The Son is always, and has always been, distinct from the Father.

You should note that Paul states Jesus has always existed, explicitly in Phil 2:6, and implicitly in Col 1:16-17 and 1 Cor 8:6.

 

[Free]

Rather than the Word coming into existence perhaps it was manifest as in being revealed or made known?

To which verse are you referring?

 

[Free]

I believe "the word was made flesh" refers to the Father's spoken words and thoughts being made a human being. Yahweh spoke His Son into existence by creating a sperm with the exact DNA necessary to produce a male child when joined with Mary's egg. The "logos" was an "it", not a "him". Do not be misled by the capitalization of "Word" which leads one to believe it is a proper noun labeling a person rather than a thing (Yahweh's spoken words and thoughts). The Son is being read into John 1:1-4. English Bibles prior to the KJV such as the Tyndale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, The Great Bible and The Geneva Bible all render John 1:3-4 as, "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The "Personhood" of the word made flesh can only exist once the word was made a person. There is no "personhood" prior to that except in Yahweh's plan of salvation that existed in His mind, IMHO.

John 1:1-3 as speaking of the Son is completely consistent with 1 Cor 8:6, Col1:15-17, and Phil 2:5-8. This has nothing to do with the capitalization of "Word." As childeye has correctly pointed out, John very clearly correlates the Son with the Word, using personal terms which do not fit with mere ideas or "its."