How can the Trinity be monotheistic?

[Imagican]

I like that Vic: a tool of God. Especially when we consider the very scripture that you offered; no man can come to God except THROUGH Christ. That would seem to indicate exactly that.

The scripture that is often used in the OT to justify concepts and ideas in the NEW are often simply personal interpretation of those that 'see' the relevance of them. And oftentimes I believe they are taken out of context. I am NOT saying that this is the case with what you have offered, I cannot say. Simply pointing out that it is often done now days more than ever especially in regards to the attempts to defend or create 'new' doctrine. How many different denominations have we watch emerge by doing this very thing?

Our Kenneth Copelands are notorious for picking a line of scripture and creatiing a 'whole new' denomination over a 'created concept' that was never actually offered through scripture. Thou shalt not kill is a perfect example. What a contradiction that one would have been to those sent into the promise land with orders to KILL.

But Vic, is God not able to perform as He sees fit. Regardless of the limited understanding of man, isn't it God Himself who chose How and by WHOM we are to be 'saved'? and if He so chose to offer His Son to be sacrifice for our sins, why did His Son HAVE to BE God? And without any explanation of such except by 'men' hundreds of years AFTER Christ or His apostles were here to dispute such claims?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[sheshisown]

Hello everybody~

I would like to add some scriptures to help explian why belief in the Trinity is very relevant to each believer.

It is important that believers have a correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity since it explains the nature of God. Most of us will agree that each Christian needs to know exactly who God is~ in order to have a proper understanding of the One we serve.

"... but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen." 2 Peter 3:18

There is also the practical matter of worship. It is important to have a correct idea of our God who deserves all our worship. Since the doctrine of the Trinity acknowledges the Son and the Holy Spirit as God, they too are included in our worship when we worship God.

“Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.†John 20:27-28 (emphasis mine)

The scripture is filled with examples of the triune nature of God.

“[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.†Eph. 4:4-6 NKJ (emphasis mine) This scripture delineates each of the three and all those in the faith as One.

Without a correct understanding of what the Bible says about the nature of God other errors can result. When a person is wrong on their view of the Trinity there is a chance they could be wrong about other important beliefs. An incorrect view of the Person of Jesus Christ can lead someone into an improper view of the biblical doctrine of salvation.

How is that?

When a person understands the basic truths about the Trinity they can better understand that the salvation of sinners was entirely a work of God. God the Father sent God the Son to take upon Himself the punishment for the sins of the world. For those who are saved, God the Father has sent God the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the believer. The result is that humanity cannot take any credit for any part of the salvation process, other than the choice to recieve this free gift. It was~ is, totally a work of God from beginning to end.

For clarification on whether Jesus is both God and Savior see these verses;

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.†Titus 2:1-3 NKJ (emphasis mine)

“Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:†2 Peter 1:1 NKJ (emphasis mine)

Yet the Father declares there is only one God and savior;

"Yet I [am] the LORD your God Ever since the land of Egypt, And you shall know no God but Me; For [there is] no savior besides Me. Hosea 13:4 NKJ (emphasis mine)

Again in scripture, we see all three beings in the triune God working salvation and sanctification in believers.

Realizing this causes each believer to better appreciate and love God for what He has done. He gave Himself for our salvation ~ He did not sacrifice one of His created beings ~ whether human or angel. God, Himself, became a human being ~ so He might take the sins of humanity upon Himself personally ~ and was sacrificed for our sins, becoming then a perfect atonement for sin.

I would like to add it is not necessary that a person understand the Trinity in order to be saved. Salvation consists in believing on the Person of Jesus Christ and His work on Calvary’s cross ~ not on ones view of the Trinity.

May God our Savior bless us every one. even so. bonnie

 

[Pogo]

I agree that a close study of the scriptures does reveal the concept of a triune God.

But, I have found no scripture that requires one to confess this understanding before others.

Much like many other, much debated, points in the scriptures such as transubstantiation, amil., premil., postmil., etc.

I can understand being curious about the issue, and/or any issue(s) found in the scriptures, but if it is not essential to salvation, I can see no reason to wrestle over it with others.

May God bless us all,

Pogo

 

[mondar]

...So, my point? The same was 'in the beginning with God'. This does NOT state in any way that Christ was ALWAYS with God....

MEC

Mec,
I am not sure I see your point. The statement of Christ being with God is asserted 2 times in verse 1 and 2.
1--- "...and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. "
2--- "The same was in the beginning with God."

To clarify when this beginning was, we have verse 3 asserting that Christ is an uncreated being since he created everything that was created.
3--- "All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. "
With such a strong statement as verse 3 that Christ created anything that was created, how could one doubt the eternality of Christ. Verse 3 eliminates Christ from being any part of the created order. He was uncreated and eternal.

Does it not seem obvious to you that the word "beginning" in John 1 is speaking of eternity past. The "beginning" includes anything that is eternal and not part of the created order.

I dont see that the language of John 1:1-3 possibly allows for Christ being the first creation, or any part of creation. He has all the same attributes as the Father, since Christ is God, and he was with God.

If John 1:1-3 comes short anywhere concerning the doctrine of the trinity, it comes short concerning the number three. The text makes Christ and the Father absolutely devine, but there is no mention of the HS or the number three. If John 1:1-3 was the only revelation we have, God could be two persons and one being. The diety of the HS is established in other passages such as John 14.

If Christ is not eternal and absolutely God, then how can verse 1 assert thta The Logos (Christ) is God. If Christ is the only person in the Godhead (one being-three persons) then how can he be with God?
*Note that in Greek there is no reflexive pronoun or middle person verb. This means that the person that the logos was "with" is not himself.

Those who read the gospel of John must absolutely understand the theological assertions of John on the nature of Christ in the prolog of his gospel. Failure to grasp who Christ was means a failure to grasp any part of the gospel of John. John places these theological assertions on the nature of Christ at the beginning so that we might know who Christ is before he enters into narratives about Christ. One cannot understand the nature of the miracles and the concept of faith, without first understanding who Christ is. Unless one first understand Christ as completely God, it makes theological mismash of all Christ miracles and works. It especially cheapens the meaning of the narratives of Christs cross. The only possibility for a truely substutionary and propitiatory sacrifice would be the infinite God/man, Jesus Christ.

 

[Paidion]

I'm most certainly keeping an open mind, kinda why I made this thread I'll read your threads in a tick, but I have a problem with the diety of Christ too: if Christ is God, and Yahweh is God, but there isn't a trinity, this is most certainly polytheism because there are two gods. And the idea that Jesus is some sort of Godman is utterly ridiculous to me.

Well, I think it is about time I entered into this discussion. First I want to say that the concept of "Trinity" did not become popularized until the 4th century. The only early Christian writing I know of, which suggests a kind of proto-Trinitarianism prior to the 4th century is that which is purported to have been written by Tertullian. Tertullian lived in the 2nd century and in the early 3rd. He was with the sect called "Montanists" during a part of his life, a sect which was later called a "heresy" by the early catholics. I am not sure whether Tertullian got his early Trinitarian concepts from the Montanists or not.

The early Christians believed and taught the begetting (or generation) of the Son as the first act of the Father. This belief prevailed even to the 4th century and is emphasized even in the original Nicene Creed which begins as follows:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages,
only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father... (bolding for emphasis is mine)

This great truth is the key to understanding who Jesus really is, and His relation to the Father.
Today, most Christians have no idea whatever about the begetting of the Son as the first act of God at the beginning of time. For me "time" is a very simple concept, a measurement of the passing of events. We cannot speak of "before the beginning of time" because there was no "before", and thus there were no events "before". The Father begat His Son, and that was the first event ever to take place.

Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho gave Trypho (a Jew) and his Jewish companions an analogy to help them understand the begetting of the Son. He said it could be compared to lighting a small fire from a big one. The big fire is in no way diminished by lighting the small one from it, and the small fire is of the same substance as the large one. This is the sense in which Jesus is God or Deity. Cats beget cats and their offspring is feline. Dogs beget dogs and their offspring is canine. Man begets man and their offspring is human. God begets God and His offspring is divine.

Jesus is the only begotten Son. Indeed, John 1:18 in the earliest manuscripts state that He is the only begotten God. As the early Christians taught and wrote, Jesus is the only begotten God, but the Father of all is unbegotten.

It is interesting that both Justin and the Jews, when dialoguing spoke of the Holy Spirit. Clearly the Jews did not have in mind a "third divine Person" since they were monotheists. It is clear also that Justin didn't have a third Person in mind either. Jesus spoke of "the Spirit speaking from the Person of the Father" and of "the Spirit speaking from the Person of the Son".

Indeed, at one point in the dialogue, Justin asked the Jews this question, "Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called 'Lord' and 'God' in the Scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Christ, who by so many Scriptures was proved to you to have become man?"

To which Trypho replied, "How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?"

Justin's reply to this was not, "Oh but there is a third One, the Holy Spirit". No, rather he said, "I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinon from that which you admitted some time ago." So although both Justin and Trypho spoke frequently of the Holy Spirit, neither of them considered the Spirit to be a Person other than the Persons of the Father and the Son.

Now a word about John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The order of the words in the phrase "the Word was God" is reversed in the Greek. The order is "God was the Word". This order is used to indicate that "God" or "God material" is the kind of thing that the Word was. A similar construction is used in the phrase translated "God is love". The order in Greek is "Love is God". That word order indicates that "love" is the kind of thing which God is. Also in the phrase translated, "Your word is truth." The word order in Greek is "Your word truth is" which indicates that "truth" is the kind of thing that God's word is. So the phrase "the Word was God" does not mean that the Word was, in fact, the Father. Rather He was of the same essence as the Father. As a passage in Hebrews affirms, "He is the exact expression of His (the Father's) essence" or as some translate it, "He bears the very stamp of His nature"

When the article "the" in Greek occurs before "God" (with no other adjective), the reference is to the Father. So "The Word was with the God" means that the Word was with the Father. But the Greek "God the Word was" (no article before "God" and a different word order) means that "God is the kind of thing the Word was."

Whatever, Martin Luther may have been, he was a good Greek scholar. He put the matter very succinctly:

The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

Sabellianism taught that the Father and the Son were the same Person, who expressed Himself in two different ways. But if John were saying that the Word was identical to the Father, that is, they were one and the same Person, then John would have placed an article before "God". Arianism supposedly taught that Jesus was a lesser god that the Father, and so they might have translated it as "The word as a god" (as Jehovah's Witnesses do). But if John had meant that, he would not have reversed the word order.

I think a good translation of John 1:1, according to the Greek grammar would be:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Deity.

In conclusion, the early Christians did indeed believe in the Deity of Christ. He was Deity, because God the Father begat Him as His Son. As for the Holy Spirit, we read that Jesus said that He and His Father would make their dwelling with Christ's disciples. So if Jesus and the Father live in us, is that not the Holy Spirit? The second century Christian belief was that the Spirit was personal, but not a Third Person, rather the very Persons of the Father and the Son extended into the hearts of the faithful.

As for Jesus and the Father both being Deity, this is not polytheism, because the Father alone is the "only true God" as Jesus Himself addressed Him in His prayer:

John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

So Jesus called the Father "the only true God". He used the phrase "and Jesus Christ whom You have sent". By using the word "and", Jesus seems to suggest that He Himself is something other than "the only true God". Yet Jesus is fully divine, since He is the Son of God.

... yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

 

[Rick W]

 

[Paidion]

Is that lexical definition of "theos" supposed to prove something?

One of the meanings of "theos" is given by one lexicon as follows:

whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

But I would never use it to try to prove that Jesus is not the Father. The Scriptures alone are clear enough in that respect. For example, Jesus talked with His Father as with another Person. Or was He talking to Himself?

 

[Rick W]

Is Christ the Word of God?

 

[MarkT]

Forgive me if I read that wrong, but were you saying that Jesus is 100% God? Obviously that can't be possible because God can't die.

You're right. God can't die. And I didn't say anything about a 100% God, whatever that means. There is one God.

Let's look at Genesis. In the beginning we have the Spirit of God - we might say the intelligence and the ability of God or something like the potential of God. And then we have the power of God manifested by his Word - "Let there be light' And it says there was light.

Some say the Word wasn't created. That's Ok. However, the Light was the beginning of God's creation, and the Word was the Light in the true sense. In Revelations 3:14, the words of the 'Amen' are the words of Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness, "the beginning of God's creation". So the Word was the Light and the Light was Jesus Christ. Everything is now manifest in Christ.

Some will say Jesus was God. Well he was the Light who appeared to Abraham in the form of God Almighty. But he also appeared to Moses as a burning bush. Does that make him a burning bush? No. But you could say the Light was 'the' burning bush. So in that sense you could say the Light was 'the' God of Abraham.

Was Jesus lying when he said he was the Son of God? No. God's nature was in him. Being 'of God', what he said was true. We can lie and deceive others as to our nature but Jesus couldn't. The divine nature of the Word is that it is true and it lasts forever. Men thought they could break God's Word by killing him, but God's Word rose unbroken and uncorrupted.

Did Jesus make himself God? No. If anyone thinks he did, then he is justifying the wicked; those who accused him of blasphemy falsely. However, it's not to say God and his Word are ever separated or that God was not in his Word. Jesus said he was the true vine and the Father was the vinedresser John 15:1 - which is to say the Father directs the Son. He also said the Father was the true God.

Hebrews 1:2, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

It's pretty clear that God spoke to us by Jesus Christ, that God created the world through him, and that Jesus Christ was appointed heir of all things.

 

[MarkT]

Notice when God speaks, things are created. That would be particularily injurious to us, that is to say, if God was to say, "hey you" to anyone, we might expect a bale of hay and a female sheep to come flying at us or both these things would be created in our head and it would mean our death. So I think direct contact with us, either seeing or hearing Him, would mean injury and death for us. That's why his Word became the Light, so that we could see and hear God indirectly. To see Jesus is to see God the Father. To hear Jesus is to hear God the Father.

 

[sheshisown]

Is Christ the Word of God?

If Christ in any of our opinion is NOT the Word of God then we deny God's own testimony of Him in Revelation 19 verses 11-13

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. (emphasis mine)

Wow! This is truly the Christ! What a Wonder He is! Even so! :crazyeyes: bonnie

 

[Paidion]

Is Christ the Word of God?

Absolutely! Jesus is the logos of God. The Greek word logos basically means "expression". Jesus expressed God the Father to the world. He is indeed the expression of God. That's why He was able to say, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

logos also came to mean "speech" since a person's speech is an expression of that person.
We still use "word" in this sense today in the English language. We might announce, "And now brother Joe is going to give us a word."

 

[sheshisown]

Logos in this particular use is not as assumed merely an expression but rather is His (Jesus') proper name~ or onoma:

1) name: univ. of proper names

2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8-)
By which He is called~ kaleÃ…Â:
1) to call
a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice
b) to invite

2) to call i.e. to name, by name
a) to give a name to

1) to receive the name of, receive as a name

2) to give some name to one, call his name
b) to be called i.e. to bear a name or title (among men)
c) to salute one by name

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8-)

His name is~ The Word of God (notice that it is properly capitalised in your bible)
1) of speech
a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
b) what someone has said

1) a word
2) the sayings of God
3) decree, mandate or order
4) of the moral precepts given by God
5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim

All definitions from Vine's Lexicon directly. :-D

The doctrine of the Trinity did not becvome popularized by some later culture, any more than the doctrine of the gospel did. Both are embodied in the scripture. Even mingled together thus:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

Being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit:

Jesus did die in His body, but was raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit. Here, the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.

It also tells us that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 6:4),Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The scripture also states that Jesus raised Himself from the dead (John 2:18-22). Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

Again, who raised Jesus from the dead? Jesus says that He will raise Himself, despite the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others. This was a claim no mere man could make, a claim repeated dramatically in John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (all emphasis in these scripture uses is mine)

The resurrection was the work of the Triune God. 8-) bonnie

 

[Rick W]

good post bonnie.
Indeed, as used in scripture the "W" is capitalized for a purpose.

It's pretty clear that God spoke to us by Jesus Christ, that God created the world through him, and that Jesus Christ was appointed heir of all things.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)


In all I'd have to say Christ is much more than just an expression.

 

[Paidion]

Logos in this particular use is not as assumed merely an expression but rather is His (Jesus') proper name~ or onoma

How can "logos" be Jesus name? In John 1, He is called "the logos". Your name is "Bonnie". How many people refer to you as "the Bonnie"?

His name is~ The Word of God (notice that it is properly capitalised in your bible)

The New Testament was written in Greek entirely with capital letters! Every letter in the early Greek manuscripts was a capitalized letter. If you are referring to the capitalization of "Word" in Revelation 19:13, this was done, of course, by translators who took the verse to mean that "the Word of God" was Christ's name. But how could His name be "the Word of God"?That is not a name but a position or a title. Could it be said that George Bush's name is "the President of the United States"? When you see Jesus, you might say, "I am so happy to see you, Lord Jesus!" But would you say, "I am so happy to see you, the Word of God!" I think the sentence in Rev 19:13 should be translated, "His title shall be called "The Word of God".

The Greek word "onomos" doesn't mean only "name". It actually can refer to a title or a position. We read in I Peter 4:16

...if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God.

If a person suffers as a Christian, that does not mean that "Christian" becomes his name? No. "Christian" is what he is, his position, or his religious profession.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

Actually, this verse doesn't say He was "made alive by the Spirit" in spite of the AV and the NKJV. It says He was "put to death in flesh and made alive in spirit" Both "flesh" and "spirit" are in the dative case, and therefore should be translated "in flesh" and "in spirit". It's inconsistent translation to place "in" before "flesh" but "by" before "spirit".

Notice verse 19 says "in which He went and preached to the spirits in prison. Jesus, being the Son of God, a spirit before He was born, was made alive in spirit before His bodily resurrection and preached to the spirits in prison, those who didn't obey during the days of Noah.

So it doesn't seem reasonable to build a doctrine around verse 18 on the basis of certain translators using "by" instead of "in".

Also, you can't be certain that "Jesus raised Himself from the dead" just because He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He may have been prophesying, with the Father speaking through Him in the first person. Almost every other scripture that addresses the matter states that it is the Father who raised Him from the dead, or says simply that "He was raised" (which suggests that another raised Him). There are a few cases which say, "He arose", but that doesn't mean that He raised Himself any more than I thess 4:16 which states that the the dead in Christ shall rise, means that they shall raise themselves.

 

[Paidion]

In all I'd have to say Christ is much more than just an expression.

That may be so. But don't downplay the fact that He is the expression of God. If Jesus hadn't expressed God to us, we would not know what God is really like. Jesus was compassionate, and so we know that God is compassionate. Jesus was the exact expression of [God's] essence. [Hebrews 1:3]. He was so similar to His Father that He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
Wow! How well our Lord Jesus expressed His Father to the world.

 

[Rick W]

In all I'd have to say Christ is much more than just an expression.

That may be so. But don't downplay the fact that He is the expression of God. If Jesus hadn't expressed God to us, we would not know what God is really like. Jesus was compassionate, and so we know that God is compassionate. Jesus was the exact expression of [God's] essence. [Hebrews 1:3]. He was so similar to His Father that He said, "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
Wow! How well our Lord Jesus expressed His Father to the world.

Yes I agree. Expression yes and much more. Christ is The Father's Word, His intent, His purpose. God gave His essense flesh. In the past His purpose was conveyed by the prophets. But we now know His purpose, His Word became flesh and lived among us.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Why made flesh? In part for the same reason Gospel for Asia teaches Indian natives to be missionaries... it's easier for a native missionary to relate to native Indians and visa-versa. God in the flesh as His Word is easier to relate to than that of a prophet speaking "thus saith the Lord". God in the flesh sat with the many and taught them, everywhere he went. He wasn't a go-between, He forgave, He healed and He raised the dead. That in itself is much more than an expression. And people could and did address Him directly without having to go through a high priest who also acted as a go-between to interceded for the people. God to prophet to people and people to priest to God was made obsolete. This is the Messiah, the event the people had hope for, Christ was their faith fulfilled for He had come.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace

 

[MarkT]

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

Actually, this verse doesn't say He was "made alive by the Spirit" in spite of the AV and the NKJV. It says He was "put to death in flesh and made alive in spirit" Both "flesh" and "spirit" are in the dative case, and therefore should be translated "in flesh" and "in spirit". It's inconsistent translation to place "in" before "flesh" but "by" before "spirit".

Notice verse 19 says "in which He went and preached to the spirits in prison. Jesus, being the Son of God, a spirit before He was born, was made alive in spirit before His bodily resurrection and preached to the spirits in prison, those who didn't obey during the days of Noah.

So it doesn't seem reasonable to build a doctrine around verse 18 on the basis of certain translators using "by" instead of "in".

Yep. I think she's using one of them new Bibles. The RSV says, 'but made alive in the spirit.'

Also, you can't be certain that "Jesus raised Himself from the dead" just because He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." He may have been prophesying, with the Father speaking through Him in the first person.

Correct. Jesus said his teaching was not his own, "but his who sent me" John 7:16 And Jesus said, 'It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be taught by God' And he said,
"Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" What was he saying? Was the teaching not his own? Nope. The teaching was from God. Even so, when he spoke of the temple, he spoke of his mortal body. But inside his mortal body was the body of water and the Spirit. He was the lamp to God's light.

Almost every other scripture that addresses the matter states that it is the Father who raised Him from the dead, or says simply that "He was raised" (which suggests that another raised Him). There are a few cases which say, "He arose", but that doesn't mean that He raised Himself any more than I thess 4:16 which states that the the dead in Christ shall rise, means that they shall raise themselves.

Well, who gave him the power and the authority to lay down his life and to raise it up again? The Father. So the glory goes to the Father. As Paul said, 'Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.' Ro. 6:4

 

[Paidion]

Good post! Thanks, Mark.

Potluck quoted:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born unto us a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor The mighty God The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace

If this passage has been quoted in an attempt to show that Jesus is the Father, then how can this idea be reconciled with the prayer of Jesus?

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

One version of the Septuagint (a translation from Hebrew to Greek before the days of Christ) rather than "the everlasting father" in Isaiah 9:6 has "the father of the age to come."

 

[MarkT]

In all I'd have to say Christ is much more than just an expression.

I wouldn't say he was an expression exactly. I'd say he was the vehicle - the means, the door, the gate - 'the way' God created everything. Indeed Jesus said he was 'the way'. The Word is God's 'way' of communicationg with us, of loving us, of being with us. We can relate to God's way. Words carry thoughts, pictures, ideas, information. Words carry hope, love, fear, wrath, fire, wisdom. Words create love, hope, fear, anger, etc. in us. Christ in us allows God to communicate with us. When thoughts come to us from the heart, they are from God. When dreams come to us, they come from God. The Holy Spirit interprets the dream. We gain knowledge and understanding. We grow in the wisdom of God - Christ.