Is the Trinity biblical and does it matter?

[jasonc]

Ah. I understand now.
You believe Jesus is Yahweh.
Then who is Yeshua??

the Father was never seen in the tanakh, nor was his voice in all situations . moses saw the Son not the Father.please compare visions of the bible an you will see. I suggest the books of exodus, revelation, Ezekiel at the least.

 

[Butch5]

The answer is free and eternal. :biggrin

You said, "the Son was God." That is what I was referring to when I said, "what does that mean?"

 

[Mustard Socks]

You said, "the Son was God." That is what I was referring to when I said, "what does that mean?"

What did Isaiah 7:14 prophesy? And what did Matthew 1:23 say also?
Immanuel = God with us.
And what of Isaiah 9:6? “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," Ephesians 1:13

John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

 

[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.

Yes Context
Is Jesus God -yes and no

OK don't ask the Lord thats up to.

Jesus has His own mind, will, and spirit and lives by the Father but He is not the Father and the Father is His God. And there is but One God.
Yes I would state the trinity doctrine does have problems.
All things were created "through" Jesus, but they come from the Father His God. One God the Father "by whom all things came"

Randy

 

[Mustard Socks]

I would suggest if context is key then anyone who claims Jesus did not state He was the Father is not speaking of scripture at all. In fact, if context is key, and it is, then every scripture that refutes that anti-God argument regarding Jesus' divinity, is a lie. Because the contextual reading of scriptures repeats in the OT and the new that Jesus , Immanuel, God with us, is God. As Jesus himself said. And who better to close that argumentum, "argument with momentum", than Jesus himself?
"I and the Father are One." Hear oh Israel our God our God is One.

Argue against Jesus and God at ones peril, is my thought.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Yes Context
Is Jesus God -yes and no

Impossible.
Yes, Jesus is God.
No, Jesus is not God.

 

[LovethroughDove]

I don't understand what you think this passage is saying.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he (the Father) "has put everything under his feet (Jesus's)" Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him (Jesus), it is clear that this does not include God (the Father) himself, who put everything under Christ. When he (the Father) has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him (the Father) who put everything under him (Jesus), so that God (Love, Light, and Holiness) may be all in all.

So being part of the kingdom, you will be part of God.............(when it says so that God may be all in all). Jesus is part of that and we will be/are part God. Just because I say I am part of God, doesn't mean I am the Father and the Son doesn't say he is the Father. The Son and believers are One with God. We are subject to the Son and the Son is under the Father. This is why the Father loves the Son. The Son never made himself equal to the Father. So that explains the being One part of God.

 

[Butch5]

What did Isaiah 7:14 prophesy? And what did Matthew 1:23 say also?
Immanuel = God with us.
And what of Isaiah 9:6? “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise," Ephesians 1:13

John 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

That's not what I asked. You said Jesus is the Son of God, I agree. I'm not asking you to prove it. I'm asking you what it means.

 

[LovethroughDove]

I tried to understand but I think the problem was you didn't present your point very well. Maybe it was the DNA analogy you were trying to work in.

I agree with you. Sometimes I have a hard time expressing my exact thought, because I assume everyone knows what I'm thinking. LOL

I use the DNA because Jesus literally has God in him (his DNA).

 

[Randy]

Impossible.
Yes, Jesus is God.
No, Jesus is not God.

All the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. It is possible that Jesus is ALL that the Father is. The image of the invisible God and in that He is God. Therefore that fullness must be from another. The Father.

Randy

 

[Mustard Socks]

That's not what I asked. You said Jesus is the Son of God, I agree. I'm not asking you to prove it. I'm asking you what it means.

I can't help you to understand if the Word doesn't teach you.

I agree with you. Sometimes I have a hard time expressing my exact thought, because I assume everyone knows what I'm thinking. LOL

I know what you mean. Same here. It's like, it's written in the bible! What do you mean you don't see that.

I use the DNA because Jesus literally has God in him (his DNA).

Understood.
Aren't we all particle relation to God via DNA? All things that exist are of God. No thing that does exist can be other than of the Creator of it.

 

[Mustard Socks]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1

 

[Free]

I can't help you to understand if the Word doesn't teach you.

You're doing it again. Someone is asking a question to get clarification as to what you think something means. No progress in the discussion can take place if people aren't clear on just what others believe about things.

I agree with you. Sometimes I have a hard time expressing my exact thought, because I assume everyone knows what I'm thinking. LOL

I know what you mean. Same here. It's like, it's written in the bible! What do you mean you don't see that.

So, since people shouldn't assume to know what you're thinking, how about providing clarification when you are asked for it? As for "It's written in the Bible! What do you mean you don't see that," that is rather a naïve and far too simplistic view of understanding how we read and interpret the Bible.

 

[Mustard Socks]

You're doing it again. Someone is asking a question to get clarification as to what you think something means. No progress in the discussion can take place if people aren't clear on just what others believe about things.

I am not the one to accuse of doing it again.
I stated what I did and meant every word because in my view, repeating the same thing over and over again and being asked the same question over and over again , is not progress.
Perhaps you would be better off asking the one that keeps asking the same question because they refuse to accept scriptures given by those they decide to ignore in that regard, and instead pay them attention by asking over and over again the same question that refuses to accept the answer, why they're doing what they're doing. And seeking to obscure clarity.
Whatever could be the motive of that?

So, since people shouldn't assume to know what you're thinking, how about providing clarification when you are asked for it? As for "It's written in the Bible! What do you mean you don't see that," that is rather a naïve and far too simplistic view of understanding how we read and interpret the Bible.

See the above.

 

[Free]

Yes Context
Is Jesus God -yes and no

Again, there is simply no context in which Jesus is God and another context in which he is not God. He is either God or he is not, not both.

OK don't ask the Lord thats up to.

As I said, the Bible clearly makes such a statement so there is no need to ask. The problem is in understanding just what it is the Bible is saying.

Jesus has His own mind, will, and spirit and lives by the Father but He is not the Father and the Father is His God. And there is but One God.

I agree that Jesus is not the Father and that there is one God--that is very much part of the Trinity.

Yes I would state the trinity doctrine does have problems.

Such as?

All things were created "through" Jesus, but they come from the Father His God. One God the Father "by whom all things came"

It doesn't matter how we phrase these things, if Jesus was the one through whom all things came, the only logical conclusion is that he is not one of those things that came into being; he has always existed. And eternal pre-existence, or better understood as necessary being, is an attribute of God alone, an attribute which both the Father and the Son have (and the Holy Spirit). This means that there is only one God but that in some way, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share in that one being that is God, each being fully God.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Yes Context
Is Jesus God -yes and no .

Yes. Period.
Jesus is God's spoken word; Logos.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

 

[Free]

I am not the one to accuse of doing it again.
I stated what I did and meant every word because in my view, repeating the same thing over and over again and being asked the same question over and over again , is not progress.
Perhaps you would be better off asking the one that keeps asking the same question because they refuse to accept scriptures given by those they decide to ignore in that regard, and instead pay them attention by asking over and over again the same question that refuses to accept the answer, why they're doing what they're doing. And seeking to obscure clarity.
Whatever could be the motive of that?

It is your motive I am concerned about. You seem unable to grasp the idea that there are things in the Bible that can be understood in different ways. When asked for clarification on what you think a particular verse or phrase is saying, you refuse. You have not shown that you understand anything in this discussion or in what the Bible says. As I stated previously, it is largely pointless to just post passages from the Bible without explanation. Anyone can quote Scripture, even atheists, but that doesn't mean they have actually understood what is being said. It strongly suggests that one hasn't put a whole lot of thought into what the Bible says, nor into their own position. Such a person believes things because that is what they were told to believe.

Not only does it prevent the discussion from moving forward, it is very discourteous.

 

[Mustard Socks]

It is your motive I am concerned about. You seem unable to grasp the idea that there are things in the Bible that can be understood in different ways. When asked for clarification on what you think a particular verse or phrase is saying, you refuse. You have not shown that you understand anything in this discussion or in what the Bible says. As I stated previously, it is largely pointless to just post passages from the Bible without explanation. Anyone can quote Scripture, even atheists, but that doesn't mean they have actually understood what is being said. It strongly suggests that one hasn't put a whole lot of thought into what the Bible says, nor into their own position. Such a person believes things because that is what they were told to believe.

Not only does it prevent the discussion from moving forward, it is very discourteous.

What I find discourteous and this is the last time I'll indulge your remarks, are those that elect to ignore what has been stated and therein refute the accusations such as you've made toward me. I don't know your motives but I forgive you the effort you continue to undertake in pursuit of that.

 

[Free]

What I find discourteous and this is the last time I'll indulge your remarks, are those that elect to ignore what has been stated and therein refute the accusations such as you've made toward me. I don't know your motives but I forgive you the effort you continue to undertake in pursuit of that.

It is plain to any reader of this thread that what I have stated is true. My only motive has been to get you to be courteous in engaging the discussion by providing clarification when asked--something you refuse to do, thus inhibiting the discussion.

 

[Mustard Socks]

What is discourteous is misrepresenting the truth of my posts in this thread.
And what is inhibiting this discussion is your derailing to a false premise. Lets get back to the topic per the rules, whats say?