Is the Trinity biblical and does it matter?

[Randy]

Those of you who claim a relationship with the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord Himself in prayer if He is Gods firstborn? I gave you scripture.
Firstborn of all creation.
When God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to Him.
.....the assembly (church) of the firstborn.

Jesus calls the Father the one true God and also stated He was Gods Son. Jesus stated the Father was His God and our God. God states Jesus is His Son. Believe in Him. I also call Jesus the Son. I also quote Jesus is that Father is in Him and He in the Father. One in that manner.

Randy

 

[civilwarbuff]

Those of you who claim a relationship with the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord Himself in prayer if He is Gods firstborn? I gave you scripture.
Firstborn of all creation.
When God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to Him.
.....the assembly (church) of the firstborn.

Jesus calls the Father the one true God and also stated He was Gods Son. Jesus stated the Father was His God and our God. God states Jesus is His Son. Believe in Him. I also call Jesus the Son. I also quote Jesus is that Father is in Him and He in the Father. One in that manner.

Randy

Maybe you have answered this earlier, if so forgive me......I am trying to wrap my head around the convo.
1. Would you agree that God is eternal and everlasting with no beginning and no end?
2. Would you agree Jesus is God?
3. Would you agree the Holy Spirit is God?
And please I am not looking for long explanations and bible verses, just how you would answer these questions

 

[Mustard Socks]

Those of you who claim a relationship with the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord Himself in prayer if He is Gods firstborn? I gave you scripture.
Firstborn of all creation.
When God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to Him.
.....the assembly (church) of the firstborn.

Jesus calls the Father the one true God and also stated He was Gods Son. Jesus stated the Father was His God and our God. God states Jesus is His Son. Believe in Him. I also call Jesus the Son. I also quote Jesus is that Father is in Him and He in the Father. One in that manner.

Randy

Don't be frustrated brother. God knew all before he created anything at all. And as His word tells us, there shall be those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear.

God calls to him those whom he will to receive his grace. Maybe a different way to find peace with this is to consider those opposed to God's word are so because they are not one with his grace. How can someone understand a language they do not know? God's word is such a thing as that as I see it.
The bible was not written for the unbeliever. It was written as a guidebook for the saints of God.
I hope that point of view brings you some measure of peace.

 

[Free]

No it doesn't. Jesus is not the Father. (most agree)

Yes, agreed.

Yet you claim He is God that always was.

Right, because that is what the Bible reveals.

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. (ESV)

In verse 1, the Greek for "In the beginning was the Word," is such that when the beginning began, the Word already was in existence; that is eternal preexistence, an attribute of God alone. Verse 3 is such that the only logical conclusion is that the Word, the Son, cannot be one of those things that was made, otherwise the verse is false. We see the exact same thing in Col. 1:

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.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Either a plain reading of the text is correct and the Son cannot be a created thing or the verses are false.

Then we have many other verses where the same titles used of God are used of Jesus; verses where Jesus claims to be the I Am; verses where the Jews correctly understood Jesus's claim to be the Son of the Father made him equal to the Father; and many more besides.

Is Jesus the Father? Clearly not. Is he truly God? Yes. Yet we also see the clear teaching in the Bible that there is only one God. This is why it is a mystery.

Even though Jesus has His own spirit and there is but one God the Father who states the Holy Spirit is His Spirit.. Sounds like you violate your on words. With a reason of mystery.

I don't violate my own words. The Trinity is a mystery, just as the Incarnation is a mystery, and how God has always existed is a mystery, but that doesn't mean the teachings aren't there in Scripture. They are mysteries in the sense that while the Bible gives us basic statements about them, they are beyond our comprehension.

We see in Matt. 28:19 that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all distinct. We see in Acts 16 that the Holy Spirit is also called the "Spirit of Jesus":

Act 16:6 And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.
Act 16:7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them. (ESV)

And in Romans 8, the "Spirit of Jesus" is equated with the "Spirit of God":

Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, (ESV)

Compare that with what Paul says in Galatians 4:

Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (ESV)

And in 1 Peter we see that the OT prophets prophesied by the "Spirit of Christ":

1Pe 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
1Pe 1:11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (ESV)

So, yes, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God but he is also called the Spirit of Christ and is the spirit of prophecy, among other names. Such is the intimate relationship between the persons of the Trinity.

I stated Jesus was God in the context that the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. In that Jesus is all that the Father is.

There is no context in which someone who isn't God can be said to be God. That is absolutely contradictory. This is either/or. Either Jesus is God or he is not God. There are no contexts which allow him to be both God and not God. You stated:

"Is Jesus God?
He never dies. (He has indestructible life in Himself- The Father) The body on the cross died Jesus didn't.
Yes, He is all that the Father is. (The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him)
No, He has always been the Son. (firstborn)"

You say that Jesus "is all that the Father is," yet you deny that he has always existed. The Father has always existed, so if Jesus is all that the Father is, they he must have always existed as well, or he is not all that the Father is. Do you see the problem?

But as I have shown, the Bible clearly states that the Son has always existed. Eternal pre-existence is an attribute of God alone, an attribute that the Son has, which is one of the reasons why he is God.

 

[Free]

Don't be frustrated brother. God knew all before he created anything at all. And as His word tells us, there shall be those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear.

God calls to him those whom he will to receive his grace. Maybe a different way to find peace with this is to consider those opposed to God's word are so because they are not one with his grace. How can someone understand a language they do not know? God's word is such a thing as that as I see it.
The bible was not written for the unbeliever. It was written as a guidebook for the saints of God.
I hope that point of view brings you some measure of peace.

Just who are "those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear"? Who are those here who are "opposed to God's word," who "are not one with his grace"?

 

[Free]

Those of you who claim a relationship with the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord Himself in prayer if He is Gods firstborn? I gave you scripture.
Firstborn of all creation.
When God brings the firstborn into the world He commands all His angels to bow to Him.
.....the assembly (church) of the firstborn.

Jesus calls the Father the one true God and also stated He was Gods Son. Jesus stated the Father was His God and our God. God states Jesus is His Son. Believe in Him. I also call Jesus the Son. I also quote Jesus is that Father is in Him and He in the Father. One in that manner.

Randy

Context, Randy, context. Is Jesus the firstborn of creation? Of course. There is no need to pray about it because the Bible clearly states that is the case. The problem comes in when the term "firstborn" is taken out of context and when one fails to understand the biblical use.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
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.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Does "firstborn" mean that the Son was the first created thing or somehow came into being at some point in time? No. If it did, it would not only do violence to the text here in Col. 1, but it would stand in direct contradiction to numerous other passages, including John 1:1-3. I have already explained how verses 16 an 17 preclude the Son from ever having been created; they show that he has always existed. So clearly "firstborn" does not mean here that the Son came into being.

How do we then understand "firstborn" as it relates to the Son? We look to its other uses in Scripture.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, (ESV)

Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)

We see then that "firstborn" has meanings which are not literal. We know from reading the Bible that the firstborn had certain rights and privileges but we also see in the verses above that it seemed those whom God loved he called his firstborn, even though they were not in any literal sense his firstborn.

In relation to the Son then, we can understand that Col. 1:15 is speaking of Jesus's place of pre-eminence, his sovereignty, and his lordship, over all creation.

And so we come to Heb. 1:6, where, as is always the case, context is key. We cannot simply divorce a verse from what else is being said around it:

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Heb 1:4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
Heb 1:7 Of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire."
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end."

There is a lot that could be said about this passage but to keep things simple, we see that in the context of the Father calling the Son his firstborn, we also see that the Son is "the heir of all things" the one "through whom also [God] created the world". Very interestingly we not only have the Father calling the Son God, in verse 8, we have verses 10-12 in which a passage that is quoting the OT, referring to YHWH, is being applied to the Son, effectively calling him YHWH/God:

Psa 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:
Psa 102:19 that he looked down from his holy height; from heaven the LORD looked at the earth,
Psa 102:20 to hear the groans of the prisoners, to set free those who were doomed to die,
Psa 102:21 that they may declare in Zion the name of the LORD, and in Jerusalem his praise,
Psa 102:22 when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.
Psa 102:23 He has broken my strength in midcourse; he has shortened my days.
Psa 102:24 "O my God," I say, "take me not away in the midst of my days— you whose years endure throughout all generations!"
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

So one simply cannot quote a single verse about the Son being the firstborn as though it means he was the first created thing, as the contexts clearly refute that idea.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Just who are "those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear"? Who are those here who are "opposed to God's word," who "are not one with his grace"?

All that God's word describes.
Ephesians. 2:1, “hostile in mind” towards God (Colossians 1:21), possess a “depraved” (1 Timothy 6:3-5), “futile” (Ephesians 4:17) and “defiled” mind (Titus 1:15), do not seek God (Romans 3:10-12), are unable to submit themselves to God’s ways (Romans 8:6-7), see the plan of salvation as foolish (1 Corinthians 1:18), and cannot understand God’s message (1 Corinthians. 2:14).

A great synopsis there and sourced here in full.

 

[Free]

All that God's word describes.
Ephesians. 2:1, “hostile in mind” towards God (Colossians 1:21), possess a “depraved” (1 Timothy 6:3-5), “futile” (Ephesians 4:17) and “defiled” mind (Titus 1:15), do not seek God (Romans 3:10-12), are unable to submit themselves to God’s ways (Romans 8:6-7), see the plan of salvation as foolish (1 Corinthians 1:18), and cannot understand God’s message (1 Corinthians. 2:14).

A great synopsis there and sourced here in full.

You are dodging as this doesn't answer what I asked. You are making such statements within the context of this discussion, which implies that you are claiming those who disagree with you, namely, the Trinitarians, are "those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear," and who are "opposed to God's word," who "are not one with his grace". Is that correct?

And yet it is you and others who have not cleared up the problems with your positions, including significant contradictions, who have not given any explanation of Bible verses when asked, who just dodge and evade rather than provide answers. And this has been par for the course for anti-Trinitarians in all the years I've been here and debated the Trinity.

 

[Mustard Socks]

You are dodging as this doesn't answer what I asked. You are making such statements within the context of this discussion, which implies that you are claiming those who disagree with you, namely, the Trinitarians, are "those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear," and who are "opposed to God's word," who "are not one with his grace". Is that correct?

And yet it is you and others who have not cleared up the problems with your positions, including significant contradictions, who have not given any explanation of Bible verses when asked, who just dodge and evade rather than provide answers. And this has been par for the course for anti-Trinitarians in all the years I've been here and debated the Trinity.

I don't think it fair nor wise to see in new people those who vexed you in the past. To the last part of your remarks I would remind you with a gentle speech that, I am not anyone of those in the past, nor is it fair to see me as similar, of whom you have had issues with.

Maybe instead of reading this topic in the vernacular of both, 'anti', and thus its opposite, 'pro', topic, you might consider reading the scriptures that are offered in context with the topic.

Case in point, you said my remarks that you quoted dodged the question you asked.
I would obviously disagree being I posted the scriptures that supported my statement as to why they were there in answer to your question. I quoted you prior to .

That you need to see a directed remark insulting as you believe people opposed to my opinion does not mean you are correct. It means that you've put the context of your prior experiences and formed biases into play against the present tense of my perspective. I'm yet " another one", as you claim of the group who don't see things your way apparently.
That is pigeonholing . And that is not charitable nor productive.

God said what He said first. The scriptures are world inclusive. Everyone qualifies to be called dead in their sins. Not everyone comes alive in Christ.

 

[Free]

I don't think it fair nor wise to see in new people those who vexed you in the past. To the last part of your remarks I would remind you with a gentle speech that, I am not anyone of those in the past, nor is it fair to see me as similar, of whom you have had issues with.

I know that you are not any of those from the past. My point is simply that your behavior is similar.

Maybe instead of reading this topic in the vernacular of both, 'anti', and thus its opposite, 'pro', topic, you might consider reading the scriptures that are offered in context with the topic.

Some are indeed 'anti' and others are simply 'non'. As for "reading the scriptures that are offered in context with the topic," I have done nothing but that, and it is the anti/non-Trinitarians that have failed to address context, as I have repeatedly pointed out, only to hear crickets chirping.

Case in point, you said my remarks that you quoted dodged the question you asked.
I would obviously disagree being I posted the scriptures that supported my statement as to why they were there in answer to your question. I quoted you prior to .

I responded to that by posting our conversation to show that you didn't answer my question, and not only did you not respond to that post, you didn't respond to my subsequent post where I laid out what I believe Phil. 2:5-8 is saying. I explained the passage whereas you only said it is self-explanatory, which is not an explanation and hence not an answer to my question. I laid it out for any reader to see.

That you need to see a directed remark insulting as you believe people opposed to my opinion does not mean you are correct. It means that you've put the context of your prior experiences and formed biases into play against the present tense of my perspective. I'm yet " another one", as you claim of the group who don't see things your way apparently.

You quoted a non-Trinitarian who was putting statements and questions to the Trinitarians in this thread, and made the statements in question. So within the context of this discussion, I do not see how your remarks can mean anything but that you think those in this discussion who are Trinitarian are "those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear," who are those who are "opposed to God's word," who "are not one with his grace". It often seems as though you do not understand context at all.

And, of course, if you think that about the Trinitarians in this particular discussion, it also means you think that of Trinitarians everywhere.

And that is not charitable nor productive.

Neither is refusing to engage in proper dialogue and debate.

God said what He said first. The scriptures are world inclusive. Everyone qualifies to be called dead in their sins. Not everyone comes alive in Christ.

I don't understand what you are saying in relation to the topic with any of these statements.

 

[Butch5]

Some are indeed 'anti' and others are simply 'non'. As for "reading the scriptures that are offered in context with the topic," I have done nothing but that, and it is the anti/non-Trinitarians that have failed to address context, as I have repeatedly pointed out, only to hear crickets chirping.

I would beg to differ. However, I got smacked for doing so. I believe I frustrated you guys at every turn.

 

[GodsGrace]

If Jesus was not who He said he was, The Father, (when you have seen me you have seen the Father. I and my Father are One, etc...) , who or what was he?

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” John 1:3-5 (ESV)

Hi Mustard Socks,
Are you saying Jesus was the Father, Yahweh?
Then who was the 2nd person of the Trinity? Also known as The Son.

Don't be frustrated brother. God knew all before he created anything at all. And as His word tells us, there shall be those with eyes but they shall not see(read). Ears, but they shall not hear.

God calls to him those whom he will to receive his grace. Maybe a different way to find peace with this is to consider those opposed to God's word are so because they are not one with his grace. How can someone understand a language they do not know? God's word is such a thing as that as I see it.
The bible was not written for the unbeliever. It was written as a guidebook for the saints of God.
I hope that point of view brings you some measure of peace.

Hi Mustard Socks,
It does appear from the above statement that you Are saying that anyone who does not agree with you does not have the grace of God.

Wondering
It would be nice if you would clarify this.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Hi Mustard Socks,
Are you saying Jesus was the Father, Yahweh?

Jesus stated he was the Father.

Then who was the 2nd person of the Trinity? Also known as The Son.

As told to us in Matthew 1:18-25.

Hi Mustard Socks,
It does appear from the above statement that you Are saying that anyone who does not agree with you does not have the grace of God.

Wondering
It would be nice if you would clarify this.

I already did.

 

[Free]

I would beg to differ. However, I got smacked for doing so. I believe I frustrated you guys at every turn.

I think you and maybe a couple of others, including Randy, have actually engaged. I certainly don't recall being frustrated at every turn. Every position, including Trinitarian, faces difficulties with certain passages, but it is the Trinity that still provides the best explanation ofall that Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

 

[Butch5]

I think you and maybe a couple of others, including Randy, have actually engaged. I certainly don't recall being frustrated at every turn. Every position, including Trinitarian, faces difficulties with certain passages, but it is the Trinity that still provides the best explanation ofall that Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

The question is, which version? The version I hold to doesn't have any problem passages. I don't think the version that you guys presented is logical or the best representation of what the Scriptures reveal about the nature of God.

 

[Free]

The question is, which version? The version I hold to doesn't have any problem passages. I don't think the version that you guys presented is logical or the best representation of what the Scriptures reveal about the nature of God.

Your version has the Father and the Son as two separate beings, two Gods, where the Son has not always existed. Both of those points contradict the many passages I have given in this thread.

 

[Butch5]

Your version has the Father and the Son as two separate beings, two Gods, where the Son has not always existed. Both of those points contradict the many passages I have given in this thread.

They don't contradict any passage of Scripture. Consider that those passages may be able to be understood differently than the way you're understanding them. My understanding of the Trinity is in total agreement with the Ante-Nicene Christians, some of which were actually taught by the apostles.

 

[Butch5]

Your version has the Father and the Son as two separate beings, two Gods, where the Son has not always existed. Both of those points contradict the many passages I have given in this thread.

John said,

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 KJV)

Can you explain how that is?

 

[GodsGrace]

They don't contradict any passage of Scripture. Consider that those passages may be able to be understood differently than the way you're understanding them. My understanding of the Trinity is in total agreement with the Ante-Nicene Christians, some of which were actually taught by the apostles.

Butch, this is not correct.
The early church fathers believed in the traditional understanding of the Trinity.
I've already posted twice on this, but will post again tomorrow with computer.

Wondering

 

[Mustard Socks]

John said,

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Jn. 1:14 KJV)

Can you explain how that is?

I'll interject here of my own accord and say, great verse.
So too do I believe we can look at , "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" John 8:58. And recall also God's words in Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"