Why can't the Almighty have multiple attributes?
I am sure you have a few yourself while being One person.
.
Last edited:
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
How to defend the trinity!
- Thread starter Bible
- Start date
I am sure you have a few yourself while being One person.
.
The Greek in John 1 makes it clear that the Son has always existed, which agrees with a plain understanding of the English.
Sure, if you ignore the context of the creed and of Scripture.
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
In order to be "God from God . . . true God from true God . . . of the same essence of the Father," means that the Son is necessarily eternal, otherwise he cannot be called God or true God.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Notice how closely the opening of the Nicene Creed mirrors what Paul writes of Christ in Col 1:16. As with John 1:1-3, anything that has come into being has come into being through Christ. This logically excludes him from ever having come into being. This is because he "was with God, and was God" prior to the existence of time and space, therefore being eternal.
Yes. And?
He does have many attributes--omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, immortal, self-sufficient, immutable, holy, loving, etc.
Don't you consider Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be three of God's attributes.
They are three persons, as the doctrine of the Trinity states and what the Bible reveals. I think my previous post, which you didn't address, makes this pretty clear.
The Apostles creed predates the Nicene creed and reflects what the Apostles believed and taught.
Jesus calls the Father alone the only true God. I agree and believe Him.
Jesus is Gods firstborn and has always been the Son.
Its not true God its the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. Jesus was not that Deity. The Deity is the Fathers and its God in Him. Once again the Father defined Jesus's being. Not true God with no beginning. But a Son.
Jesus in heaven and earth has a God and Father.
My God has no God or Father.
Jesus received authority and was exalted to my Gods right hand as prince and savior.
My God from who all things came already has all authority and has not received from any other being and by His will all things were created and have their being.
Rev 3:14 Jesus is the beginning of the creation of the Father. For the testimony of Jesus of his use of God has been the Father. The Father, (from whom all things came), is the origin and architect of creation.
The one on the throne in heaven is Jesus's God and my God. And the only true God.
In Jesus my God was pleased that His fullness should dwell. The Deity was gifted.
In that unity Jesus is all that the Father is and one with the Father but He is also a Son.
The works Jesus performed testify to that oneness.
I agree with you Jesus is not the Father.
I agree in part
Begotten of the Father before all worlds but not made.
And, yet, we must consider context (all ESV):
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 20:26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”
Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Jesus was Thomas's God. He was also worshiped by the disciples on more than one occasion--Matt 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52. Others worshiped him--Matt 2:11; John 9:38; Heb 1:6.
There are numerous passages which either explicitly or implicitly state that Jesus is God, which we have addressed before. And if Jesus is God, as the Bible states, then he is the eternal Son, eternally begotten, coequal with the Father and true God.
Hebrew understanding of the Spirit.
One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament “The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7).
Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, “The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized…There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit” (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)… in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power… In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.”
It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in “his” own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.
A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and,
Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely
the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the ‘spirit’ and ‘breath’ are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.
Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.
This Hebrew concept is further seen in the famous passage where the apostle Paul burst out in praise to God. He does this by quoting from Elijah 40:13: “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and unfathomable His ways! [Now his Old Testament quotation] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?” (Rom.11:33-34)
But when we compare his source in Isaiah we note that Paul has changed it slightly. Isaiah actually wrote, "Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed him?"
What we see here is a typical Hebrew understanding: To have the mind of the Lord is to be directed by the Spirit. There are many New Testament examples of this interplay between “mind” and “spirit.” In Philippians 2, Paul wants the Christian to be "of the same mind," which is to be "united in spirit, intent on one purpose"(v.2). On a personal level, how may I know that I am filled with the Holy Spirit? The answer is when I have the mind of God, the attitude that He has, the values that his word and espouses and above all the truth which it teaches!
I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures are harmonious concerning the Spirit of God as being a power and word and mind of God in action. The Trinitarian assertion that the Holy Spirit is God himself is surely impossible to maintain when we note that nowhere in the Scripture is the Holy Spirit prayed to or worshiped.
At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?
When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.
Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.
Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.
Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.
Paul
One of the biggest problem for those holding that Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead is the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is the foundation of our Bibles, the first 75% of the book. And an incontrovertible fact is that the Hebrew Bible does not support the idea that the Spirit of God is a distinct member of the Godhead at all. Even committed Trinitarians like George Ladd admit in his book, A Theology of the New Testament “The ruach Yahweh (Spirit of the Lord) in the Old Testament is not a separate, distinct entity; it is God's power-the personal activity in God's will achieving a moral and religious objective. God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life. The Spirit of God is the active principle that proceeds from God and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7).
Dunn, in his book Christology in the Making adds, “The continuity of thought between Hebraic and Christian understanding of the Spirit is generally recognized…There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism "spirit” (ruach) denoted power - the awful, mysterious force of the wind (ruach), of the breath (ruach) of life, of ecstatic inspiration (induced by divine ruach)… in particular, "Spirit of God" denotes effective divine power… In other words, on this understanding, Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.”
It makes a big difference to our Western minds at least - right at the start of the Bible, whether we translate "this Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters or "a wind [breath] from God swept over the face of the waters" (Gen 1:2). The first possibility conveys to our modern minds the impression that the Spirit is an individual in “his” own right. Many Trinitarians read it that way. The second possibility suggest that God's energetic and creative presence was active.
A brief look at a few more Old Testament verses will show this Hebrew parallelism, where the Spirit of God (Heb. ruach) can mean the breath, life, Spirit, presence, and most particularly - a word of Yahweh: (Job 26:4) (Job 27:3-4) (Job 32-8) (2Sam.23:2) (Prov.1:23) and,
Isa 40:7 The grass withers, the flower fades when the breath of the LORD blows on it; surely
the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
It is vital not to rush over this. Many other Old Testament examples could be cited to show that spirit and breath are interchangeable. The fact that the ‘spirit’ and ‘breath’ are translations of the same Hebrew and Greek words points to the root meaning of spirit as God's creative power, the energy behind his utterance.
Luke writes concerning the Ministry of John the Baptist that: "It is he who will go as a forerunner before him and the Spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for Lord" (Luke 1:17). The Virgin Mary is told that "[the] Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadowed you" (Luke 1:35). And concerning the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit the risen Jesus predicts that the disciples are to wait in Jerusalem where they "shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:18). In these three Lukan passages we observe the interplay of the concepts of "power" and "spirit" precisely as found in the Old Testament.
This Hebrew concept is further seen in the famous passage where the apostle Paul burst out in praise to God. He does this by quoting from Elijah 40:13: “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and unfathomable His ways! [Now his Old Testament quotation] For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?” (Rom.11:33-34)
But when we compare his source in Isaiah we note that Paul has changed it slightly. Isaiah actually wrote, "Who has directed the spirit of the Lord, or as His counselor has informed him?"
What we see here is a typical Hebrew understanding: To have the mind of the Lord is to be directed by the Spirit. There are many New Testament examples of this interplay between “mind” and “spirit.” In Philippians 2, Paul wants the Christian to be "of the same mind," which is to be "united in spirit, intent on one purpose"(v.2). On a personal level, how may I know that I am filled with the Holy Spirit? The answer is when I have the mind of God, the attitude that He has, the values that his word and espouses and above all the truth which it teaches!
Spirit = Power = Mind = Presence = Breath = Wind = Word
It is quite evident that in the apostle's mind to be filled with the spirit is precisely the same thing as letting the word (teaching, message) of Christ direct our lives. This is simply to say that in John chapters 14 to 16, "the Spirit" that will come to help the apostles will be the post-resurrection revelation of Christ's message directed by the risen Christ to the world through the apostles.
I am firmly convinced that the Scriptures are harmonious concerning the Spirit of God as being a power and word and mind of God in action. The Trinitarian assertion that the Holy Spirit is God himself is surely impossible to maintain when we note that nowhere in the Scripture is the Holy Spirit prayed to or worshiped.
At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?
When reading in Exodus awhile back, I came upon the phrase "the finger of God." I was aware that the same phrase was used in the book of Luke regarding the method Jesus uses to cast out demons. I decided to do a phrase study using e-Sword. The following information is from my latest research.
Exo 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.
Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.
Luk 11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons," 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven…
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
I had also come upon Scriptures that says Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God. This would strongly lead to the conclusion that the finger of God is the Spirit of God the Father.
Mat 12:22 Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
When you connect Luke 11:20 with Matthew 12:28 then you get the understanding of what the finger of God is.
Luk 11:20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Now the same is true with the Holy Spirit. We also have in the Bible two parallel teachings of the same subject one Matthew and one in Luke.
Luk 12:11 And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
Mat 10:19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Likewise, when you connect to Matthew 10:20 with Luke 12:12 you get an understanding of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the Spirit of the Father. There is no separate being called the Holy Spirit. Again that's why the Holy Spirit is never worshiped, prayed to, or has a seat on a throne.
Paul
While that is all interesting, it fails to take into account all that the Bible reveals about the Holy Spirit. Firstly, we have Matt 28:19, where the Holy Spirit is listed along with, yet made distinct from, the Father and the Son. Note that "name" is singular but includes three, distinct persons. Why even list the Holy Spirit if it just "merely" the breath of God (in the sense of power)? It doesn't make sense. Secondly, in John 14:16 Jesus mentions "another Helper," which would mean one the same as him (as "Helper"), yet distinct and only similar ("another"). It is important that "Helper" or "Comforter" is the Greek parakeltos, or Paraclete, which is best translated as "advocate" (see 1 John 2:1). A power cannot advocate; that is the role of persons. Similarly, Rom 8:26 speaks of the Spirit as interceding for us, which, again, is the domain of persons. Power does not and cannot intercede.
Here is a bit of a summary on why the Holy Spirit is not merely the power of God. The Holy Spirit:
Acts: Matt 4:1; Acts 8:39, 16:7,
Speaks: Acts 1:16, 10:19, 11:12, 11:28, 13:2, 15:28; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3, which is the same as lying to God (5:9)
Bears witness: Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 John 5:6
Helps, intercedes, and searches: Rom 8:26-27, 1 Cor 2:10
Teaches: Luke 12:12; 1 Cor 2:13
Gives gifts: 1 Cor 12:11; Heb 2:4
Leads: Gal 5:18, Heb 9:8
Can be grieved: Eph 4:30
Can be outraged: Heb 10:29
And on it goes. These are all actions of personal agency.
And, yet, the Holy Spirit is also called the "Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8:9, where it is equated with "Spirit of God"; 1 Pet 1:11), "Spirit of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:19), and the "Spirit of his Son" (Gal 4:6; cf. Rom 8:14-16).
Last edited:
Paul E. Michael
Member
So, how was this quote supposed to help prop up your denial that the Holy Ghost is YHWH?
He states that "God's ruach is the source of all that is alive, of all physical life." Where does he say, "Therefore, God's ruach is not YHWH?"
Also, had he thought about it a little more rigorously, instead of "all physical life," he could have better said "all created life": "God's ruach is the source of...all [created] life." Would you deny that the Spirit of the Lord is alive? Would you deny that the Spirit of the Lord is uncreated? I mean, the Spirit of the Lord is alive, and the Spirit of the Lord did not create the Spirit of the Lord, right?
John 1 is cohesive with my beliefs of the Son - He was at that beginning and Jesus is all that the Father is and "God" created the creation "through Him"
What Thomas stated he stated and it was recorded as such in a accounting of what took place and is truth in that context that doesn't make your theology.
Its not quite the same -God the Father God the Son God the Spirit
For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (father alone not the spirit)
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
the one on the throne who Jesus calls His God and Father in earth and heaven
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
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.
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
One God (Father) One lord Jesus
Glory, honor, power declared for
Host of heaven -the one on the throne and the lamb
The Kingdom of the world to become the kingdom of their Lord and "His" Messiah
and like Paul nothing in regard to the Spirit
The Spirit the Father declares as His own would have the Fathers nature - Divine, eternal, Holy, Truth
Jesus speaks of that Spirit as another the Father does not for it is the Spirit "of God" not God the Spirit
It is not shown true God from true God it is shown the Firstborn of all creation, the beginning of the creation of God. One in whom the fullness was pleased to dwell. Why wouldn't a true God who always was already be that Deity?
Col 1:19 - from the will of another who defined Jesus's being at a point in history before the world began but a beginning. The Deity is the Fathers
Very next verse
Col 1:20 -again not the sane as God the father God the Son God the Spirit
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
That's the one Jesus calls the only true God and His God and Father. Reads like a firstborn Son who was gifted the fullness and thus given the name mighty God by the God of us all the Father. A name far superior to the angels of God.
Jesus was given the supremacy (first) in all things.
It contradicts your beliefs. It states that the Son "was God and was with God." It also states that he was already in there when the beginning began, so it is logically impossible for him to be the beginning.
And, yet, Jesus didn't correct him. It would be blasphemous for Jesus to receive worship and accept being called God if he wasn't. Look at how others have reacted to the same:
Act 10:25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."
Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."
Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
God alone is to be worshiped.
Not sure what your point is with any of this.
And Jesus Christ. There is no eternal life without knowing Jesus as well as the Father.
And?
And all things were created through Jesus (John 1:3; Col 1:16-17). What is your point?
But the Father is also Lord, as you bolded in the quote above. Here, if "one God, the Father" excludes Christ from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. Additionally, if "from whom all things came" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Father, then "through whom all things came" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Son. Your beliefs are again contradictory on both counts.
But you quoted just above that the Father was Lord as well. Which is it?
I'm don't understand what your points are here.
Again, John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17 (and 1 Cor 8:6) show that Jesus already was in existence when creation began. He logically cannot have come into existence.
He was. That is rather the point of this discussion. Of course, he did "empty" himself to become a man (Phil 2:6-8).
And, yet, many passages refer to Jesus as God. Why do you not believe those passages?
Why don't you believe Jesus?
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
I don't intent to spends lots of my time repeating myself my position will never change.
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.
Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
Nice work.
You need to do a little research into the concept of Hebrew Agency... Your post proves my point!
Let's look at ... KEY WORDS AND CONCEPTS OF THE BIBLE
Name - This word of course brings to mind an actual name, such as John Doe. But what does it mean to a Jew.
Name - 1. designates more than the external person; it tends to express his basic character, his personality. We might say it is an emanation of the person himself. 2. authority of, expressing attributes, in acknowledgment or confession of (NABD & VED).
This definition helps us in a verse like John 17:26:
"I (Jesus) made known to them your name and I will make it known."
Jesus obviously did not come to inform the Apostles that God’s name is YHWH. He came to explain God’s character, His attributes, His will, so that we could come to truly know God and follow His ways. This understanding of the word "name" along with the definition of the next word "baptize" will clear up another misunderstood verse.
Baptize - We always think of being baptized in water, either as infants or adults. Yes, this definition is used many times in the New Testament, but there is also another meaning that we must store in the back of our minds.
Baptize - 1. to unite together, to become closely bound to (TGEL & VED).
Now we will put together the definitions of "name" and "baptize" to get the true meaning of Matthew 28:19. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has this commentary on this verse:
"The phrase in Matthew 28:19, ‘baptize them in the name’ would indicate that the baptized person was closely bound to, or became property of, the one in whose name he was baptized."
With these definitions we can safely paraphrase this verse as follows:
"Go out into the world and introduce or bring them into the knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Which is exactly what they did. The Apostles had to go into the world and explain to the Gentiles who God is, who the Son (The Messiah) is, and also about the power that they would receive from God’s Spirit. If we take it to mean that we are to water baptize people in the actual name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, then why is it that no one in the Bible ever uses this formula to water baptize believers?
There is a very strong position held by many scholars that this verse was not part of the original text of Matthew’s Gospel, as Eusebius, a third century Christian apologist, quoted the text in a shorter form rather than the form that now appears in the gospel. It reads,
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in my name" (which is in agreement with the paraphrase that was just given above).
One commentator writes,
"There is much probability in the conjecture that it is the original text of the gospel, and that in the second century the longer clause supplanted the shorter ‘baptizing them in my name.’ An insertion of this kind, derived from liturgical use, would have rapidly been adopted by copyist and translators" (The International Critical Commentary, by Willoughby C. Allen Volume 26, pp. 307-308).
This position has strong Biblical support by the fact that the Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as Jesus supposedly commanded them to do. They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."
Also the parallel passage in Mark 16:15-18 does not mention in any way this trine formula, and the Gospel of Mark is believed to be written before Matthew. Your following the Traditions of Men
I do believe Jesus, as a man talking to other people. I also believe in the inspiration of Scripture and so I also believe what John says in John 1:1--that the Son "was God." You are pitting Scripture against Scripture, ignoring the greater context of John and the Bible, by making a much too simplistic argument to John 17:3. You're even ignoring the context of that verse:
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
Joh 17:4 I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)
Verse 5 shows two things: 1) Jesus existed prior to creation and is therefore eternal, and 2) he shared in the Father's glory despite Yahweh saying "My glory I will not give to another (Isa 48:11). And as I stated previously, verse 3 shows that eternal life is based on knowing both the Father and the Son.
The bigger point, perhaps, is just how Jesus relates to and speaks of the Father for the understanding of his listeners. His only option is to support monotheism. His statement that the Father is the only true God is in no way a denial of his own deity.
Your only options here are either Jesus is a lesser, false god, or there are two Gods. Both of those contradict Scripture.
And, yet, you continue to ignore the argument I have given regarding your use of that verse. If "one God, the Father" excludes Christ from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. Yet you post scripture stating that the Father is Lord as well. Additionally, if "from whom all things came" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Father, then "through whom all things came" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Son. Your beliefs are contradictory on both counts.
We will never die either, so does that make us God? That is not what makes Jesus God. It is that he has always existed.
According to your beliefs he most certainly isn't all the Father is.
Then he cannot be all that the Father is.
It really is amazing that you cannot even see how contradictory and poor your arguments are. But that is usually what happens when one denies the truth of a matter for long enough.
Joh_14:26 (AFV) But when the Comforter comes, even the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in My name, that one shall teach you all things, and shall bring to your remembrance everything that I have told you.
So let us get this right. God the Father is Spirit.
The Father, the Holy Spirit, was in Christ here on earth meaning Jesus was God with us, both as a man and as God.
Jesus said: "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (Joh 14:10 KJV)
In the present dispensation, the Father sent the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, in the name of Christ (Joh 14:26 KJV) and He is present with us now, aware of everything we say and write, our very thoughts.
Jesus is in heaven preparing a place for us. (Joh 14:3 KJV) No man can do this.
The omnipresent Holy Spirit is here on earth and in heaven preparing a place for us with Jesus who said, “I and My Father are one.” John 10:30
As you say, “At the end of the last book of the Bible when the redeemed saints are in the presence of God and of Jesus Christ in glory it is not a strange omission that the third member of the Godhead has no seat of authority on the final throne?”
This is why we are told to baptise in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because the I AM is the WORD, the ONE God who created heaven and earth.
Last edited:
The Apostles at no recorded instance baptize using the formula of "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" They always baptize "In the name of Jesus Christ."
You are incorrect in your assessment!
Paul
It does nothing of the sort.
So far, so good. We must also remember verses such as John 3:18, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (see also John 1:12 and 20:31).
I cannot find that definition anywhere. It means, according to Thayer's:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Nothing close to "unite together." I think you have confused "baptize" with "in," which, according to M. R. Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament, is correctly understood as "into". This "has a twofold meaning. 1. Unto, denoting object or purpose . . . 2. Into, denoting union or communion with."
Clearly, with the correct definitions I provided, we cannot paraphrase that way.
Here is what M. R. Vincent says:
"In Act_2:38, however, Peter says, “Be baptized upon (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ; and in Act_10:48, he commands Cornelius and his friends to be baptized in (ἐν) the name of the Lord. To be baptized upon the name is to be baptized on the confession of that which the name implies: on the ground of the name; so that the name Jesus, as the contents of the faith and confession, is the ground upon which the becoming baptized rests. In the name (ἐν) has reference to the sphere within which alone true baptism is accomplished. The name is not the mere designation, a sense which would give to the baptismal formula merely the force of a charm. The name, as in the Lord's Prayer (“Hallowed be thy name”), is the expression of the sum total of the divine Being: not his designation as God or Lord, but the formula in which all his attributes and characteristics are summed up. It is equivalent to his person. The finite mind can deal with him only through his name; but his name is of no avail detached from his nature. When one is baptized into the name of the Trinity, he professes to acknowledge and appropriate God in all that he is and in all that he does for man. He recognizes and depends upon God the Father as his Creator and Preserver; receives Jesus Christ as his only Mediator and Redeemer, and his pattern of life; and confesses the Holy Spirit as his Sanctifier and Comforter."
What he is saying is that there is no essential difference between the full Trinitarian "formula" and that of Jesus's name only.
If Matt 28:19 was not a part of the original text, then we must ask: does it contradict Scripture as a whole? And we can easily see that, no, it does not. Numerous times throughout the NT the Holy Spirit is mentioned alongside the Father and the Son, which only makes sense if the Spirit is another person, as Jesus strongly implied.