Is the Trinity biblical? Is Jesus really God?

[Cygnus]

i always thought "son of" was a simple phrase to denote state of being. son of the Most High - the heavens. son of man - this world. but it could have another meaning or double meaning.

Jesus fulfilled this...and thus was the Son of man mentioned here.
Daniel 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,a coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

 

[Traveling teacher]

Numbers 23:19
GOd is not a man....
GOd cannot lie
JAmes 1:13
GOd cannot be tempted
Malachi 3:6
GOd cannot change
1 corinthians 8:6
There is only one God the Father
Deuteronomy 6:5
Hear oh ISrael Yahweh your God is one
The greatest commandment is that there is only One God
Mark 12:29
Mark 12:32

 

[Cygnus]

GOd is not a man....

God the Word..became flesh. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Phil 2: 6 Who, being in very naturea God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very natureb of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man,

It is true, God the father nor God the Holy Spirit is a a man..they are Spirit.

 

[jaybird]

Those who deny this reality do not know God.

i think with those kind of people its more about they believe the word of G-D. when the Most High says He is not a man ( says this three times, let all things be established by three witnesses) they believe that to be true.

Why? Because the whole central core of salvation is the relationship with God through faith.

John 20 31
31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
the book was written down so people would believe Jesus was the Christ, Son of the Most High. there is no mention of deity of Jesus or trinity, man would add that much later

 

[WIP]

Note: The rules of this forum require that Scripture is to be provided to support our viewpoints. Is it necessary to amend the rules to require an explanation of how we believe said Scripture supports our statements? Doesn't that seem to be the spirit of the rules?

Going forward, if you make a claim, provide the Scripture to support your claim along with an explanation of how you believe it is so.

Do not reply to this thread in the forum.

 

[whatgoeshere?]

I would disagree......

Good luck with that brother. John 10:30 makes it clear. "I and my Father are one."

When Jesus returned to the father, he returned to the father that caused himself to be born through Mary.Matthew 1.

Jesus , as the Bible says, is Lord over all. Only God is that. Colossians 1:15-23

Answers in Genesis
Chapter 19
Is Jesus God?

Jesus implicitly ascribed this divine name to himself during a confrontation He had with a group of hostile Jews. He said, “I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). Jesus deliberately contrasted the created origin of Abraham—whom the Jews venerated—with His own eternal, uncreated nature as God.

Jesus is Kurios. The New Testament Greek equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew name Yahweh is Kurios. Used of God, Kurios carries the idea of a sovereign being who exercises absolute authority. The word is translated Lord in English translations of the Bible.
To an early Christian accustomed to reading the Old Testament, the word Lord, when used of Jesus, would point to His identification with the God of the Old Testament (Yahweh). Hence, the affirmation that “Jesus is Lord” (Kurios) in the New Testament constitutes a clear affirmation that Jesus is Yahweh, as is the case in passages like Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 12:3, and Philippians 2:5–11.

 

[Free]

i think with those kind of people its more about they believe the word of G-D. when the Most High says He is not a man ( says this three times, let all things be established by three witnesses) they believe that to be true.

Every Christian believes that verse to be true, yet it is entirely irrelevant to the question of the Trinity.

John 20 31
31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
the book was written down so people would believe Jesus was the Christ, Son of the Most High. there is no mention of deity of Jesus or trinity, man would add that much later

There are numerous mentions of the deity of Jesus in John (e.g., 1:1-3; 8:58; 10:30; 18:5), which is one of the reasons why some (liberal) scholars believe it is to be dated much later than what is generally accepted. Even the title Son of God, as it relates to Jesus, implies his deity.

 

[Free]

Good luck with that brother. John 10:30 makes it clear. "I and my Father are one."

The Greek makes it clear that this is speaking of a qualitative issue, not a quantitative one--they are one in essence, not one and the same person.

When Jesus returned to the father, he returned to the father that caused himself to be born through Mary.Matthew 1.

The Father never caused himself to be born through Mary, he (arguably) caused the Son to be born through Mary. A father can never be his own son, nor a son his own father. Such a thought is utterly irrational and makes all talk of the Father and the Son in Scripture completely useless and nonsensical.

Jesus , as the Bible says, is Lord over all. Only God is that. Colossians 1:15-23

Which is in perfect agreement with the Doctrine of the Trinity and even one of the reasons for the doctrine.

Answers in Genesis
Chapter 19
Is Jesus God?

Why would you quote from a Trinitarian site to support your anti-Trinitarian view?

 

[Free]

I would disagree......

Well, you are free to do so but what you have posted actually proves what I stated. With all due respect, I think you actually agree but haven't quite thought through what I mean. (If you are Trinitarian than you agree.)

Look at it this way: Jesus is God but God is not Jesus; the Father is God but God is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit.

To say that God is Jesus would be to say that God is entirely Jesus, that is, only Jesus. Jesus and God would be interchangeable, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This would be the view of modalist/"Jesus Only" theology.

 

[whatgoeshere?]

The Greek makes it clear that this is speaking of a qualitative issue, not a quantitative one--they are one in essence, not one and the same person.

God is a spirit. John 4:24

The Father never caused himself to be born through Mary, he (arguably) caused the Son to be born through Mary. A father can never be his own son, nor a son his own father. Such a thought is utterly irrational and makes all talk of the Father and the Son in Scripture completely useless and nonsensical.

There is no argument. The Bible is quite clear. Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

Jesus was old testament prophecy. And in the new testament fulfilled as God promised.
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

And in the new testament fulfilled as God promised.
Matthew 1:23
"Behold! The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel" (which means, "God with us").

 

[jaybird]

Every Christian believes that verse to be true, yet it is entirely irrelevant to the question of the Trinity.

trinity says the Most High is a man

There are numerous mentions of the deity of Jesus in John (e.g., 1:1-3; 8:58; 10:30; 18:5), which is one of the reasons why some (liberal) scholars believe it is to be dated much later than what is generally accepted. Even the title Son of God, as it relates to Jesus, implies his deity.

if son of the Most High implies Most High then that would give us many G-Ds being as there are many of them mentioned in scripture. it would also make no sense to have "son of" in front of Most High when it means the same thing, the bible writers would have simply stated Most High, they are not gonna add "son of" when it would serve no other purpose than causing confusion. the confusion only starts when we starrt filtering these scriptures through the doctrine. Most High says He is not a man, add the doctrine, now the Most High is not a man but sometimes is a man??son of the Most High means a being of the heavens, add the doctrine, now son of the Most High means Most High, a term the Most High never, ever, ever, EVER has used of Himself. and why would He, He is not a son of anyone, He has always been.

 

[Free]

God is a spirit. John 4:24

Yes, he is.

There is no argument. The Bible is quite clear. Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.

My point is that more than just the Father was involved. In that verse alone we see the Holy Spirit is involved. When we look at Phil. 2, we see that the Son was involved as well. The creative and redemptive processes are never done performed or accomplished by only one person of the Trinity--all three are always involved.

Jesus was old testament prophecy. And in the new testament fulfilled as God promised.
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

And in the new testament fulfilled as God promised.
Matthew 1:23
"Behold! The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel" (which means, "God with us").

Yup.

 

[whatgoeshere?]

trinity says the Most High is a man



if son of the Most High implies Most High then that would give us many G-Ds being as there are many of them mentioned in scripture. it would also make no sense to have "son of" in front of Most High when it means the same thing, the bible writers would have simply stated Most High, they are not gonna add "son of" when it would serve no other purpose than causing confusion. the confusion only starts when we starrt filtering these scriptures through the doctrine. Most High says He is not a man, add the doctrine, now the Most High is not a man but sometimes is a man??son of the Most High means a being of the heavens, add the doctrine, now son of the Most High means Most High, a term the Most High never, ever, ever, EVER has used of Himself. and why would He, He is not a son of anyone, He has always been.

John 8 and particularly verse 58 again has our Lord reiterating that he is God with us. (Immanuel) , only in that teaching to his Disciples he is telling them what they would already know from the old testament teachings and Abraham. And the great "I Am", that is father God. Jesus even reminds them that Abraham rejoiced to see his, Immanuel's, , Jesus', day.


John 8:58Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth , before Abraham came to be, "I Am." (" Iegō" , "Am" ameimi - look here at Blue Letter Bible Strong's Greek Concordance https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/8/58/t_conc_1005058 )

 

[PeterJens]

One point on this subject, is anything from eternity is part of God.
So God has attributes, that He could choose to express in someway.
Now in our language they are part of God, but not everything.
So for me the trinity is a way of expressing 3 parts of His eternal expression.
Now Jesus is a separate entity from the Father, though they are also one.
So with time and being also outside it, we only see a small part of His
expression, but to deny He is both three and one is also to deny His heart.
The apostles were very clear on this tension, and why fellowship with Him
is eternal life in the present. It is the Father reaching down to us through this
man Jesus is so astounding, outside our frameworks.

 

[Free]

trinity says the Most High is a man

No, it doesn't. It very clearly states that Jesus is the God-man--truly God and truly man.

if son of the Most High implies Most High then that would give us many G-Ds being as there are many of them mentioned in scripture.

No, it wouldn't. I have already explained this a couple of times.

it would also make no sense to have "son of" in front of Most High when it means the same thing, the bible writers would have simply stated Most High, they are not gonna add "son of" when it would serve no other purpose than causing confusion.

It makes perfect sense. The Jews would have been more confused, thinking that Jesus was the Father. Fathers and sons are not the same person, therefore a distinction needs to be made. Hence the use of "Son of." Again, I have explained this a couple of times.

the confusion only starts when we starrt filtering these scriptures through the doctrine.

The doctrine comes from the Scriptures, from all that the Bible reveals about God.

Most High says He is not a man, add the doctrine, now the Most High is not a man but sometimes is a man??

No. YHWH said he is not a man, because he is not. He is not a creature, a created being. He is not like men that lie. God the Son became God in human flesh and remains that way.

son of the Most High means a being of the heavens, add the doctrine,

Again, I explained this a couple of times.

now son of the Most High means Most High, a term the Most High never, ever, ever, EVER has used of Himself. and why would He, He is not a son of anyone, He has always been.

This is begging the question. You are using the very thing you conclude--that God is only the Father--as a premise to argue that God is not a son. If YHWH is shown through Scripture to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is the case, then there is no issue.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, you are free to do so but what you have posted actually proves what I stated. With all due respect, I think you actually agree but haven't quite thought through what I mean. (If you are Trinitarian than you agree.)

Look at it this way: Jesus is God but God is not Jesus; the Father is God but God is not the Father; the Holy Spirit is God but God is not the Holy Spirit.

To say that God is Jesus would be to say that God is entirely Jesus, that is, only Jesus. Jesus and God would be interchangeable, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit. This would be the view of modalist/"Jesus Only" theology.

What part of 'God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' and 'the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God' do you disagree with? Why cannot God be all three and all three be God? Being God works in both directions; it is not a one way street.

 

[Free]

What part of 'God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' and 'the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God' do you disagree with? Why cannot God be all three and all three be God? Being God works in both directions; it is not a one way street.

I don't see how you can ask those questions based on what I have stated.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't see how you can ask those questions based on what I have stated.

I asked.....will you answer them?......or will you simply claim modalism?

 

[jaybird]

No, it doesn't. It very clearly states that Jesus is the God-man--truly God and truly man.

the scripture says the Most High is not a man

No, it wouldn't. I have already explained this a couple of times.

sons of the Most High refers to Jesus, Adam, angels, believers, etc. are they all the Most High?

It makes perfect sense. The Jews would have been more confused, thinking that Jesus was the Father. Fathers and sons are not the same person, therefore a distinction needs to be made. Hence the use of "Son of." Again, I have explained this a couple of times.

it makes no sense at all for the Most High to refer to Himself as "son of". He is the Father.

The doctrine comes from the Scriptures, from all that the Bible reveals about God.

the doctrine comes from man. scripture is used to support it. and sometimes you have to create more doctrines to support the doctrine, deity of Jesus doctrine is used to support the trinity doctrine.

No. YHWH said he is not a man, because he is not. He is not a creature, a created being. He is not like men that lie. God the Son became God in human flesh and remains that way.

He is not a man but He is (according to the doctrine not scripture) a man. not sure about that one.

This is begging the question. You are using the very thing you conclude--that God is only the Father--as a premise to argue that God is not a son. If YHWH is shown through Scripture to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is the case, then there is no issue.

the Most High is not a son of anyone, in order to make it work you have to add something that is not there and we both know the Most High does not call Himself "son of". if He is a son, who is the Father of the Most High, the one that says He is the beginning and end?

 

[whatgoeshere?]

Civilwarbuff said:What part of 'God is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit' and 'the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God' do you disagree with? Why cannot God be all three and all three be God? Being God works in both directions; it is not a one way street.

I asked.....will you answer them?......or will you simply claim modalism?