Is the Trinity biblical and does it matter?

[Mustard Socks]

"And when it refuses to evolve that ['is of no assistance'] either". That is precisely what your response did--refused to evolve the discussion. I repeated myself because you didn't actually respond to what I had written. Saying a verse or passage is self-explanatory is not explaining what one thinks that verse or passage means. It is a deflection, not a response. If someone cannot provide an explanation of what they think a verse or passage means, it means that either they don't know what it means or that they are simply unwillingly to engage in proper discourse.

To the contrary. I would submit I responded to your question. That I said something you don't approve or agree with is your issue.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Thus John, who knew Jesus very well, could proclaim this in John 1:1.

John the baptist was Jesus's second cousin. Mary and Elizabeth (John's mother) were cousins.

 

[Mustard Socks]

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)

 

[Free]

To the contrary. I would submit I responded to your question. That I said something you don't approve or agree with is your issue.

You initially posted: "Philippians 2:6-8" http://christianforums.net/Fellowsh...-and-does-it-matter.67346/page-7#post-1268695

I responded: "What about it? Posting Scripture without explaining what it means or showing how it is relevant to one's position is usually meaningless." http://christianforums.net/Fellowsh...-and-does-it-matter.67346/page-7#post-1268956

You then responded: "If you read the scripture it is self-explanatory and relevant to this OP topic."
http://christianforums.net/Fellowsh...-and-does-it-matter.67346/page-9#post-1269021

That is not a response to my question. Saying a passage is self-explanatory is not at all an explanation of what you believe a verse or passage is saying. I don't approve of your response because it is a non-response; it is avoidance. By your own admission, your response "refuses to evolve" the teaching, so it is "of no assistance".

 

[Free]

Mustard Socks Here is a response I have given to the passage:

But look at the context: "Who being in very nature God". We know right there that Jesus is God, which makes him equal with the Father. Jesus cannot be God yet not equal with the Father; that would make him a lesser God, which means two Gods.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Some important points to make about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation.
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself--not only was it he who did the emptying, he emptied himself of something. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this contrasts with his being in the "form of God." This is what John 1:14 is speaking of.
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to be humble (verses 1-4), just as Jesus was humble. And there is no greater humility than God becoming man; the Creator entering his creation as a creature.


Do you notice the difference between what I have given and your "it is self-explanatory" response? If you want to stick with your response, then I should be able to safely assume that you agree with what I have state above because to me, what I have given is self-explanatory.

 

[Mustard Socks]

Jesus wasn't referring to his body. The body named Jesus was being used by God as the image to speak His Word through. God used many visible images called prophets and us saints to speak His Word. The Word of God is a symbolic name that means the same thing as Jesus Christ, Son of God, Holy Spirit, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Kingdom of the Holy Spirit, Kingdom of the Spirit. Spirit of God. the word of the Lord, the voice of the Lord, breath of life, breath of God, tree of life, book of life, the Rock, Light of men, etc.

John 6
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

I get the jest of what you're saying. You're right.

 

[GodsGrace]

Mustard Socks Here is a response I have given to the passage:

But look at the context: "Who being in very nature God". We know right there that Jesus is God, which makes him equal with the Father. Jesus cannot be God yet not equal with the Father; that would make him a lesser God, which means two Gods.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

Some important points to make about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation.
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself--not only was it he who did the emptying, he emptied himself of something. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this contrasts with his being in the "form of God." This is what John 1:14 is speaking of.
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to be humble (verses 1-4), just as Jesus was humble. And there is no greater humility than God becoming man; the Creator entering his creation as a creature.


Do you notice the difference between what I have given and your "it is self-explanatory" response? If you want to stick with your response, then I should be able to safely assume that you agree with what I have state above because to me, what I have given is self-explanatory.

The above is correct, Free.
I'd like to confirm and say that you've explained it perfectly.

 

[LovethroughDove]

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?

It's like if you were the only person on earth that could represent your parent. Your DNA is your parent's DNA. Remember, if he were the "Father" you could not look at him and live. Exodus 32:20 But, "he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

 

[LovethroughDove]

But look at the context: "Who being in very nature God". We know right there that Jesus is God, which makes him equal with the Father. Jesus cannot be God yet not equal with the Father; that would make him a lesser God, which means two Gods.

No, it does not make him equal. It makes him the same substance: Love, Light, and Holiness

Does this make us equal to God? John 14:20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

No, this doesn't make us equal to the Father or equal to Christ. There is hierarchy in God. The Father is almighty, then Christ and then we are under the Son.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 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. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Mustard Socks]

It's like if you were the only person on earth that could represent your parent. Your DNA is your parent's DNA. Remember, if he were the "Father" you could not look at him and live. Exodus 32:20 But, "he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

I think what is largely being missed here is an understanding of what Jesus stated as a man fully human and yet also fully divine. Imbued, innately, one with the Father. The living example of what we can be and what Jesus came to teach as The Way.

I think also that the charge someone is not reading in context is a dismissive employed by a debate style that rather than grasping the scriptures, uses the contextual charge against an opponent in order to put the onus on that opponent. And that then is believed to supersede the accusers incomprehension.

The old testament speaks of Jesus. The new testament is the fruit, fruition of those prophecies.
When God spoke to Moshe (Moses) , He called Himself, I Am. "I Am that I Am."

I do not believe Christians today can comprehend Christ without having read the old testament that predates his arrival by His Father's will in the new.

John 1:1“In the beginning (Genesis 1) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God”
“Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.” (John 1:14)

The doubting Thomas recognized Jesus' identity fully and after He resurrected. John 20:28. "My Lord and my God."

For my part, I am beyond caring if any saint does not accept Jesus' statements that He and His Father are One. It is incomprehensible that someone would even begin to think to interpolate on Jesus' behalf so as to insist he's saying something not that.

We'll all stand before God and answer for how we lived. Not how well read we are.

 

[LovethroughDove]

For my part, I am beyond caring if any saint does not accept Jesus' statements that He and His Father are One. It is incomprehensible that someone would even begin to think to interpolate on Jesus' behalf so as to insist he's saying something not that.

I did not say that he and the Father are not One. You are reading more into it than I said. I'm saying there is hierarchy in God. Can you understand that? Not being mean, but you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

Edit: Please read what I posted to Free in post #185.

 

[Free]

No, it does not make him equal. It makes him the same substance: Love, Light, and Holiness

Don't forget omnipotent, omniscience, having always existed, creator and sustainer of everything that has come into existence, etc. Only God has the substance and attributes of God; that is precisely what makes him God. If the Son is of the same substance as the Father, then he is as much God as the Father is God and so is equal to him.

Does this make us equal to God? John 14:20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

No, this doesn't make us equal to the Father or equal to Christ. There is hierarchy in God. The Father is almighty, then Christ and then we are under the Son.

Of course it doesn't make us equal. For one, we are of a different substance, we are created by God. That precludes us from being equal to the Father and the Son.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 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. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

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

 

[Randy]

All us saints who came after Jesus were used by God to speak His thoughts delivered into our minds, too. This is called the 1,000 year reign of Christ in which two witnesses of the Gospel of God would be used to reveal God's plan for the future and to reveal who God and His voice are known as the Tree of Life. Once you understand what the Tree of Life is, then it's very easy to understand all the prophecies that were written by God's prophets.

The first witness of the Gospel lasted about 300 years from the first Gospel preacher ( Jesus ) to the last Gospel preacher ( unknown ). The last saint was killed by the Roman government like all the rest of the saints were who preached the same exact Gospel that I've been preaching in the second witness this past 8 years. Now that the Tree of Life to totally understood by me, the day of the Lord will happen very soon. This is what us saints come to tell God's chosen believers and that ALL God's created beings ( men and beasts ) will be saved from their flesh that inhabits the world we see. Those visible images are false and are burned up with the Fire of God which is hot molten lava.

The following prophecies are about the age ending day of the Lord when everything on this earth is destroyed and melted into a lake of fire. This destruction starts soon after the 1,000 year reign of Christ has finished revealing the Tree of Life that was hidden from man until this year.

I understand the gospel message. I understand the orthodoxy of the trinity statement which I agree in part and state there is error in part.
But my friend I don't understand your message. I think maybe John the baptist went ahead of the Lord to prepare a way. He understood Jesus came from above and spoke the words from above even before the 12. Indeed He knew Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and that Jesus would take away the sin of the world.

I don't know how you got 300 years or why understanding the tree of life is a key? I would state faith in Jesus is a "key". Because many don't believe in Him or His words. Even PHD's in religion as there are those who state they are a NT scholar who are not of the faith. So they try to find the "real Jesus". So faith is a key. But even from the start the reception has been mixed as in "foolishness to the gentiles and a stumbling block to jews". But to those who God has called Jews and gentiles Jesus is the wisdom and power of God.

I see the two witnesses as just that. At the end of the age a sign that can't be mistaken. They will testify for 1260 days. The beast of the abyss (released at the sounding of the 5th trump call of God) will overpower and kill the two witness. Their bodies are refused burial. And many take joy in their deaths. After 3-1/2 day as the whole world looks on God raises them up and takes them up to heaven. A powerful sign. If any in that day has even a shred of love and faith in Jesus they will believe. For God is a loving God who warns and warns upfront. The rest of the world will be deceived into following the beast because they have not believed God nor repented of their evil ways. If anyone willfully follows and worships the beast and takes his mark they will earn the 2nd death. In the end that beast, whose reign is 3-1/2 years, will be destroyed by the splendor of the Lords return. I would state 2nd coming. Rev 16:15

Randy

 

[Mustard Socks]

I did not say that he and the Father are not One. You are reading more into it than I said. I'm saying there is hierarchy in God. Can you understand that? Not being mean, but you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

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.

 

[Free]

I think what is largely being missed here is an understanding of what Jesus stated as a man fully human and yet also fully divine. Imbued, innately, one with the Father.

Jesus is the God-man, yes, but he is not his own Father. How can a Son be his own Father and a Father his own Son?

The living example of what we can be and what Jesus came to teach as The Way.

What do you mean?

I think also that the charge someone is not reading in context is a dismissive employed by a debate style that rather than grasping the scriptures, uses the contextual charge against an opponent in order to put the onus on that opponent. And that then is believed to supersede the accusers incomprehension.

Context is king when it comes to biblical interpretation. We cannot take one, two, or twenty verses that speak of the nature of God. We must take all that the Bible reveals. If someone takes something out of context, then there is little reason to believe that they understand the text they speak of.

John 1:1“In the beginning (Genesis 1) was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God”
“Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.” (John 1:14)

So how does a Son come from a Father if he is the Father?

The doubting Thomas recognized Jesus' identity fully and after He resurrected. John 20:28. "My Lord and my God."

Right. Jesus is God.

For my part, I am beyond caring if any saint does not accept Jesus' statements that He and His Father are One. It is incomprehensible that someone would even begin to think to interpolate on Jesus' behalf so as to insist he's saying something not that.

There is more than one way that Jesus being one with the Father can be understood. Hence the need for context. The Bible cannot make more clear the fact that the Father is not the Son, the Son is the not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

 

[Randy]

Hi Mustard Socks
This is an important verse. I'll repeat myself and say that Jesus was born approximately 2,000 years ago.
But the Son and 2nd person of the Trinity always existed as God always existed. He existed as the Word of God, or thought, of God. Thus John, who knew Jesus very well, could proclaim this in John 1:1.

Jesus=>Father into your hands I commit my spirit
A body was prepared for Jesus. The son that was (his spirit) was in that body which was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The Father (by whom all things exist) created through Jesus. (through whom all things exists). Jesus was before Abraham was born. He was not a thought in His Fathers eyes. He was and is Gods Son. Firstborn. And all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Him.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus=>Father into your hands I commit my spirit
A body was prepared for Jesus. The son that was (his spirit) was in that body which was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

The Father (by whom all things exist) created through Jesus. (through whom all things exists). Jesus was before Abraham was born. He was not a thought in His Fathers eyes. He was and is Gods Son. Firstborn. And all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Him.

Hi Randy,
In your post no. 173 you state that you agree with part of the Trinity but state that there is error in part.
This truly amazes me. Also, how we could go on for pages about what the Trinity is and means.
Are WE to each make our own doctrine of the Trinity, or are we to adhere to mainline Christianity which has existed from right after the Apostles all died?

When Jesus was on the cross, He was not fully God. He even prayed to God Father in heaven. On the cross He committed His spirit to God.
God Father, always being fully God, would receive the spirit of Jesus as a man. Jesus, the man, was not eternal. He died. When He was resurrected He had a body, but a glorified body. Jesus committed his spirit to God as payment for our sins - He was offering His sacrifice to His God, God Father in heaven, which also comprised of the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son- God's Word made flesh.
Hebrews 9:14

I make no pretense to understand the Trinity, alas, if we could understand everything presented to us in the bible, we'd be very close in mind to God and that is simply not the case. We are farther from Him, than an ant is to us.

Wondering

 

[Randy]

Hi Randy,
In your post no. 173 you state that you agree with part of the Trinity but state that there is error in part.
This truly amazes me. Also, how we could go on for pages about what the Trinity is and means.
Are WE to each make our own doctrine of the Trinity, or are we to adhere to mainline Christianity which has existed from right after the Apostles all died?

When Jesus was on the cross, He was not fully God. He even prayed to God Father in heaven. On the cross He committed His spirit to God.
God Father, always being fully God, would receive the spirit of Jesus as a man. Jesus, the man, was not eternal. He died. When He was resurrected He had a body, but a glorified body. Jesus committed his spirit to God as payment for our sins - He was offering His sacrifice to His God, God Father in heaven, which also comprised of the 2nd person of the Trinity, the Son- God's Word made flesh.
Hebrews 9:14

I make no pretense to understand the Trinity, alas, if we could understand everything presented to us in the bible, we'd be very close in mind to God and that is simply not the case. We are farther from Him, than an ant is to us.

Wondering

Why should it amaze you? It was debated for 100's of years. Even now "can anyone explain the trinity is a common question" with a common answer "no one fully understands it or its a mystery" Thats your foundation. "Mystery"

You have reduced the Son to a mere thought or word before the incarnation. Sorry I disagree.

Jesus is not God He is Gods Son. But when He commanded the winds and storm to be still the Holy Spirit immediately carried out Jesus's will because He has "authority" to do so from His God and Father. So Jesus was not powerless. Also the Father is in Him and He in the Father so He did speak the Fathers words. The word of God or the Word of the Father. or "word" God the Father spoke through the Son. Hebrews 1 states so. Jesus states so.

Jesus has His own Spirit as a firstborn Son would =>"Father into your hands I commit my spirit" The Holy Spirit is the Fathers Spirit. The Spirit that is "with" and "in" the Son. There is only One God. The one Jesus declared the one true God. His God and Our God.

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)


Jesus about His life=>
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Of importance to us. Our lives.
Same language we never die. Only the flesh dies.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

 

[Free]

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)

As I have already pointed out and you have failed to address, this violates the law of non-contradiction, and as such, is nonsense. A being simply cannot be both God and not God at the same time, anymore than a woman can be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time; it is a logical impossibility. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis: nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God.

 

[Randy]

As I have already pointed out and you have failed to address, this violates the law of non-contradiction, and as such, is nonsense. A being simply cannot be both God and not God at the same time, anymore than a woman can be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time; it is a logical impossibility. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis: nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God.

No it doesn't. Jesus is not the Father. (most agree) Yet you claim He is God that always was. 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 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.

Randy