Proof of Trinity

[Deborah13]

What did Jesus say?

'Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven'. Right? Right.

If we were foreknown before the foundation of the world (Eph 1), then for how long has our treasure been there?

Answer, from before the foundation of the world. Right? Right.

And what form will that reward take?

Answer, some form of glorification. Right? Right.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

So our glory, has been with the Father since before the foundation of the world. Right? Right.

So when Jesus asks God to glorify Him with the glory which he had with Him since before the foundation of the world, He is simply saying that that glory was (like ours), laid up in heaven for Him.

Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
2Ti 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

In other words, it was laid up in heaven for Him since the year dot, and He was now going to receive it. As Hebrews 12 says:

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

And being made like unto His brethren, who will be glorified for their sufferings, He received that glory at His ascension, being (1Ti 3:16)...received up into glory.

I recommend a careful reading of 2 Cor 4 on the subject, which says inter alia

16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;

So the Lord's glory, which He had with the Father, was laid up with the Father from before the foundation of the world.
As is ours, which we are yet to receive. You will note that we were not there!

That, however, is not what Isaiah is talking about when he said 'my glory will I not give to another.' There is a glory which properly belongs to a King which cannot be shared with anyone or anything else.

Similarly here. The Great King has, and is entitled to a glory which, as He has stated exceedingly clearly, He will not give to another - because He has no equals. Not even His Son, whom He has exalted as far as it is possible to do.

That is the protocol of heaven.

I hope that helps.

I can see what you are saying as far as your deductions from the scripture I quoted.

I'd like to ask you, if God is spirit, who's backside was it that Moses saw in the wilderness?

 

[Gregg]

"For the bread of God is that which comes down out of [Greek 'ek' denoting place of origin] heaven, and gives life to the world." (John 6:33)

Did Jesus come down out of heaven, or was Jesus conceived here on earth where Mary was?

"And He said to them, 'How do they say the Christ is David's son? Even David himself said in the Book of Psalms, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I place the ones hostile to You as a footstool of Your feet.' Then David calls Him Lord. And how is He his son?' " (Luke 20:41-44).

 

[chessman]

So the Lord's glory, which He had with the Father, was laid up with the Father from before the foundation of the world.
As is ours, which we are yet to receive.
I hope that helps.

Yes, it is helpful in demonstrating for everyone to see, just how you change:

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:5 ESV)​

into something entirely different from what it actually says. Evidently because you don’t really like what John 17:5 says. For some unknown reason you’ve replaced “ I
had” from John 17:5 with “laid up” from Col 1:5. That’s one odd way to defend your position that Jesus is not the 2nd person of our Triune God.

2192[e]
eichonεἶχον
I had
Definition: to have, hold


Versus Col 1:5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, (Colossians 1:5 ESV)

606[e]
apokeimenēnἀποκειμένην
being laid up

Definition: to be laid away, be laid up in store

In other words, it was laid up in heaven for Him ...

Yes, in other words indeed. Your words, not Jesus'.

 

[Asyncritus]

Gregg,

Let me ask you again: do you believe that scripture interprets scripture? Please don't avoid answering this question, as it is of the highest importance.

If so, why does Hebrews quote a big chunk of Psalm 40 here?

[...]
I have faith in God for the work that He has accomplished in His Son; that is through the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So do I.

Jesus Christ has overcome sin, and death, and the one who had power over death - that is the devil. Anyone believing in the LORD Jesus Christ has overcome these things in Him, and His righteousness has been accounted to him,

Absolutely right.

and His Spirit has been given to him as a pledge of things to come.

In the sense I have shown in the thread 'born of water and of the spirit' I agree with this as well.

But I want to put this to you:

Suppose you were King David, and you have just been inspired to write Psalm 2, in which you just wrote: 'Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee'

You know this must be about Messiah.

Would you for one moment think that Messiah was already in existence? Really?

Especially when God has told you perfectly plainly that '"I will be His Father, and He will be my Son".

Those 'will be's' must surely tell you that a. Messiah did not exist at the time of writing and b.Would appear at some point in the future.

Because if Jesus already existed at the time of writing, God would surely would have had to say 'I AM His Father, and He IS my son'.

What do you think?

 

[Asyncritus]

I can see what you are saying as far as your deductions from the scripture I quoted.

I'd like to ask you, if God is spirit, who's backside was it that Moses saw in the wilderness?

Acts 7. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

[Asyncritus]

"For the bread of God is that which comes down out of [Greek 'ek' denoting place of origin] heaven, and gives life to the world." (John 6:33)

Did Jesus come down out of heaven, or was Jesus conceived here on earth where Mary was?

I think you'd better ask Gabriel that one.

If you did, he would simply repeat what he said before:

Lk 1.30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

"And He said to them, 'How do they say the Christ is David's son? Even David himself said in the Book of Psalms, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I place the ones hostile to You as a footstool of Your feet.' Then David calls Him Lord. And how is He his son?' " (Luke 20:41-44).

Simple.

Jesus is the Son of God - a far higher position than son of David. He is in fact greater than David, hence David calls Him 'Lord'.

Back later.

 

[reba]

Guys ( note plural) this thread is starting to read personal again..... :neutral Admin

 

[Deborah13]

Acts 7. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

This verse is speaking of the burning bush. I was not referring to that scripture but this one.
OT - I believe this is a partial revealing of the Messiah to come. He as the Rock that we stand on and the clift in which we are hidden in Him. I believe Moses was actually speaking with Him in this scripture. He says, my hand and my back parts.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[gr8grace3]

Acts 7:38~~“This is the one(Jesus Christ) who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him(Moses) on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.

Acts 7:38 is why Stephen was getting stoned.Stephen has been accused of blaspheming Moses -who they considered the greatest prophet, yet the Sanhedran blasphemed Jesus.

 

[Deborah13]

Acts 7. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

I believe this next scripture also supports that Jesus was God come in the flesh.
Jesus was in the temple when He did this, with His finger, wrote on the ground. I see that God wrote the 10 with His finger. With His finger He wrote on the wall.

Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Dan 5:5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

I wonder if He wrote 'I AM'? Probably not, they would have been in rage.

 

[Gregg]

Gregg,

Let me ask you again: do you believe that scripture interprets scripture? Please don't avoid answering this question, as it is of the highest importance.

If so, why does Hebrews quote a big chunk of Psalm 40 here?



So do I.



Absolutely right.



In the sense I have shown in the thread 'born of water and of the spirit' I agree with this as well.

But I want to put this to you:

Suppose you were King David, and you have just been inspired to write Psalm 2, in which you just wrote: 'Thou art my Son , this day have I begotten thee'

You know this must be about Messiah.

Would you for one moment think that Messiah was already in existence? Really?

Especially when God has told you perfectly plainly that '"I will be His Father, and He will be my Son".

Those 'will be's' must surely tell you that a. Messiah did not exist at the time of writing and b.Would appear at some point in the future.

Because if Jesus already existed at the time of writing, God would surely would have had to say 'I AM His Father, and He IS my son'.

What do you think?

Scripture agrees with itself, no doubt; whether or not it was spoken by the Father or by the Son. They are in agreement.

Regarding "this day":

I do know about the Messiah, and I know the Messiah, who He is.

The Son of God was in existence before His body was prepared for Him. When the Son of God [YHWH Elohim, He having the same name as His Father] spoke in the OT He was yet to have the names Jesus, Jesus Christ, or LORD Jesus Christ. But after He "became flesh" and when He "dwelled among us" as Immanuel then the Son of God was called Jesus, Jesus Christ, the LORD Jesus Christ.

God the Father was, is, and will always be that to the Son; both before creation and afterwards.

God the Son was, is, and will always be that to the Father.

A phrase such as "I will be His Father, and He will be my Son" refers to a time after the Word [the Son of God] became flesh [Immanuel, aka Jesus Christ].

The Son of God has always been, as has the Father, who together with Their Spirit are One God; but the body [physical, flesh and blood] of Immanuel has not always existed.

- - -

When a Christian speaks of Jesus Christ, he is referring to the Son of God as Immanuel - the eternal Son of God who became flesh.

 

[gr8grace3]

Jesus(100% humanity) Christ(100% deity)

 

[Gregg]

I think you'd better ask Gabriel that one.

If you did, he would simply repeat what he said before:

Lk 1.30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.



Simple.

Jesus is the Son of God - a far higher position than son of David. He is in fact greater than David, hence David calls Him 'Lord'.

Back later.

I don't consult with angels.

In Luke 1, Gabriel spoke of the Incarnation of the Word (Jn 1:1, 14); not of the creation of the Son of God, but God as the Son of Man.

The Son of God [YHWH Elohiym] always was, is, and will be; and He became the Son of Man.

 

[Gregg]

1) If someone answers that Isaiah saw God the Father [whose Name is YHWH], then they have to deny that "No one has seen God [the Father] at any time" (Jn 1:18);

or,

2) if someone answers that Isaiah saw the Son of God sitting of His throne, then they have to confess the LORD Jesus, YHWH the Son of God.

According to John 12:41, Isaiah saw the Son of God sitting on His throne. He "saw the Lord" (Adonay Isa 6:1), the "LORD of hosts" (YHWH Isa 6:3), "the King, the LORD of hosts" and that with his eyes (Isa 6:5).


"These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him" (John 12:41).

- - -

The Name YHWH belongs to the Father and to the Son, One God; but it is the Son whom Isaiah saw sitting on the throne, and who took the name Jesus Christ upon His Incarnation. So Christians confess the LORD Jesus (Rom 10:9).

Async,

Would you reply to this post? If so, let's agree to address one point/item at a time, concise and direct.
.

 

[Free]

It seems obvious that Jesus was not the Son at the point in time that this was written. I cannot see a way round this simple observation.
....
In other words, at the time these words were spoken, Jesus was not yet the Son of God, but He would be when He was born.

Before any rebuttal can be given, some clarification on precisely what it is that you believe is needed. Did Jesus exist in some form before he was born? If so, who was he before he was born, if he wasn't the Son?

I'm not looking for Scripture here, just simple, concise answers.

 

[Jesse Stone]

The one doctrine that characterizes Christianity is the Trinity. Thus it is rightly considered the epitome essential doctrine within that religion. Other doctrines are limited to one or a few denominations. But Trinitarianism pervades Christianity. To the point that anyone who does not espouse the Trinity is regarded a non-Christian or an anti-Trinitarian.

One thing should be made clear. There is more than one version of Trinitarianism. Eastern Orthodoxy adheres to a position very close to the original formulation. Roman Catholicism holds to a position that is today regarded as the second most important reason for the division between East and West or Roman Catholicism. The Filioque controversy is second only to the Primacy of the Pope of Rome controversy. Protestants are somewhat divided on the matter. But it would be safe to say that the position held by the majority would be the same as Roman Catholicism minus the Maryology. Similar to Nestorianism. The minority hold to a number of views, most of whom hold to either a modalistic version or a non-Trinitarian version. And even to them, the issue of the Trinity is high on their list of importance.

There is only one other doctrine that pervades all of Christianity. A doctrine that is denied among those who know it exists. The doctrine that underlies the idea of the propriety of denominationalism. The proof the doctrine exists is the continued existence of denominations. So one could say that there are two doctrines that characterize Christianity. One essential, the other denied or unknown. One could also say that there is a sub-view among a few who deny the doctrine. The doctrine is replaced, though not really replaced, by a view that says it's not only OK, but necessary. Based on something Paul said, that is either misunderstood or contradictory to things he has said elsewhere.


Free

I'm disappointed you chose not to respond to my last post #538. Presumeably you felt there was nothing left to say. Asyncritus is much more interesting an opponent. A real anti-Trinitarian. Not that I ever considered you an opponent. And that isn't a plus on a public forum. Even a Christian forum. It's OK. I'm just here for the short term. Haven't been able to find another Protestant forum that'll have me. Only want someone who is a Christian. Even a non-Trinitarian will do for some. Even had one refuse me because they thought I was lying about my name. Christians are a strange lot. Meanwhile, since I have nowhere else to go....


Gregg

Old Buddy, Old Pal....

(revised) My primary problem with Trinitarianism is that in all Old Testament references besides the four "us" verses, God refers to himself by personal pronouns. Others refer to God by personal pronouns. The plural Elohim is never translated as plural in Jewish or Christian Bibles whenever it refers to Jehovah. That suggests to me three things. First, that God is just one person, rather than two or more. That the unique God with a unique name (Jehovah, or however one wishes to understand it in English, including LORD) is only one person. Second, that in the four "us" verses, there were more present in each of the four verses than just God himself. Third, the use of the plural Elohim has an alternative meaning other than plurality when referring to the one God.

Do you have an answer for this?

It would be nice if you could just address the problem itself rather than try to prove to yourself alone that the "us" verses and "plural" Elohim proves the Trinity. Or that New Testament verses prove the Trinity, since I'm not a believer in progressive revelation. An idea that only works if the Bible is written by men alone. As if God is prone to giving out updated information or new releases. If that were the case, then it would be foolish to think that the New Testament is the end of God's revelation. Which leads to Catholicism or Islam. Or better yet, Bahaism. Nor am I a believer in the idea that there are two different Gods being referred to in the Christian Bible. Which is what is at stake in my question, only if the New Testament actually does teach some form of Trinitarianism. The idea that it is the one God speaking is plausible, but for either side of the fence. And thus doesn't answer the question.

Why would the God of eternity, who knows the end from the beginning, so consistently refer to himself as one person, if he is actually three persons? Why would a God who is so adamant about being the one and only God and that his name is "the self-existent one", then go to such great lengths to conceal that he is one God in three persons? Especially to a people who were surrounded by all kinds of Gods, who by experience would no doubt be better able to understand such a God, than one who lives today where such Gods are a rarity in most of the civilized world?

 

[Free]

There is only one other doctrine that pervades all of Christianity. A doctrine that is denied among those who know it exists. The doctrine that underlies the idea of the propriety of denominationalism. The proof the doctrine exists is the continued existence of denominations. So one could say that there are two doctrines that characterize Christianity. One essential, the other denied or unknown. One could also say that there is a sub-view among a few who deny the doctrine. The doctrine is replaced, though not really replaced, by a view that says it's not only OK, but necessary. Based on something Paul said, that is either misunderstood or contradictory to things he has said elsewhere.

Firstly, what is this 'one other doctrine'? Secondly, there are many other doctrines that are common to all of Christianity--monotheism, man created in the image of God, the Fall, the virgin birth, and the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, to name a few.

Free

I'm disappointed you chose not to respond to my last post #538. Presumeably you felt there was nothing left to say.

Don't be disappointed....yet. I just haven't had the time to respond lately, but I will get to it.

Asyncritus is much more interesting an opponent.

It depends on what you mean by 'interesting'.

Not that I ever considered you an opponent. And that isn't a plus on a public forum. Even a Christian forum. It's OK. I'm just here for the short term. Haven't been able to find another Protestant forum that'll have me. Only want someone who is a Christian. Even a non-Trinitarian will do for some. Even had one refuse me because they thought I was lying about my name. Christians are a strange lot. Meanwhile, since I have nowhere else to go....

There is nothing wrong with not being opponents. It just means that our dialogue is more cordial, which it should be anyway on a Christian forum. It's 'somewhat' difficult to get to the bottom of things when the dialogue is unfriendly.

 

[Gregg]

Jesse,
your quote:
"(revised) My primary problem with Trinitarianism is that in all Old Testament references besides the four "us" verses, God refers to himself by personal pronouns. Others refer to God by personal pronouns. The plural Elohim is never translated as plural in Jewish or Christian Bibles whenever it refers to Jehovah. That suggests to me three things. First, that God is just one person, rather than two or more. That the unique God with a unique name (Jehovah, or however one wishes to understand it in English, including LORD) is only one person. Second, that in the four "us" verses, there were more present in each of the four verses than just God himself. Third, the use of the plural Elohim has an alternative meaning other than plurality when referring to the one God.non-Christian or an anti-Trinitarian."

1 & 3) The Old Testament Septuagint and the New Testament Greek employ singular nouns representing God to indicate a monotheistic belief while contesting polytheism. That said, He who inspired the Old Testament Scriptures was the One who calls Himself Elohim.

Hebrew also has a unique dual-plural word ending [-iym] used for only 'two' of something; no more. The dual-plural ending is never employed with the singular name Eloah to indicate two, such as might be the case if God the Father and His Spirit existed without the Son.

I understand seeing God as One Person. When Trinitarians refer to the Father, Son, or Spirit individually as a 'Person' it is because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit recognize one another individually. Regarding God as One and not three: He gave us a vague indication of His Being when He created man. He created us having a body, a soul, and a spirit. You recognize those distinctions within yourself, and yet you are one man.

2) Regarding the four 'Us' verses: Gen 1:26 does not indicate that angels were present. Whether or not angels were present at that time, and I do not think so, man was not created in the image of angels and God. Gen 1:27 doubly clarifies any misunderstanding about the previous verse, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him"; in the likeness of God (Gen 5:1), and in the image of God (Gen 9:6). These instances are more than an indication that "Us" refers to God Himself, in no way insinuating a reference to the likeness of angels.

Cherubim, the devil, and the animals existed at the time of Gen 3:22; however the text does not indicate or require their audience.

Gen 11:7 refers solely to the LORD as He is doing the action in Gen 11:5, 8-9.

In Isaiah 6:8 the prophet did not go on behalf of both the angels and God. Isaiah is not the angel's prophet, nor is any prophet sent on behalf of an angel. Rather, Isaiah went on behalf of the King, the LORD of hosts.

 

[Randy]

I can see what you are saying as far as your deductions from the scripture I quoted.

I'd like to ask you, if God is spirit, who's backside was it that Moses saw in the wilderness?

While I hold to a bodily resurrection of Jesus (all the fullness of God dwells in Him in bodily form) see the below scriptures. However I do see Jesus as the Son with the Father before the world began.

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

Matthew 10:20
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you

Holy Spirit - Spirit of the Sovereign Lord - Spirit of Truth

Randy

 

[Randy]

Jesse,

2) Regarding the four 'Us' verses: Gen 1:26 does not indicate that angels were present. Whether or not angels were present at that time, and I do not think so, man was not created in the image of angels and God. Gen 1:27 doubly clarifies any misunderstanding about the previous verse, "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him"; in the likeness of God (Gen 5:1), and in the image of God (Gen 9:6). These instances are more than an indication that "Us" refers to God Himself, in no way insinuating a reference to the likeness of angels.

As we discussed before, I provided scripture, per your request, where the angels (Sons of God) did exist and sang with joy while God created (not the angels). You went to- Astronomy, celestial objects not beings. (smile) I agree that the importance is in Christ not the angels of God. Genesis does not include the Son nor the angels of God. Though I do hold the creation (genesis) was created at Gods command and by His will through the Son. But in regard to the Son - It would be the Father in Him doing His work. As in "let us" create....

Randy