My take on Trinity

[7thMoon]

Your terminology is unbiblical because you quote one verse and try to make a doctrine from it.

Same to you.

The context is about the pagan idols. Not rather spirit beings are gods.

It is about both. Idols attracted demons, especially with the use of cannabis.

1 Corinthians 8
4 So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but [the] one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords),

(1Co 8:4 KJV) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.
8:4 Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς ἕτερος εἰ μὴ εἷς
There is not other God who made the planet except one, or the one.

 

[7thMoon]

The people who God spoke to is the reference to gods because God had given them the message. Not supernatural beings are gods.

Moses was not a God, but the Pharoah might have thought he was. Which same was implied the miracles Moses was given by God.

 

[7thMoon]

Is it because they are gods? What of the ones who believe supernatural beings are gods?

John 10
34 Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God? 37 If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me.

You seem confused here. Those verses only prove my point. Satan will like Adam.

 

[BeyondET]

You seem confused here. Those verses only prove my point. Satan will like Adam.

satan will like Adam, that's the first you mentioned that. Where did you get that idea?

 

[BeyondET]

Same to you.


It is about both. Idols attracted demons, especially with the use of cannabis.

So now they used cannabis, what does the use of cannabis have to do with anything and where's that stated?

(1Co 8:4 KJV) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that [there is] none other God but one.
8:4 Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς ἕτερος εἰ μὴ εἷς
There is not other God who made the planet except one, or the one.

Planets are not the topic either. You mention stuff out of no where sometimes.

 

[BeyondET]

Moses was not a God, but the Pharoah might have thought he was. Which same was implied the miracles Moses was given by God.

Reason why God called them gods, people not demons

 

[7thMoon]

satan will like Adam, that's the first you mentioned that. Where did you get that idea?

Satan has always been a bastard son of god.

Reason why God called them gods, people not demons

People are not supernatural. Try again.

So now they used cannabis, what does the use of cannabis have to do with anything and where's that stated?

Planets are not the topic either. You mention stuff out of no where sometimes.

Cannabis causes unclean spirit-possession.

 

[Free]

Like I thought, it's three persons in one person. Person is a synonym for being. It's one being that consists of three other beings. That is completely illogical. It doesn't avoid contradictions, it is one.

Either argue what the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches or don't bother arguing against it. Presenting a straw man is an error in reasoning on your part, which is why your conclusion is completely illogical. It is not "three persons in one person;" it is three persons in one God. So many anti-Trinitarians in here don't even know what the doctrine states; it's no wonder they don't believe it.

It's not logic, it's grammar. Paul's statement about God excludes Christ because there is only one God, and that God has no God. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, because He is ruler of the Kingdom. He is our king while He rules the Kingdom. That doesn't mean that the Father isn't the ultimate ruler who is above our ruler Christ, making the Father our ruler also. It's about context. That Paul excludes Christ in the one God statement shows that the Father is the only God.

It is about logic. First, you are taking a statement by Paul to absolutely rule out Jesus as God, which means that in the same context, the same sentence even, it necessarily follows that the Father is absolutely ruled out as ever being Lord. Ever. But that contradicts what every NT writer, including Paul, states.

Second, as I stated, if "from whom are all things" implies the eternal nature of the Father as God, and it does, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" implies the eternal nature of the Son as God. And God can never cease to be God. Third, you're also fallaciously begging the question by assuming that God is one person.

However, Paul isn't the only who does. John likewise tells us about God while excluding Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 1:18.

John says that no man has seen God at any time. Then he says the Son has made Him known. Whoever this God is that John is speaking of it's certainly not Jesus. John says Jesus has made Him known. Also, many people saw Jesus. And, that John said, the "Son" has made Him known strongly implies that this God is the Father.

On the contrary, everything John says about Jesus in the epilogue to his gospel, is foundational to understanding everything else he says and records. You are making John contradict himself.

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.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
...
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

The message of John from verse 1 through to 18, is that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the preincarnate Word. The whole purpose of this passage is to introduce us to who Jesus is. And that can never change, despite whatever else John writes afterwards. While these verses cannot overrule those that speak clearly of his humanity, those verses cannot overrule these ones that speak clearly of his deity. We must make sense of all of them without diminishing any of them.

No one has directly seen or fully perceived (horaō, G3708) God as he exists in and of himself; it refers to his divine essence, not his person (Theon doesn't have the article). Jesus has made him known because he is God in human flesh. That is the only way we could truly come to know God and the only way would could have salvation.

This aligns with Paul's statement, 'to us there is one God, the Father.' Paul also tells us this.

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, adwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ti 6:13–16.

Here, Paul, the same person who wrote to the Corinthians, says when Jesus comes, He will show who is the "Only" potentate, or sovereign. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Lord of Jesus.

But look at what John writes:

Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” (ESV)

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

There you have John clearly stating that Christ is also the King of kings and Lord of lords. But how can that be, since you said that Paul wrote that the King of kings and Lord of lords is "The Lord of Jesus"?

More than that, we also see this:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

Notice also that these are not only statements of monotheism, God says, "I am the first and I am the last." And God says the same thing in Rev 1:8 and 21:6:

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (ESV)

Rev 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
Rev 21:7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. (ESV)

We then see Jesus say the following of himself in Revelation:

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
Rev 1:18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (ESV)

Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.
...
Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (ESV)

Jesus echoes the words of God, twice claiming titles that God uses of himself. Wouldn't that be blasphemy if Jesus wasn't also truly God?

Do you see what happens when you take things piecemeal instead of as a whole? You end up with contradictions and a theology that cannot account for everything. Both John and Jesus attribute to Jesus titles that belong to God, but this is consistent with everything John says in his gospel and everything Paul says about the Father and the Son as well.

Then He says of this one, no man has seen nor can see Him. So, this one that no man has seen is the only Potentate. Paul didn't say He was one of three coequal potentates. And one can't claim, oh this is God, in the sense of the three persons, because Paul specifically says of this one, no man has seen nor can see Him. This excludes the Jesus.

But Jesus claims to have seen the Father and we have already seen that Jesus is also called the King of kings and Lord of lords. So, there clearly is more understanding that is needed here.

From this we can see that when Paul says, there is one God, the Father, he is not including the Son.

No, we cannot see that from this. Again, Jesus is also called the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, just like Yahweh. We have also seen that John very much thinks that Jesus is truly God in nature.

It also shows that when he said, 'and one Lord Jesus Christ' he wasn't saying that to the exclusion of the Father.

Of course he wasn't, but for you to say that is contradictory. From your position and understanding if "one God, the Father," excludes Jesus from being God, it must be the case that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. That would also contradict the fact that Paul says "all things" are "through" Jesus. That also can only mean that Jesus is also truly God in nature, or Paul lied.

 

[Free]

So, Paul sees one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, while still acknowledging that the Father is the ultimate Lord.

You have not shown that to be the case.

See above. Both John and Paul exclude Him

On the contary, both Paul and John argue strongly that Jesus is truly God, equal with the Father. Jesus himself stated as much which is why the Jews wanted to kill him. That's why Paul and John and Thomas can say that Jesus is God, just that he isn't the Father. Hence, at least a "binity."

Paul said,

who, though he existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.


Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Php 2:6–7.

Paul said he was in the form of God and emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of the form of God. He took on the form of man.

No, that is not what Paul says. You need to read closer at what Paul actually writes:

7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.

The emptying was not the emptying of "the form of God," but was by adding "the form of a slave," "looking like other men," and "sharing in human nature." It's an emptying by addition, since God cannot cease to be God, even when he comes in human flesh.

Also, even though He was in the form of God, that doesn't necessitate that He was equal with God.

It means he was God in nature, as the NIV renders it. It cannot mean anything else. Again, basic logic--if "taking the form of a servant" means Jesus was human in nature, then it necessarily follows that being "in the form of God" means that he was God in nature. And if he was God in nature, then it also necessarily follows that he is equal to God the Father. Otherwise we have two serious issues: 1) multiple gods, which Yahweh himself denies to be the case, and 2) greater and lesser gods, which is Gnosticism.

He does even if you don't admit it.

He does what? Nowhere does he say he is speaking figuratively about the Father in regards to the Helper. And the whole NT consistently keeps the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son, so he cannot be the Father.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

If the Father is the Holy Spirit, then the continual, consistent distinction is not only meaningless, it is misleading and deceptive.

Distinct? It's called the Spirit "of" God. When is wind or breath a distinct living being?

Yes, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, but he is also called, among other things, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of his Son:

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. (ESV)

It cannot be any clearer that Paul is saying the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God. And in 1 Peter we see that the OT prophets prophesied by the "Spirit of Christ":

Php 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, (ESV)

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)

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. (ESV)

Again, all of these contradictions in your position are what happens when things are taken piecemeal and not as a whole.

 

[Butch5]

You have not shown that to be the case.

I have. You may want to read it again

On the contary, both Paul and John argue strongly that Jesus is truly God, equal with the Father. Jesus himself stated as much which is why the Jews wanted to kill him. That's why Paul and John and Thomas can say that Jesus is God, just that he isn't the Father. Hence, at least a "binity."

Please show where.

No, that is not what Paul says. You need to read closer at what Paul actually writes:

7 but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.

The emptying was not the emptying of "the form of God," but was by adding "the form of a slave," "looking like other men," and "sharing in human nature." It's an emptying by addition, since God cannot cease to be God, even when he comes in human flesh.

Ok, so let me get this straight. When I'm emptying a bucket of water, I'm actually adding to it? Sorry, my friend, to empty don'ts mean to add to something, it means to remove something.

It means he was God in nature, as the NIV renders it. It cannot mean anything else. Again, basic logic--if "taking the form of a servant" means Jesus was human in nature, then it necessarily follows that being "in the form of God" means that he was God in nature. And if he was God in nature, then it also necessarily follows that he is equal to God the Father. Otherwise we have two serious issues: 1) multiple gods, which Yahweh himself denies to be the case, and 2) greater and lesser gods, which is Gnosticism.

Being God in nature doesn't necessitate being the same being. You said they were three persons in one being.

He does what? Nowhere does he say he is speaking figuratively about the Father in regards to the Helper. And the whole NT consistently keeps the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son, so he cannot be the Father.

John 16.

Where, other than in your understanding does the Bible present the Holy Spirit as a distinct entity from the Father?

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

If the Father is the Holy Spirit, then the continual, consistent distinction is not only meaningless, it is misleading and deceptive.

No, it's not. It may appear that way from your perspective, but it isn't necessitated.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, but he is also called, among other things, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of his Son:

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. (ESV)

It cannot be any clearer that Paul is saying the Spirit of Christ is the Spirit of God. And in 1 Peter we see that the OT prophets prophesied by the "Spirit of Christ":

Php 1:19 for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, (ESV)

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)

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Gal 4:5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. (ESV)

Again, all of these contradictions in your position are what happens when things are taken piecemeal and not as a whole.

Right, the Breath of God, of Christ, of Truth, of Wisdom, and quite a few more. What makes it a distinct third person? If this is a third person, how is He coming from Christ and the Father.

It's not my position that has the contradictions. I'm not trying to explain how three distinct persons can be one being. That's a contradiction. I'm not trying to explain how the Son was produced by the third person of the Trinity yet somehow the Father is His Father. That's a contradiction. I'm not trying to explain how somehow there are three distinct, coequal, coeternal, persons yet the third one doesn't know the first two. That's a contradiction.

We have approximately 6000 years of history, 4000 of those years were before Christ. God conversed with Moses and all of the Prophets. So, we have 4000 years of God communicating with man and in all of that time no one understood the Spirit of God as a separate distinct person. Why didn't the Jews see two persons in God? What about Moses? God talked with Moses on a regular and Moses witnessed the Spirit, why didn't he see two persons in God? Why didn't the Prophets see two persons in God. In all of human history, people didn't see three persons in God until several hundred years into the Christian faith. We don't even see Jesus or the Apostles talking about a trinity. If this is the end of all of the Christian faith how come there's nothing in the record until the Catholic Church.

 

[Butch5]

Either argue what the doctrine of the Trinity actually teaches or don't bother arguing against it. Presenting a straw man is an error in reasoning on your part, which is why your conclusion is completely illogical. It is not "three persons in one person;" it is three persons in one God. So many anti-Trinitarians in here don't even know what the doctrine states; it's no wonder they don't believe it.

I've not presented a straw man. I've presented the Trinity as you yourself have. Here is your quote.

Free---"What it's always been: three divine, coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons within the one Being that is God. It's worded specifically to avoid three persons in one person or three Gods in one God, as those are contradictions."

Three persons in one being. The words person and being are synonymous. They are interchangeable. So, saying three persons in one person is synonymous with what you said. It is illogical to claim that three persons can exist as one being or person. It's not a straw man, it's an illogical doctrine.

Second, as I stated, if "from whom are all things" implies the eternal nature of the Father as God, and it does, then it necessarily follows that "through whom are all things" implies the eternal nature of the Son as God. And God can never cease to be God. Third, you're also fallaciously begging the question by assuming that God is one person.

Your statement in a non-sequitur. Also, I'm not being fallacious or assuming that God is one being. In all of our experience, one being is one being. We have no examples anywhere of one being consisting of other beings. Secondly, the Bible states plainly that God is one. The Shema states it and Paul stated it. John also tells us God is one. We could verify that in Scripture in many places.

 

[Butch5]

On the contrary, everything John says about Jesus in the epilogue to his gospel, is foundational to understanding everything else he says and records. You are making John contradict himself.

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.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
...
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

The message of John from verse 1 through to 18, is that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the preincarnate Word. The whole purpose of this passage is to introduce us to who Jesus is. And that can never change, despite whatever else John writes afterwards. While these verses cannot overrule those that speak clearly of his humanity, those verses cannot overrule these ones that speak clearly of his deity. We must make sense of all of them without diminishing any of them.

Not at all. I think you missed something in verse one, the word "was". John said, and the Word "was" God. He didn't say, and the word "Is" God. Yes, the Word, was God, in nature, before, as Paul says, 'He emptied Himself.'

No one has directly seen or fully perceived (horaō, G3708) God as he exists in and of himself; it refers to his divine essence, not his person (Theon doesn't have the article). Jesus has made him known because he is God in human flesh. That is the only way we could truly come to know God and the only way would could have salvation.

I don't see the word essence in the passage. Also, you said God cannot cease to be God. Scripture tells us that God is immortal. He cannot die. How then did Christ die if He is in fact God?

But look at what John writes:

Rev 17:14 They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” (ESV)

Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

There you have John clearly stating that Christ is also the King of kings and Lord of lords. But how can that be, since you said that Paul wrote that the King of kings and Lord of lords is "The Lord of Jesus"?

More than that, we also see this:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

Notice also that these are not only statements of monotheism, God says, "I am the first and I am the last." And God says the same thing in Rev 1:8 and 21:6:

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (ESV)

Rev 21:6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.
Rev 21:7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. (ESV)

We then see Jesus say the following of himself in Revelation:

Rev 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
Rev 1:18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. (ESV)

Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.
...
Rev 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.
Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (ESV)

Jesus echoes the words of God, twice claiming titles that God uses of himself. Wouldn't that be blasphemy if Jesus wasn't also truly God?

Do you see what happens when you take things piecemeal instead of as a whole? You end up with contradictions and a theology that cannot account for everything. Both John and Jesus attribute to Jesus titles that belong to God, but this is consistent with everything John says in his gospel and everything Paul says about the Father and the Son as well.

Ther's no problem here. When Jesus reigns He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. However, as I pointed out, Paul said that the one who no man can see is the only or ultimate, king of Kings and Lord of Lords. But there comes a time when Jesus will no longer reign and that title will belong strictly to the Father.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 15:23–28.

Again, a distinction between God and the Son. Also, notice they are not coequal.

Jesus often spoke for God in the first person.

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 3:2–6.

There are lots of places where Jesus speaks in the first person for God. That many seem to miss this fact is one of the reasons this three in one concept continues.

But Jesus claims to have seen the Father and we have already seen that Jesus is also called the King of kings and Lord of lords. So, there clearly is more understanding that is needed here.

During His reign. The Father has given all authority to the Son. The Son then is the ultimate authority, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords as we saw. However, as we saw, that is temporary. One day the Son will relinquish that authority back to the Father. However, the Father is never Subject to the Son.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be tdestroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 15:24–28.

Of course he wasn't, but for you to say that is contradictory. From your position and understanding if "one God, the Father," excludes Jesus from being God, it must be the case that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" excludes the Father from being Lord. That would also contradict the fact that Paul says "all things" are "through" Jesus. That also can only mean that Jesus is also truly God in nature, or Paul lied.

That's a false dichotomy. I've already explained how Jesus is exempted from the one God statement while the Father is not exempted from the one Lord Statement.

 

[Who Me]

The "Son of" God.

Those characteristics are the Father's

So God saying this is my beloved Son, was God talking about himself.

 

[Butch5]

So God saying this is my beloved Son, was God talking about himself.

Please follow the conversation.

 

[BeyondET]

Satan has always been a bastard son of god.

People are not supernatural. Try again.

Cannabis causes unclean spirit-possession.

You seem to always come up with your own theory without looking to what the Bible says

No satan wasn't always rebellion, he was the seal of perfection.

Ezekiel 28
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for I had ordained you. You were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways— until wickedness was found in you.

Cannabis causes possession is more nonsense you dream up.

 

[7thMoon]

You seem to always come up with your own theory without looking to what the Bible says

No satan wasn't always rebellion, he was the seal of perfection.

Ezekiel 28
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for I had ordained you. You were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
15 From the day you were created you were blameless in your ways— until wickedness was found in you.

Cannabis causes possession is more nonsense you dream up.

It attracts unclean spirits. A cherub is not an angel by the way.

 

[BeyondET]

It attracts unclean spirits. A cherub is not an angel by the way.

You have no idea what attracts unclean spirits.

You said satan has always been a bastard son which is a lie. Kind of ironic since he is the father of lies.

 

[7thMoon]

You have no idea what attracts unclean spirits.

You said satan has always been a bastard son which is a lie. Kind of ironic since he is the father of lies.

The father of lies is not angel or a bastard? There was nothing true in him; that is no lie

(Jhn 8:44 KJV) Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[BeyondET]

The father of lies is not angel or a bastard? There was nothing true in him; that is no lie

(Jhn 8:44 KJV) Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So who is the father of lies if not satan?

 

[7thMoon]

So who is the father of lies if not satan?

He is an angel, i.e., a son of God and was always a bastard per the NT verse. I am not saying God didn't do the right thing in creating him, but he was always evil.