Proof of Trinity

[Gregg]

As we discussed before, I provided scripture, per your request, where the angels (Sons of God) did exist and sang with joy while God created (not the angels). You went to- Astronomy, celestial objects not beings. (smile) I agree that the importance is in Christ not the angels of God. Genesis does not include the Son nor the angels of God. Though I do hold the creation (genesis) was created at Gods command and by His will through the Son. But in regard to the Son - It would be the Father in Him doing His work. As in "let us" create....

Randy

You acknowledge God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as present before Gen 1:1. Do you believe that the physical flesh and blood body of the Son was present before Gen 1:1?

- - -

Regarding "When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:7):

Here 'morning stars' are equated with 'sons of God.' The shouting of the 'sons of God' [ie the many suns or morning stars] refers to the stars giving their light. The subject matter in Job 38 suggests that inanimate creation [stars, the earth, heaven, sea] has remained obedient to the laws of physics that govern them; where sentient man has not remained obedient to his Creator. The stars give their light for which they were created, but man transgressed the boundaries established by his Creator.

The stars remained faithful by continually giving off their light, but man transgressed preferring darkness over light.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Free #578

Firstly, what is this 'one other doctrine'?

That denominationalism is OK. A doctrine revealed by fruit more than words. It's not embodied or defined in a Creed. Some say they think it isn't OK, while they create a new denomination to replace another two. Which creates two denominations composed of conservatives in one and liberals in another after the dust settles. Ecumenism in action. Then there's the non-denominationalists who think that just thinking it's not OK while still being a denomination makes it all OK. Then there are those who just presume that all denominations should be one in them. One big giant denomination-like entity. Like the Roman Empire. Like it is the Kingdom of God on earth. And though I'm thinking of one denomination as the chief perpetrator of the idea, the idea certainly isn't limited to it. Think closed communion for starters.

Secondly, there are many other doctrines that are common to all of Christianity--monotheism, man created in the image of God, the Fall, the virgin birth, and the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, to name a few.

I think you could be right. But it would depend on a narrow view of Christianity. I have to agree that monotheism is commonly accepted, though through a misunderstanding of the Trinity, in practice it might not be as common as it seems. Man created in the image of God? That might be common. Don't think I've run across anyone who denied that, even liberals. The Fall is understood differently by major denominations. Particularly the extent of original sin. The virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus? Most likely denied by liberals who also deny the Trinity. Yes, you could be right that there is unity in a few more things than just the Trinity. I'd hate to start questioning all of these other points of unity as well.

So, with all that unity, why are there still denominations?

Don't be disappointed....yet. I just haven't had the time to respond lately, but I will get to it.

Hope I'm still around to read it. I was curious about your updated version of your original response to my problem.

Jesse Stone said:
Asyncritus is much more interesting an opponent.

Free said
It depends on what you mean by 'interesting'

Well, maybe more interesting than me. I'm mostly a one track mind on this forum. Since I only came here to resolve one issue.

There is nothing wrong with not being opponents. It just means that our dialogue is more cordial, which it should be anyway on a Christian forum. It's 'somewhat' difficult to get to the bottom of things when the dialogue is unfriendly.

There's something we can agree on.

 

[Jesse Stone]

Gregg #579

Jesse said (clarified)
[In the Old Testament] God refers to himself by personal pronouns. Others refer to God by personal pronouns. [The number of times God "might have" referred to himself by plural pronouns contrasted with the number of times he definitely used personal pronouns, makes those times he "might have" used plural pronouns to refer to himself inconsequential, indeed irrelevant, by comparison]

The plural Elohim is never translated as plural in Jewish or Christian Bibles [English] whenever it refers to Jehovah.... [Or Greek Bibles apparently, according to what you said, which makes me curious about the Latin]

Why would the God of eternity, who knows the end from the beginning, so consistently refer to himself as one person, if he is actually three persons? Why would a God who is so adamant about being the one and only God and that his name is "the self-existent one", then go to such great lengths to conceal that he is one God in three persons? Especially to a people who were surrounded by all kinds of Gods, who by experience would no doubt be better able to understand such a God, than one who lives today where such Gods are a rarity in most of the civilized world?

Do you have an answer to the question?

 

[Gregg]

Gregg #579


Do you have an answer to the question?

I do not understand why God does some things, but by faith I accept them. I did not grasp every aspect of the Trinity when I believed in the LORD Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. The LORD found me while I was not loving Him, while I was His enemy; but by His grace through faith I saw His love for me demonstrated in Jesus Christ. I responded by faith, while not yet having answers to everything about God and life. [And I still have a thousand questions on the table before God].

Can you see how you are one man - having a body, a soul, and a spirit?

I am not intending to be circular, or Socratic.

 

[Randy]

You acknowledge God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as present before Gen 1:1. Do you believe that the physical flesh and blood body of the Son was present before Gen 1:1?

- - -

Yes I believe Jesus was before the world began. I can reason He had form like God on the throne. I wouldn't state physical or flesh. But a body in the order of Spirit. We are to be like Jesus thats what we know and the new body is not of the dust of the earth but in the order of Spirit. A mystery according to Paul.

Jesus suddenly appeared to the disciples and they could touch Him.

Randy

 

[Free]

That denominationalism is OK. A doctrine revealed by fruit more than words. It's not embodied or defined in a Creed. Some say they think it isn't OK, while they create a new denomination to replace another two. Which creates two denominations composed of conservatives in one and liberals in another after the dust settles. Ecumenism in action. Then there's the non-denominationalists who think that just thinking it's not OK while still being a denomination makes it all OK. Then there are those who just presume that all denominations should be one in them. One big giant denomination-like entity. Like the Roman Empire. Like it is the Kingdom of God on earth. And though I'm thinking of one denomination as the chief perpetrator of the idea, the idea certainly isn't limited to it. Think closed communion for starters.

Denominationalism isn't a doctrine, it's just the way things are organized. It is perhaps okay in some ways but it is not okay in others, or overall. It shouldn't be but it just is the way things are.

Secondly, there are many other doctrines that are common to all of Christianity--monotheism, man created in the image of God, the Fall, the virgin birth, and the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, to name a few.

I think you could be right. But it would depend on a narrow view of Christianity. I have to agree that monotheism is commonly accepted, though through a misunderstanding of the Trinity, in practice it might not be as common as it seems. Man created in the image of God? That might be common. Don't think I've run across anyone who denied that, even liberals. The Fall is understood differently by major denominations. Particularly the extent of original sin. The virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Jesus? Most likely denied by liberals who also deny the Trinity. Yes, you could be right that there is unity in a few more things than just the Trinity. I'd hate to start questioning all of these other points of unity as well.

The main point is that anyone who is a Christian believes in one God who created everything, including man in his image, and that man fell, in some way, from relationship with God. Such a one also believes in the virgin birth and the death and resurrection of Jesus.Those are fundamental beliefs of Christianity; one cannot be a Christian and deny them.

So, with all that unity, why are there still denominations?

Many reasons. Some are understandable and some are not. But the point is that there are still fundamental beliefs that all Christians believe, that one must believe if one is to be a Christian. To claim to be a Christian is one thing, anyone can do that, but actually being one is something else.

 

[Gregg]

Yes I believe Jesus was before the world began. I can reason He had form like God on the throne. I wouldn't state physical or flesh. But a body in the order of Spirit. We are to be like Jesus thats what we know and the new body is not of the dust of the earth but in the order of Spirit. A mystery according to Paul.

Jesus suddenly appeared to the disciples and they could touch Him.

Randy

Thank you for your patience and candor with my inquiries.

"For now we see through a mirror in dimness, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will fully know even as I also was fully known" (1 Cor 13:12).

 

[Randy]

Thank you for your patience and candor with my inquiries.

"For now we see through a mirror in dimness, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will fully know even as I also was fully known" (1 Cor 13:12).

In some things yes. Jesus being a Son is clear to me before the creation. Nothing was given about His form however we can reason that the image of the living God would have form like His Father on the throne and also the angels of God have form though also of spirit nature. I have the Spirit of Christ in me a new creation. (Jesus Lives!) The world in its wisdom cannot study such things. For Spirit cannot be touched or perceived or measured or studied. Only in your own being can you feel the Holy Spirit at the Lords will. So now with so many different thoughts if someone asks me if I am a Christian I state "I have the Spirit of Christ in me" Though I use scripture as my foundation for my understanding and reasoning (66 books)
Randy

 

[Randy]

John also wrote this "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen."

I have no doubt that the apostles were one in that Jesus is the Firstborn of God hence the Father is Jesus's God. (before creation)

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Jesus as a Son states "Father into your hands I commit my spirit" Jesus identified the HS as the Spirit of the Father not His own. Jesus identified He "lived" or lives by the Living Father (not on His own in the same context we live by Him.)

As I have stated in reading all that is written about Jesus and I would add a lot of attention was given to what "Jesus stated" my conclusion does not completely agree with trinitarian doctrine.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son

Randy

 

[JLB]

Jesse Stone said -

Do you have an answer for this?

It would be nice if you could just address the problem itself rather than try to prove to yourself alone that the "us" verses and "plural" Elohim proves the Trinity. Or that New Testament verses prove the Trinity, since I'm not a believer in progressive revelation. An idea that only works if the Bible is written by men alone. As if God is prone to giving out updated information or new releases. If that were the case, then it would be foolish to think that the New Testament is the end of God's revelation. Which leads to Catholicism or Islam. Or better yet, Bahaism. Nor am I a believer in the idea that there are two different Gods being referred to in the Christian Bible. Which is what is at stake in my question, only if the New Testament actually does teach some form of Trinitarianism. The idea that it is the one God speaking is plausible, but for either side of the fence. And thus doesn't answer the question.

Why would the God of eternity, who knows the end from the beginning, so consistently refer to himself as one person, if he is actually three persons? Why would a God who is so adamant about being the one and only God and that his name is "the self-existent one", then go to such great lengths to conceal that he is one God in three persons? Especially to a people who were surrounded by all kinds of Gods, who by experience would no doubt be better able to understand such a God, than one who lives today where such Gods are a rarity in most of the civilized world?

In the Old Testament, God chose to declare Himself as the One True God to those who did not have the capacity to understand the Mystery of Elohim.

The Mystery of Elohim is revealed to those who have a divine nature, ie: those who have been born again and filled with The Spirit.

as it is written -

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14


Here Paul reveals to us something of this Mystery -

31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:31-32

Who are the ones in this Mystery that Paul is referring to?


JLB

 

[Edward]

In the Old Testament, God chose to declare Himself as the One True God to those who did not have the capacity to understand the Mystery of Elohim.

The Mystery of Elohim is revealed to those who have a divine nature, ie: those who have been born again and filled with The Spirit.

as it is written -

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14


Here Paul reveals to us something of this Mystery -

31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:31-32

Who are the ones in this Mystery that Paul is referring to?


JLB

It seems to me that the way the greek language uses the term 'mystery' is slightly different than the way that we are used to using it. The use it more along the lines of 'something that was hidden before, but is now revealed'
Try reading that passage with this in mind and it's a little clearer then.

 

[JLB]

It seems to me that the way the greek language uses the term 'mystery' is slightly different than the way that we are used to using it. The use it more along the lines of 'something that was hidden before, but is now revealed'
Try reading that passage with this in mind and it's a little clearer then.

Paul's statement in his letter to the Ephesians, This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church... indicates that this mystery has been revealed to him.

He states that this mystery, though referring to Adam, has its fulfillment in Christ and the Church.

Paul undoubtedly did not understand this as a Pharisee, as he was persecution all who believed in Jesus Christ.

The mystery though hidden in times past has been revealed to those who have the capacity to understand, ie; a divine nature. One that has been born again and filled with the knowledge of Christ.

Maybe you could try reading this passage and answering the question I asked Jesse Stone.

31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:31-32

Who are the ones in this Mystery that Paul is referring to?


JLB

 

[Gregg]

Is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son

Randy

I want to understand your perspective regarding who existed before creation.

Without explanation, please state or list by name who you believe existed before creation.

 

[JLB]

I want to understand your perspective regarding who existed before creation.

Without explanation, please state or list by name who you believe existed before creation.

The Father
The Word
The Spirit

All existed before creation.

 

[Gregg]

The Father
The Word
The Spirit

All existed before creation.

I agree, that is if you are referring to the Son as 'the Logos' as John describes in Jn 1:1.
But I am wanting Randy's perspective.

 

[JLB]

I agree, that is if you are referring to the Son as 'the Logos' as John describes in Jn 1:1.
But I am wanting Randy's perspective.

Ok

 

[Gregg]

Ok

JLB.

My apologies! as I was not intending to be disrespectful.

 

[JLB]

JLB.

My apologies! as I was not intending to be disrespectful.

You weren't.

 

[Randy]

I want to understand your perspective regarding who existed before creation.

Without explanation, please state or list by name who you believe existed before creation.

Father=>Son=>Angels=>Creation (Genesis 1:1)

 

[JLB]

Father=>Son=>Angels=>Creation (Genesis 1:1)

Where is the Holy Spirit in your answer?


JLB