Doctrine of the Trinity

[Butch5]

So God is what I posted above:

Those are attributes. I'am asking what God is.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Those are attributes. I'am asking what God is.

When it says in the bible, God "is" Love. It says that God "is" Light. But it also says that we(humans) have seen God wrapped in flesh. John 14:9-10 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father? Don you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"

Now, here is where it ALL comes together and I NEVER hear the truth, but it is the truth and maybe there should be a thread started about it. Jesus can say this without blasphemy because he has the Father's DNA literally in him. Divine. When they wanted to stone him for blasphemy he asked them (John 10:33-36) "We are not stoning you for any of these (his miracles)," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods', to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Whey then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?...... so this would be anytime they were out to kill him.

He can say you have seen the Father looking at him without blasphemy because that is as close to looking at the Father as any human would have gotten.

So when we die, we get to see the face of the Father. We get to see the face of the Son and we are part of the family of God forever.

God is made up of a Holy family. It is not blasphemy to say that God is a Father who has a Son and other adopted in children.

 

[Butch5]

When it says in the bible, God "is" Love. It says that God "is" Light. But it also says that we(humans) have seen God wrapped in flesh. John 14:9-10 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father? Don you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"

Now, here is where it ALL comes together and I NEVER hear the truth, but it is the truth and maybe there should be a thread started about it. Jesus can say this without blasphemy because he has the Father's DNA literally in him. Divine. When they wanted to crucify him for blasphemy he asked them "why do you want to kill me because I say I am God's Son?"

He can say you have seen the Father looking at him without blasphemy because that is as close to looking at the Father as any human would have gotten.

So when we die, we get to see the face of the Father. We get to see the face of the Son and we are part of the family of God forever.

God is made up of a Holy family. It is not blasphemy to say that God is a Father who has a Son and other adopted in children.

I can agree with the last statement, however, I'm not sure that what I'm asking is clear. I'm asking what God is, not about attributes or qualities of God but rather what He is. In the last statement you said, God is a father, thus denoting that the Father is God. If being God means being a Father how is Jesus God since He's not a father? Do you see what I'm getting at? To say God is a Father doesn't really explain what He is but rather who He is. I really don't expect that you'll be able to answer the question if you understand the Trinity in the typical modern way.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Butch5, I edited my response with the scripture that shows Jesus explaining why they have "hated me without a cause". They thought they were adhering to the Law by wanting to kill him, but they ignoring scripture when "I have said you are gods" small (g)

I think you are bypassing this scripture. God the Father is (big G), Jesus and believers under him are (small g)............ But, I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of God is Love, Light and Holiness....he can be this and still have US as part of him, yet be in submission to him

 

[Butch5]

Butch5, I edited my response with the scripture that shows Jesus explaining why they have "hated me without a cause". They thought they were adhering to the Law by wanting to kill him, but they ignoring scripture when "I have said you are gods" small (g)

I think you are bypassing this scripture. God the Father is (big G), Jesus and believers under him are (small g)............ But, I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of God is Love, Light and Holiness....he can be this and still have US as part of him, yet be in submission to him

I don't believe this is the Trinity. Trinitarians believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God with a big G

 

[LovethroughDove]

I really don't expect that you'll be able to answer the question if you understand the Trinity in the typical modern way.

I was just re-reading this, and I might not be like the Trinitarians? Don't know.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

If we agree, how did you refute my argument?

Please reference my first post to you. I provided an explanation for my disagreement, which you said I did not.

See, you’re doing what I’m talking about. You said it’s possible to conceive of such a being. What being? A being that consists of three persons? If that’s what you’re saying it is an impossibility. How can three lives be one life?

Are you speaking of life biologically or spiritually? This statement doesn't really make any sense and you commit the same fallacy by using the same word to express the union and individuality of the Trinity. Trinitarians claim that the three persons of the Godhead are consubstantial, they share the same substance and essence.

It is not logically contradictory to conceive of something that shares the same essence and substance yet is distinguished in three persons, as long as we are not speaking of distinctly biological creatures.

Then why is this being referred to as “He”? An essence is not a He. If you’re saying that the three persons are just of the same essence and don’t comprise a different entity which is God then we are in agreement. However, what I see from most Christians who say they believe in the Trinity is that God is an entity that is comprised of three persons.

Sometimes when God is used it is specifically referring to the Father, and other times to the totality of the Trinity, which both cases would constitute a masculine pronoun. The word "it" would not be accurate as each person of the Trinity is distinguished as masculine, also the plural pronoun of "they" would not express the unity and oneness of the Trinity.

And if those who hold position you’re espousing would nail down the terms it would make discussion much easier. However, the terms seem to change as needed. Onetime they’ll say Jesus is God and they’re mean the Jesus, yet at other times they’ll say God in reference to the Trinity.

The word "God," is used not necessarily as a name but more in the sense of a title. This distinction is made more apparent in the Old Testament where you have God's Covenant name of Yahweh expressed as his name and Elohim as more of a title. "Yahweh is Elohim," is a common example of this.

I agree 100% with this statement. However, I don’t think that’s what most believe about the Trinity. Too many that I discuss this with see God as a being or entity that consists of three persons. If you say God is an essence or a title then I agree.

The word "being" generally confuses people more, and I like the term consubstantial as it relates to the words substance and essence which are the words used in the historic creeds.

And they present no problem to what I’ve stated. These don’t show an equality except substance.

How would you describe it, would you say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were created beings, that share the Father's essence? Or would you say that they are ontologically inferior?

I’m really surprised you’re debating this with me when it seems we’re in agreement from the most part. What I’ve been arguing is that three persons don’t equal one which is essentially what many Christians say if you listen to their words.

While I disagree with you on the application of meaning as it pertains to the word "being," when used by a Trinitarian, I understand it can be a little confusing. Like when people say that each is "fully God," which does not make any sense. As the historic creeds say that each are "truly God."

The Trinity is the three persons, Father. Son and Spirit all of the same essence, all deity, but not the same persons or beings.

I agree with this except for the last part. haha

Would you say that each are co-eternal or co-equal, how would you describe the inner-relationship of the Trinity?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Butch5, I edited my response with the scripture that shows Jesus explaining why they have "hated me without a cause". They thought they were adhering to the Law by wanting to kill him, but they ignoring scripture when "I have said you are gods" small (g)

I think you are bypassing this scripture. God the Father is (big G), Jesus and believers under him are (small g)............ But, I'm not sure you are grasping the concept of God is Love, Light and Holiness....he can be this and still have US as part of him, yet be in submission to him

This is definitely not the Trinity as it has been historically understood. Not even sure what to call this, perhaps mild Subordinationism? Jesus within a Trinitarian understanding is not a little "g" god, but a "big G" God. Through him all matter was created and are held together by him. We as believers partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), but Jesus does not share in the divine nature, he has the divine nature (John 1:1). Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father's nature and upholds the universe by the power of his word, (Hebrews 1:3) we are being made into the image of Jesus (Romans 8:29).

We are subordinate to Jesus, functionally and ontologically, Jesus is subordinate to the Father but only functionally and not ontologically (Philippians 2:6-7).

They are distinct beings, but share the same essence and substance yet having different roles within the Holy Community of the Godhead, which we call the Trinity.

 

[Malachi]

I'm asking what God is, not about attributes or qualities of God but rather what He is.

LTD already told you, but you failed to focus on what he said. God IS Life, God IS Light, and God IS Love. You will find those statements in Scripture.

So now you will probably say, "How can God be all of that at the same time?" Well, that's exactly it. That is the MYSTERY of God, which includes the MYSTERY of the Deity of Christ, as well as the MYSTERY of the triune Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

God cannot be separated from what He is, who He is, and what He does. It is all one God. Human beings trying to "analyze" or "explain" God are pitiful. Human beings trying to deny God (atheists and evolutionists) are foolish, because only the fool says in his heart "There is no God" (Psalms 14:1; 53:1).

Explaining God is an impossibility because no man knows what "Infinite" and "Ineffable" and "Eternal" mean. All we can do is worship Him and adore Him, thank Him and obey Him. Above all believe Him and trust Him. Everything else is impertinence, especially "debating" about the Godhead.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Jesus within a Trinitarian understanding is not a little "g" god, but a "big G" God. Through him all matter was created and are held together by him. .

My point earlier was that the Jews would've had reason to crucify him if he was claiming himself big "G". It is not a small miracle to have Jesus as the literal Son, and why is him being the Son and mediator not enough? Like I posted on the first page of this thread. Jesus will be subject to the Father when all of this is done.

1 Corinthians 15:27

 

[jocor]

Theos is a reference to God.

Why would you say such a thing?

Theos is a direct reference to God.

Is theos a direct reference to God here?

2Co 4:4 In whom the [theos] of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
​

If not, then why couldn't Thomas use it to apply to his mighty one?

You have never added anything constructive to these discussions, only trying to undermine what the word of God says.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I gave Egypt for your ransom,
Ethiopia and Seba in your place. Isaiah 43:3

Yahweh is the true Savior of Israel. He saves them through Yeshua whom He made to be a Savior for them.

I, even I, am the LORD,
And besides Me there is no savior. Isaiah 43:11

Prior to Isaiah writing this, Yahweh sent Israel saviors.

2Ki_13:5 (And YHWH gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.​

Neh_9:27 Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.

Therefore, Isa 43:11 means that Yahweh is the only true Savior of Israel, but there can be other saviors as well. Yeshua is our Savior appointed by the ultimate Savior, Yahweh.

Tell and bring forth your case;
Yes, let them take counsel together.
Who has declared this from ancient time?
Who has told it from that time?
Have not I, the LORD?
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me. Isaiah 45:21

Prior to Isaiah writing this, Yahweh said there were other "elohim" besides Him.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High.​

Therefore, Isa 45:21 means that Yahweh is the only true God/Elohim, but that there can be other lesser elohim than himself. IMHO, Yeshua is an elohim in that sense, but he is NOT the "only true God (Elohim)" as he taught in John 17:3.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

My point earlier was that the Jews would've had reason to crucify him if he was claiming himself big "G". It is not a small miracle to have Jesus as the literal Son, and why is him being the Son and mediator not enough? Like I posted on the first page of this thread. Jesus will be subject to the Father when all of this is done.

1 Corinthians 15:27

Is Jesus a created being in your eyes? Did he have a beginning, or is he co-eternal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

 

[jocor]

Thinking that way, ones make the Scripture say anything he wants, and defines his god any way that pleases him.

I am not reading anything into the text. It is you who are making a simple "I am" statement into something it is not. You are reading the "I AM" of ex 3:14 into the text.

The blind man said, "I am" "ego eimi" in John 9:9:

Joh 9:9 αλλοι G243[SOME] ελεγον G3004(G5707) οτι G3754[SAID,] ουτος G3778[HE] εστιν G2076(G5748)[IT IS,] αλλοι G243 δε G1161 οτι G3754[BUT OTHERS,] ομοιος G3664[LIKE] αυτω G846[HIM] εστιν G2076(G5748)[HE IS.] εκεινος G1565[HE] ελεγεν G3004(G5707) οτι G3754[SAID,] εγω G1473 ειμι G1510(G5748)[AM] ​

Was he declaring himself to be the great "I AM" of Ex 3:14. No.

Perhaps the Author of the Scriptures is saying something about the LORD Jesus Christ, that His Name is Yahweh, the I AM.

Jn 6:20 I Am
Jn 8:24 that I Am

Jn 8:28 that I Am
Jn 8:58 I Am

Jn 13:19 that I Am
Jn 18:5 I Am

Jn 18:6 I Am
Jn 18:8 that I Am

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you" (Exo 3:14 KJV).

And perhaps not. Why must you read into the text what is not there?

 

[LovethroughDove]

Is Jesus a created being in your eyes? Did he have a beginning, or is he co-eternal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit?

He was at the beginning with the Father. Scripture points to creation being made for Jesus. Jesus mentions that the Father has given him believers.

 

[jocor]

But you are completely ignoring the context. The context is that of a Jewish disciple who believed, as did the others, that the Messiah would bring about an end to Roman oppression through the use of force. Jesus' followers all believed he was this Messiah. We even see this in Acts, after his resurrection, just prior to his ascension:

Act 1:6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" (ESV)

But when Jesus died, they thought that was it. This is clearly seen in the disciples' unbelief at the claims that Jesus had arisen. They didn't believe until they saw the empty tomb and saw Him. So of course Thomas isn't going to believe without seeing for himself. And when he does, his response cannot be understood in any other way than a declaration of the deity of Jesus as his God.

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (ESV)

This is an exceedingly personal response to going from utter disbelief to belief. There is no mistaking what is meant by Thomas' words. To call the risen Saviour, "my God," is highly significant; he is telling Jesus that He is his God. Your explanation doesn't explain it at all.

IMO, there is no way any Jew would believe a man born of woman was the Creator of all and Elohim of Israel, especially if that man died. The fact that a dead man resurrected does not prove he was God or else we should believe that Lazarus was God as well. Did anybody say to Lazarus, "My Lord and my God"? No. Thomas knew a dead man could not be God even if he was resurrected.

When do you believe Jesus/the Son came into existence and did he pre-exist?

I do not believe he pre-existed as a literal being. He did pre-exist in Yahweh's plan of salvation. He began his existence when he was conceived in Miriam's womb. One cannot exist before he exists.

 

[Gregg]

I am not reading anything into the text. It is you who are making a simple "I am" statement into something it is not. You are reading the "I AM" of ex 3:14 into the text.

The blind man said, "I am" "ego eimi" in John 9:9:

Joh 9:9 αλλοι G243[SOME] ελεγον G3004(G5707) οτι G3754[SAID,] ουτος G3778[HE] εστιν G2076(G5748)[IT IS,] αλλοι G243 δε G1161 οτι G3754[BUT OTHERS,] ομοιος G3664[LIKE] αυτω G846[HIM] εστιν G2076(G5748)[HE IS.] εκεινος G1565[HE] ελεγεν G3004(G5707) οτι G3754[SAID,] εγω G1473 ειμι G1510(G5748)[AM] ​

Was he declaring himself to be the great "I AM" of Ex 3:14. No.

The blind man did not claim to be God, but Jesus did claim to be God, the Son of God.

The Messiah was God in the flesh. Abraham and David and Isaiah knew it. Everything in the Temple says Glory to the LORD Jesus Christ!

The 'I AM' verses in post #120 are not my doing, or reading anything into the text; but given by the Spirit of God who testifies that Jesus Christ is Yahweh in the flesh.

You say why do I read into the text? But I say why can you not perceive the text.

Jn 6:20 I Am
Jn 8:24 that I Am

Jn 8:28 that I Am
Jn 8:58 I Am

Jn 13:19 that I Am
Jn 18:5 I Am

Jn 18:6 I Am
Jn 18:8 that I Am


.

 

[Malachi]

The fact that a dead man resurrected does not prove he was God

Yeshua,

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuased though one rose from the dead" (Lk 16:31). What you have stated above is manifestly false, and most of your arguments are really quite specious, if not disingenuous.

When Peter preached to thousands of monotheistic Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, he used the resurrection and exaltation of Christ at the right hand of the Father to establish that he is both LORD AND CHRIST (Acts 2:32-36): "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses... For David ...saith... The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes they footstool. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, both Lord and Christ".

To the unbiased reader who is willing to listen to the Holy Spirit, what Peter was proclaiming to these monotheistic Jews was nothing less than the Deity of Christ on the basis of His resurrection, quoting from the Psalms to prove it!

For the Jew there is only one God and one Lord. Yet David revealed that the Lord Jesus would sit at the right hand of the Father, and He is also Lord. For the Jew there cannot be two Lords unless they both are Divine, nor can there be one supreme God and one lesser "god" (which is polytheism).

Throughout the OT, "Lord" (Heb adonai) when used as a form of address to Deity, is only appliciable to God. Yet Peter says that God has made Jesus "Lord" -- equal to Himself. And that is precisely what we see in Heb 1:8, and that this also precisely where you use specious argumentation to reject the fact that Jesus is God, even though the Father calls the Son "God". That is a very serious denial of the truth.

 

[JLB]

Is theos a direct reference to God here?

2Co 4:4 In whom the [theos] of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
​

If not, then why couldn't Thomas use it to apply to his mighty one?



He who has ears to hear, let him hear.



Yahweh is the true Savior of Israel. He saves them through Yeshua whom He made to be a Savior for them.




Prior to Isaiah writing this, Yahweh sent Israel saviors.

2Ki_13:5 (And YHWH gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.​

Neh_9:27 Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.

Therefore, Isa 43:11 means that Yahweh is the only true Savior of Israel, but there can be other saviors as well. Yeshua is our Savior appointed by the ultimate Savior, Yahweh.



Prior to Isaiah writing this, Yahweh said there were other "elohim" besides Him.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods (elohim); and all of you are children of the most High.​

Therefore, Isa 45:21 means that Yahweh is the only true God/Elohim, but that there can be other lesser elohim than himself. IMHO, Yeshua is an elohim in that sense, but he is NOT the "only true God (Elohim)" as he taught in John 17:3.

Clearly the word states Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior.

He is the Lord of the Old Testament who became flesh.

By Him are all things and through Him are all things.

Nothing that was made, was made apart from Him.

These are all references to The Creator, YHWH the Lord God.

Are you suggesting an angel was the Creator?

Who do you say Jesus was, before He became flesh?

JLB

 

[JLB]

Yeshua,

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuased though one rose from the dead" (Lk 16:31). What you have stated above is manifestly false, and most of your arguments are really quite specious, if not disingenuous.

When Peter preached to thousands of monotheistic Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, he used the resurrection and exaltation of Christ at the right hand of the Father to establish that he is both LORD AND CHRIST (Acts 2:32-36): "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses... For David ...saith... The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes they footstool. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, both Lord and Christ".

To the unbiased reader who is willing to listen to the Holy Spirit, what Peter was proclaiming to these monotheistic Jews was nothing less than the Deity of Christ on the basis of His resurrection, quoting from the Psalms to prove it!

For the Jew there is only one God and one Lord. Yet David revealed that the Lord Jesus would sit at the right hand of the Father, and He is also Lord. For the Jew there cannot be two Lords unless they both are Divine, nor can there be one supreme God and one lesser "god" (which is polytheism).

Throughout the OT, "Lord" (Heb adonai) when used as a form of address to Deity, is only appliciable to God. Yet Peter says that God has made Jesus "Lord" -- equal to Himself. And that is precisely what we see in Heb 1:8, and that this also precisely where you use specious argumentation to reject the fact that Jesus is God, even though the Father calls the Son "God". That is a very serious denial of the truth.

Yes sir, good point.

The denial of Jesus as Lord is to deny the Gospel.

For one to be saved, that person must confess Jesus as Lord, and God raised Him from the dead.

Which Jesus Himself claimed that He Himself raised Himself from the dead.

As He said - destroy this Temple and in three days I WILL RAISE IT, and the Temple He spake of was His own Body.


JLB

 

[eddif]

IMO, there is no way any Jew would believe a man born of woman was the Creator of all and Elohim of Israel, especially if that man died. The fact that a dead man resurrected does not prove he was God or else we should believe that Lazarus was God as well. Did anybody say to Lazarus, "My Lord and my God"? No. Thomas knew a dead man could not be God even if he was resurrected.



I do not believe he pre-existed as a literal being. He did pre-exist in Yahweh's plan of salvation. He began his existence when he was conceived in Miriam's womb. One cannot exist before he exists.

I mean this with no ill will .


Those here who present views on the trinity are quoting Jews. The New Testament was written by Jewish persons (probably Luke too was Jewish - debated).

As a gentile, I belong to a people with no knowledge of Jewish scriptures ( except what had flowed into the church). The Church had a Jewish beginning. Gentiles have nothing to say from their heritage (except those from Abraham by faith - the second rate side of the family). We do have promises / prophecy from the OT. Abraham looked for a spiritual city (again the family of spiritual faith). Not all Jewish persons reject Messiah that came.

eddif