Is the Trinity biblical and does it matter?

[brother Paul]

These questions are re-arising in our time (since the 1960s) because people do not want to be BLIND sheep just goosestepping with what the human leader says is the only understanding they are allowed to have or else...

Nicene Christianity is not the same as what many today are convinced it is. The Focus switched from the One God revealing Himself in three persons, to the three Persons as one Holy Corporation God. The thinking of the Nicene Christian church was one Ousia in three hypostases not the other way around. This is neither Sabellianism nor a variant or Arianism though many "Christians" at the time also tended toward these (though many fall for a version of Tri-theism which is not the same as the tri-unity of the one God). By Christian here I mean all who in contrition of sin turned from unbelief to belief falling on the grace of God through the work of Christ whom He sent.

The Bible teaches there is only one YHVH. That YHVH IS the Father, and also the Son, and also the Spirit and yet the personae are eternally distinct. How is God one in nature and substance and yet presenting Himself as three? Only the Father knows when the Son/Word will come again, only the Son/Word became incarnate and experienced the death on the cross, and only the Spirit baptizes one INTO Christ. The Spirit glorifies the Son/Word and the Son/Word glorifies the Father, and so on. YHVH as the Father has never been seen, when He has been revealed or made manifest it was always the Son/Word, and He only and always indwells though the Spirit. YET there is only numerically one YHVH.

This is neither subordinationalism nor modalism...none of the persons come after and submit (as if only the FATHER is the true God), and one does not transform into the other or only BECOME in some order in temporal time. The one and ONLY YHVH has always been the Father, the Son, and the Spirit but in time the order in the faith of many has become reversed. It should not be the Three as one but the One as three.

Just my $.02

In His love

Paul

 

[Jim Parker]

Nope -Firstborn -at some point in history before the world began
I believe Jesus has always been the Son.

That was your reply to the question:"Do you believe that the Son has always existed?"
You have very concisely repeated the heresy of the neo-platonist, Arius who, by stating that "there was a time when the word was not" defined the Logos, Son, as a creature and not eternal God.

Your belief, by adopting the neo-platonist concepts, puts your theology outside the realm of Christianity.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jesus didn't call the Son God. This is talking about Him being the Son of God. And the text says, 'you say that I am.'

You asked "Where did Jesus call the Son God?"
In the verse I posted, Jesus identified himself as both God (I AM) and Son.
The text, in KOINE GREEK, not your favorite translation, is the equivalent of Jesus confirming that He is the Son of God.

 

[brother Paul]

Not a big Hank Hannigraff fan but he does explain the common understanding very well he says "First, in referring to Christ as the firstborn, Paul has in mind preeminence. This usage is firmly established in the Old Testament. For example, Ephraim is referred to as the Lord’s “firstborn” (Jer. 31:9) even though Manasseh was born first (Gen. 41:51). Likewise, David is appointed the Lord’s “firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27), despite being the youngest of Jesse’s sons (1 Sam. 16:10‐13). While neither Ephraim nor David was the first one born, they were firstborn in the sense of preeminence or “prime position.”

He is the preeminent one "OVER" all creation not IN IT...the Son/Word is eternally begotten...that eternally generated aspect of the one God that is knowable...the visible image of the invisible...the brightness of the Glory.

The Son IS creator (with the Father and the Spirit) the angels worship Him (Hebrews 1)
Jesus was MADE a little lower than the angels and is the Son/Word's incarnate form (Hebrews 2)

 

[civilwarbuff]

Jesus was MADE a little lower than the angels and is the Son/Word's incarnate form (Hebrews 2)

That is simple and pure heresy and not Christian in any form...

 

[brother Paul]

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." In the Bible the word made or formed (yatzar in the Hebrew) means to be given materiality. Jesus (or Yeshua) was the name given to this human baby (of the seed of David through Mary) who was YHVH, the Son. The Son of God became the Son of Man so the sons of men could become the children of God. This is not heresy. "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Nothing in the Bible says His name was Jesus before He was born of Mary, but as the Son/Word He always existed and will never cease to exist (because He is God, the very Creator).

Matthew 1 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS"...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...

 

[Butch5]

Hmmm.....and here I was under the impression that God never changes.....

You asked "Where did Jesus call the Son God?"
In the verse I posted, Jesus identified himself as both God (I AM) and Son.
The text, in KOINE GREEK, not your favorite translation, is the equivalent of Jesus confirming that He is the Son of God.

Yes, the Son of God, not God. I checked both the Byzantine and the Critical text and they both say Son of God.

But, you didn't answer my question. Have you changed your view of the Trinity?

 

[Butch5]

This is not against what you stated above:
If we ALL want to get picky Jesus quoted the psalms "we are all called Gods". But Jesus Himself stated He was Gods Son.

Pslam 82:6 I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.

John 10:22-42 NIV

Further Conflict Over Jesus’ Claims
To those that Love Him Jesus shows Himself pure but to the devious He shows Himself shrewd: They can't outfox the Son.

22Then came the Festival of Dedicationb at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than allc ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’d ? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

40Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. There he stayed, 41and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42And in that place many believed in Jesus.

That passage isn't calling men, the God. Jesus said several times that He is the Son of God. My point was that Jesus called the Father God. Jesus is God (Diety) in essence or substance. However, He Himself said the Father is greater than I.

 

[Randy]

That passage isn't calling men, the God. Jesus said several times that He is the Son of God. My point was that Jesus called the Father God. Jesus is God (Diety) in essence or substance. However, He Himself said the Father is greater than I.

I don't believe Jesus is the Father either. The one Jesus calls His God. That being said Jesus is the reflection of Gods Glory and the exact imprint of Gods very bring. (All that the Father is) In that context then Jesus is God.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

 

[Randy]

That was your reply to the question:"Do you believe that the Son has always existed?"
You have very concisely repeated the heresy of the neo-platonist, Arius who, by stating that "there was a time when the word was not" defined the Logos, Son, as a creature and not eternal God.

Your belief, by adopting the neo-platonist concepts, puts your theology outside the realm of Christianity.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

My belief comes from the NT. I do state the trinity has error in part not found in the NT.
Randy

 

[Randy]

Not a big Hank Hannigraff fan but he does explain the common understanding very well he says "First, in referring to Christ as the firstborn, Paul has in mind preeminence. This usage is firmly established in the Old Testament. For example, Ephraim is referred to as the Lord’s “firstborn” (Jer. 31:9) even though Manasseh was born first (Gen. 41:51). Likewise, David is appointed the Lord’s “firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27), despite being the youngest of Jesse’s sons (1 Sam. 16:10‐13). While neither Ephraim nor David was the first one born, they were firstborn in the sense of preeminence or “prime position.”

He is the preeminent one "OVER" all creation not IN IT...the Son/Word is eternally begotten...that eternally generated aspect of the one God that is knowable...the visible image of the invisible...the brightness of the Glory.

The Son IS creator (with the Father and the Spirit) the angels worship Him (Hebrews 1)
Jesus was MADE a little lower than the angels and is the Son/Word's incarnate form (Hebrews 2)

Jesus=>"Father into your hands I commit my spirit"
Its clear to me the Son that was (His Spirit) was in the tent of the body God prepared for Him. He was not emptied of the Father in Him.
The Father created all thing "through" the Son. The one Jesus calls His God.

I can agree with this statement completely
THE APOSTLES CREED

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate; Was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into Hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit; The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the life everlasting. Amen.


Randy

 

[civilwarbuff]

Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." In the Bible the word made or formed (yatzar in the Hebrew) means to be given materiality. Jesus (or Yeshua) was the name given to this human baby (of the seed of David through Mary) who was YHVH, the Son. The Son of God became the Son of Man so the sons of men could become the children of God. This is not heresy. "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Nothing in the Bible says His name was Jesus before He was born of Mary, but as the Son/Word He always existed and will never cease to exist (because He is God, the very Creator).

Matthew 1 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS"...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...

Jesus was both fully man and fully God; his human form conforms with the rest of us but His God form conforms to God and that form certainly was not made a little lower than the angels. You failed to note the distinction.

 

[Butch5]

I don't believe Jesus is the Father either. The one Jesus calls His God. That being said Jesus is the reflection of Gods Glory and the exact imprint of Gods very bring. (All that the Father is) In that context then Jesus is God.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

I agree if we are talking about essence. Jesus is the essence of the Father. However, in authority and Personal attributes I believe the differ/ For instance, Jesus is the only begotten God. The Father is unbegotten.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, the Son of God, not God. I checked both the Byzantine and the Critical text and they both say Son of God.

That's nice.

But, you didn't answer my question. Have you changed your view of the Trinity?

No. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; there is one God.
God, from eternity, is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jim Parker]

My belief comes from the NT.
I do state the trinity has error in part not found in the NT.
Randy

That's nice.
You know better than the writers of the NT, the disciples of the apostles, and the theological giants of the early church.
That's amazing that you have achieved such a depth of understanding that none of them were able to achieve!
You and the Mormons and the JWs and the Christian Scientists and the United Pentecostals all think you know better than what the church has always taught.
What qualifies you to refute any part of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Are you expert in the Koine Greek of the NT or do you have to depend on a translation that someone else, who actually knows the language, provided?
What are your credentials that anyone should pay any attention to what you have to say in refutation of the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity?

Just wondering how you came by this astounding conclusion....


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)






DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Jim Parker]

Jesus=>"Father into your hands I commit my spirit"
Its clear to me the Son that was (His Spirit) was in the tent of the body God prepared for Him. He was not emptied of the Father in Him.

What is "clear to you" is irrelevant. What the church has always taught defines Christianity, not your feeble attempts to refute the wisdom of the best minds of the last 2000 years of Christianity.

I can agree with this statement completely
THE APOSTLES CREED
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate; Was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into Hell; The third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit; The Holy Christian Church, the Communion of Saints; The Forgiveness of sins; The Resurrection of the body; And the life everlasting. Amen.
Randy

What you "can agree with" or not is irrelevant. The Church has already delved into the question and has provided the answer. It is that God is a Trinity.
If you have a religious belief system that does not hold to that teaching then you have a non-Christian belief system.
Enjoy!
The Creed of the Christian Church, not as you have reworked, is as follows:

I believe in one God, The Father Almighty,
creator of heaven and earth and of all that is seen and unseen.

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father
Through Him all things were made.

For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven:
By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilot.
He suffered and died and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead
And his kingdom will never end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and life ever lasting.
Amen.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's nice.
You know better than the writers of the NT, the disciples of the apostles, and the theological giants of the early church.
That's amazing that you have achieved such a depth of understanding that none of them were able to achieve!
You and the Mormons and the JWs and the Christian Scientists and the United Pentecostals all think you know better than what the church has always taught.
What qualifies you to refute any part of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Are you expert in the Koine Greek of the NT or do you have to depend on a translation that someone else, who actually knows the language, provided?
What are your credentials that anyone should pay any attention to what you have to say in refutation of the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity?

Just wondering how you came by this astounding conclusion....


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)






DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

:nod

 

[Randy]

I agree if we are talking about essence. Jesus is the essence of the Father. However, in authority and Personal attributes I believe the differ/ For instance, Jesus is the only begotten God. The Father is unbegotten.

God is Spirit not essence.
The fullness of the deity was pleased to dwell in Jesus. Jesus is the exact representation of Gods wisdom and power but He is not the Father. As the Son Jesus has His own Spirit.

Randy

 

[Randy]

That's nice.
You know better than the writers of the NT, the disciples of the apostles, and the theological giants of the early church.
That's amazing that you have achieved such a depth of understanding that none of them were able to achieve!
You and the Mormons and the JWs and the Christian Scientists and the United Pentecostals all think you know better than what the church has always taught.
What qualifies you to refute any part of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Are you expert in the Koine Greek of the NT or do you have to depend on a translation that someone else, who actually knows the language, provided?
What are your credentials that anyone should pay any attention to what you have to say in refutation of the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity?

Just wondering how you came by this astounding conclusion....


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)






DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

I have always read Jesus is the firstborn. I have always read the Holy Spirit as Gods very own Spirit. I believe the writers of the NT would agree with me which includes Paul. The NT is my source. So I know as the writers of the NT not know better.

Jesus was accused of blasphemy because they said He claimed to be God though in the NT He claimed to be Gods Son. You accuse me of near the same because I state He is not God even though I also state He is Gods Son. Ironic. Jesus is the exact representation of the wisdom and power of God, (all that the Father is), but not because He always was and always was God. As I read the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. As in from another will and power. That fullness would be from the One Jesus states as His God and our God. His Father and our Father.

Jesus calls the Father the One true God. If He always was and always was God how then do you believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit"?

Randy

 

[chessman]

Jesus is the reflection of Gods Glory and the exact imprint of Gods very bring. (All that the Father is) In that context then Jesus is God.

When did the Son begin to be the radiance/reflection of God, on your view, versus always being the radiance of God? And more importantly, what Scripture says the Son ever began to be the radiance of God?

When asked:

Do you believe that the Son has always existed?

You answered:

Nope -Firstborn -at some point in history before the world began

Since the Son IS the very radiance of God's glory (Heb 1:3), yet has not always existed on your view, what/who was the radiance of God's glory prior to the Son's existence, on your view?

And please post Scripture that teaches your answer.