Proof of Trinity

[Randy]

yet jesus said in matthew 28
go and baptize in the name of the son, the father and holy ghost. hardly interpolation. and hundred years after the fact. source for saying that? if that is the case then one john isn't cannon. strong statement.

Note the word "Son"
The Holy Spirit does bear witness from the mind of the Spirit. As in those that listen and learn from the Father go to the Son.

Randy

 

[WIP]

Okay, I have been out of town for a couple days and haven't been able to be online so I apologize for not having been able to keep a closer eye on things. I will kindly ask that we curtail the personal jabs and stabs that have been showing up in the last couple pages of posts.

2.4: No Trolling. Do not make an inflammatory remark just to get a response. Address issues not personalities. Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice.

 

[Asyncritus]

And herein lies the problem. You are elevating the humanity of Christ above his deity, without any biblical basis for doing so. It's hard to not notice that you have thus far ignored me.

Free, I have not ignored you. I have been replying carefully to DI, and that takes some thought and time, of which I have limited amounts.

It is truly strange how you can so completely ignore 78 passages, all of which state very clearly the Jesus is subordinate to, inferior to, lesser than His Father.

What are you going to do with all those passages?

I urge you to consider them very carefully before dismissing them with a wave of the old theological wand..

It is also very strange, isn't it, that none of the other gospel writers supports your collective position? Why is there no incontrovertible reference to the trinity in Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

In fact, Mark clarifies John's statement in 1: 1. He says, 'the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ'. THAT is the beginning to which John is referring - and if you stick with the great old principle scripture by scripture, you have no difficulty understanding Jn 1.1.

Congratulations, you have posted some verses, most of which is mere prooftexting.

Mere 'prooftexting?

78 passages all prooftexting? Please, take any or all of them, and demonstrate the truth of your statement, and that I am wrong to read them as I do: ie at face value..

You have divorced the passages in those two posts completely from the rest of Scripture.

As I keep pointing out, it is your position that does this very thing. The whole tenor of scripture is summarised in the sh'ma as expanded by Paul:

1 Cor.8: 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul is nothing if not consistent. In the same letter he states:

1 Cor 15.28 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.

and:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

How you can ignore all that, I simply do not know.

You end up with the wrong conclusion because you ignore significant passages from Scripture, thereby taking the rest out of context. I have pointed out to you many times in the past that that simply is not how biblical interpretation is done. You are in serious, serious error.

You need to demonstrate the validity of your assertion, which at the moment is just that - an assertion.

I think it must be obvious to everybody that the vast number of scripture quotations that are available to me, and even more, the simplicity with which even an intelligent child can understand them, without any casuistry or avoidance of their very plain meanings, speaks volumes for the truth of what I say.

But you need to produce some serious refutations, and those 78 passages is probably a good place to start.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Free, I have not ignored you. I have been replying carefully to DI, and that takes some thought and time, of which I have limited amounts.

It is truly strange how you can so completely ignore 78 passages, all of which state very clearly the Jesus is subordinate to, inferior to, lesser than His Father.

What are you going to do with all those passages?

I urge you to consider them very carefully before dismissing them with a wave of the old theological wand..

It is also very strange, isn't it, that none of the other gospel writers supports your collective position? Why is there no incontrovertible reference to the trinity in Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

In fact, Mark clarifies John's statement in 1: 1. He says, 'the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ'. THAT is the beginning to which John is referring - and if you stick with the great old principle scripture by scripture, you have no difficulty understanding Jn 1.1.



Mere 'prooftexting?

78 passages all prooftexting? Please, take any or all of them, and demonstrate the truth of your statement, and that I am wrong to read them as I do: ie at face value..


As I keep pointing out, it is your position that does this very thing. The whole tenor of scripture is summarised in the sh'ma as expanded by Paul:

1 Cor.8: 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul is nothing if not consistent. In the same letter he states:

1 Cor 15.28 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.

and:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

How you can ignore all that, I simply do not know.



You need to demonstrate the validity of your assertion, which at the moment is just that - an assertion.

I think it must be obvious to everybody that the vast number of scripture quotations that are available to me, and even more, the simplicity with which even an intelligent child can understand them, without any casuistry or avoidance of their very plain meanings, speaks volumes for the truth of what I say.

But you need to produce some serious refutations, and those 78 passages is probably a good place to start.

We affirm the functional subordination of Jesus Christ, you just wasted your time. Equal in one way, subordinate in another. No contradiction. Next.

 

[Eugene]

I think it must be obvious to everybody that the vast number of scripture quotations that are available to me, and even more, the simplicity with which even an intelligent child can understand them, without any casuistry or avoidance of their very plain meanings, speaks volumes for the truth of what I say.

Jehovah (LORD) is the official name of God.

Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness (John the Baptist), Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. (Jesus)

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 43:14 Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel

Isa 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

Acts 4:12. Talking about Jesus in verses 10 & 11, verse 12 states, "Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”

Mat_1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The problem I discern in your thinking is that you don’t seem to take note of the fact that Jesus took upon Him the form of servant.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men, and now as man, Jesus will ever remain subservient to our Father forever. Even when God puts Him into power (Rev 1:11) over all except Himself (1 Cor 15:27), Jesus takes that all power and authority given Him in Mat 28:18 until He again becomes subject unto our Father in 1 Cor 15:28. "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."

Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[Asyncritus]

We affirm the functional subordination of Jesus Christ, you just wasted your time. Equal in one way, subordinate in another. No contradiction. Next.

You cannot be serious.

What is 'functional subordination'? Another of these meaningless and basically unscriptural theological constructs? Give us an example of what you mean, with scriptural support.

Perhaps we might spend a bit of time discussing what 'equal' means in this context. My understanding of the word is dictated by passages such as:

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

[In other words, there is no one like HIM - note the singular pronoun 'I', not US. Why a singular pronoun? Because He is ONE God, not a plurality.]

Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Here is the second challenge God throws down at your feet. He has NO EQUALS, and is INCOMPARABLE, and there is no one to whom He can be likened.

This understanding has been of old:

Ex 20. 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Note the personal pronoun, 'I', not 'we'. There is One God.

Moses said so. Most importantly, Jesus Himself said so:

Mk 12.29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[There is NO hint of plurality there. THE Lord -singular -, our GOD - singular - is ONE Lord - singular ]

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Note clearly that Jesus does not include Himself in this great declaration, in any form or fashion.

He now goes on to pat the scribe on the back, because the scribe reiterates the commandment:

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

The scribe declares the Unity of God very forcefully and unmistakably. The Father is GOD, and Jesus is Master, or Teacher. The position could not be put more clearly than that.

Jesus, instead of correcting him, as you would no doubt have attempted to do, now pats him on the back for his clear and correct understanding of the case:

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

So what is it going to take to correct your understanding of the matter, and admit that there is no God but ONE; and that Jesus is His Son, and in no sense His equal?

Philippians 2, that stronghold of trinitarianism, is one of the most powerful statements of the subordination and non-equality of Christ in scripture. Thus:

6 Who, being in the form of God (as Adam was, in the 'image and likeness' of God), thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
or as ESV did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Therefore, He DID NOT have equality with God.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That in (Revised Version) the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I don't think it could be clearer than that, do you?

But you admit that those 78 passages all speak of Jesus' subordination to His Father. Have I got that right?

 

[Asyncritus]

Incidentally, in connection with Php 2, where Jesus is described as being in the form of a servant, the point has been raised that He only looked like a man, but was really God, in disguise, as it were.

The word for fashion = schema, and the only other place in the NT where it is used, is in 1 Cor. 7.31 where we meet this:

31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
He chooses to use that word there, indicating that it is something transient, that will pass away.

You can easily see the relevance of that description to the Lord.

He was found in the fashion of a mortal man, and that mortality was going to pass away, at His death and resurrection, when He would be raised from the dead, to die no more, and be given immortality: which is about as far removed from mortality and flesh-nature as it is possible to get.

It's not that He looked like a man but was really God in disguise, as it were. It means that He was going to be changed into the immortal Lord who now sits at the right hand of God.

 

[Free]

Free, I have not ignored you. I have been replying carefully to DI, and that takes some thought and time, of which I have limited amounts.

It is truly strange how you can so completely ignore 78 passages, all of which state very clearly the Jesus is subordinate to, inferior to, lesser than His Father.

What are you going to do with all those passages?

I urge you to consider them very carefully before dismissing them with a wave of the old theological wand..

You are either not following the discussion or you really don't know what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. No trinitarian is denying the humanity of Jesus nor his subordination, his willful submission, to the Father once he took on the nature of a human. So all the verses you have given do not in any way whatsoever prove the Trinity false.

The problem is that you continue to willfully ignore the many passages proving the deity of Jesus, that he is fully and truly God, just as the Father is. You continue to fail to address the significant contradictions in your position, which have been shown with Scripture. It is not I, nor any trinitarian here, that is waving some "theological wand."

It is also very strange, isn't it, that none of the other gospel writers supports your collective position? Why is there no incontrovertible reference to the trinity in Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

This is a serious error in reasoning on your part. Even if it were true that there was "no incontrovertible reference to the trinity" in the other gospels, your very argument completely undermines the authority of John's gospel. I strongly suggest you do a serious study on the gospels and learn their differences and their purposes. Regardless, the very use of the term "Son of God" refers to the deity of Jesus.

In fact, Mark clarifies John's statement in 1: 1. He says, 'the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ'. THAT is the beginning to which John is referring - and if you stick with the great old principle scripture by scripture, you have no difficulty understanding Jn 1.1.

Here, again, is another significant exegetical error. In no way whatsoever is Mark clarifying John's statement. Not a chance. Mark is clearly referring to the beginning of the "good news", while John, is clearly referring to Gen 1:1, to creation:

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.(ESV)

The very context proves your argument to be false. Verse 1 is showing us who the Word is--that the Word has always existed, the Word was in intimate relationship with God, and that the Word was in fact also God.

Right there that does in your entire position, yet there is more. Not only does verse 3 bring in the context of creation, hence why your argument to Mark is false, it very clearly states that every single thing that has come into existence, came into existence through the Word. Therefore, the only logical conclusion, is that the Word existed in eternity past and is uncreated. This is in perfect agreement with verse 1 (and Col. 1:16-17 and 1 Cor 8:6, which has been pointed out to you before).

Mere 'prooftexting?

78 passages all prooftexting? Please, take any or all of them, and demonstrate the truth of your statement, and that I am wrong to read them as I do: ie at face value..

And prove what, exactly? You didn't prove anything by them, hence why it is prooftexting. Simply posting verses does not mean that you have said anything at all. You must explain how each one supposedly supports your position. Some may be self-explanatory but some may not. Besides, it has already been stated that there is nothing in those that disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity. If you think they do, the onus is you to prove it.

As I keep pointing out, it is your position that does this very thing. The whole tenor of scripture is summarised in the sh'ma as expanded by Paul:

1 Cor.8: 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I seriously can't believe that you would refer back to this verse, after I have already shown how it contradicted the very things you are saying. Of course, you haven't addressed the contradictions up to this point, so I won't hold my breath for an answer now.

I'll refer you back to my post #36 http://www.christianforums.net/Fell...ads/proof-of-trinity.51592/page-2#post-880456

You posted: "The Jews are very important in this discussion. Jesus said 'Salvation is of the Jews'.

Therefore, we cannot, must not ignore or contradict their views of God.

And what was their view?

Very simple, and very simply stated in very many places:

Deut 6.4 ¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

Notice that you even bolded "one LORD".

At the end of that very post, you finished with: "1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

Notice that you bolded "one God," but completely ignored that Jesus is said to be the "one Lord." Which is it then? You have a serious contradiction here. Please clear it up. Not to mention that if "one God" is said to exclude Jesus from being God, the only logical conclusion is that "one Lord" excludes the Father from ever being Lord.

But not only that, let's look at what Paul is actually saying--"there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things...and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." If "all things" really means "all things," and I notice how often you like to say you take verses at face value, then, again, the only logical conclusion is that Jesus is not one of these "things." Indeed, just as "of whom are all things" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of the Father, so "by whom are all things" speaks of the eternal pre-existence of Jesus, or perhaps better, the Son.

Your position makes quite a mess of things as the verse you keep using to support your position actually completely does your position in. And you will notice that it is complete agreement with John 1:1-3.

Paul is nothing if not consistent. In the same letter he states:

1 Cor 15.28 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.

and:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

How you can ignore all that, I simply do not know.

I'm not the one doing the ignoring. A key passage, which has been pointed out to you in past discussions, is Phil 2:5-8:

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 made himself nothing, 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 things worth noting:

1. Jesus was "in the form of God."
2. Yet, he "did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped," that is, something to be retained or forcibly held on to.
3. He, Jesus, "made himself nothing." (emphasis added) It follows that a) he had the power to make himself nothing, b) if he became nothing, he had been "something," and that something was his being "in the form of God," or "being in very nature God" (NIV).
4. His being made nothing is further explained as "taking the very nature of a servant," "being made in human likeness" and "being found in appearance as a man." This supports the notion that he had been something, he had been "in very nature God."
5. He "being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death." Again, pretty self-explanatory.

And it must be pointed out that this is in perfect agreement with John 1:1-14, Col 1:16-17, and 1 Cor 8:6, among others. This passage in particular though is speaking of the humility of Jesus, who, although he was God, willingly submitted to the Father for the purpose of saving humankind.

Indeed, if Jesus is not fully and truly God, we have no salvation.

You need to demonstrate the validity of your assertion, which at the moment is just that - an assertion.

I think it must be obvious to everybody that the vast number of scripture quotations that are available to me, and even more, the simplicity with which even an intelligent child can understand them, without any casuistry or avoidance of their very plain meanings, speaks volumes for the truth of what I say.

But you need to produce some serious refutations, and those 78 passages is probably a good place to start.

I have more than demonstrated the validity of my assertion, even showing how your argument to "very plain meanings" that "even an intelligent child can understand," is not adhered to by you. The things said very plainly show that your entire position is in grave error. As for refutations, I have no need to refute passages of Scripture with which I have no disagreement with.

As for you, however, you have some significant contradictions which need to be addressed.

 

[Randy]

We affirm the functional subordination of Jesus Christ, you just wasted your time. Equal in one way, subordinate in another. No contradiction. Next.

Equal in one way, subordinate in another.

So do I. Jesus has always been the Son yet the Fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.

But if Mans theology wants to explain Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

I think you should consider Jesus as the Firstborn of all creation. Before all things visible and invisible except the Father and before creation (Genesis) That choice is yours to make. I believe Jesus loves His Dad and is not ashamed to state the Father is His God and is greater then Him because that is truth.

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

And the "Word of God" is the Word of the Father.



Randy

 

[WIP]

These trinity discussions always come down to the same result... putting God in a box defined by human terms.

He humbled himself and took on the firm of man. NOTHING is impossible with God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Equal in one way, subordinate in another.

So do I. Jesus has always been the Son yet the Fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.

But if Mans theology wants to explain Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

I think you should consider Jesus as the Firstborn of all creation. Before all things visible and invisible except the Father and before creation (Genesis) That choice is yours to make. I believe Jesus loves His Dad and is not ashamed to state the Father is His God and is greater then Him because that is truth.

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

And the "Word of God" is the Word of the Father.



Randy

The Father is Spirit, he doesn't have children... unless you're a Mormon. It's like you think the term "Son of God," is some kind of gotcha that we have conveniently forgotten.

 

[Free]

Equal in one way, subordinate in another.

So do I. Jesus has always been the Son yet the Fullness was pleased to dwell in Him.

But if Mans theology wants to explain Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

I think you should consider Jesus as the Firstborn of all creation. Before all things visible and invisible except the Father and before creation (Genesis) That choice is yours to make. I believe Jesus loves His Dad and is not ashamed to state the Father is His God and is greater then Him because that is truth.

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

And the "Word of God" is the Word of the Father.

I have pointed out to you before that it is a contradiction to say that Jesus both is God and isn't God. I have also shown that Scripture is very clear that the Son is uncreated. Therefore, as Doulos has stated, "firstborn" doesn't mean, and indeed cannot mean, that the Son was created, otherwise we would have the same contradiction that you are faced with.

The term "firstborn" has another legitimate biblical usage and meaning, which is that of "preeminence." Looking at Col 1:15-17:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

We can see immediately that if verses 16 and 17 are to be true, then firstborn cannot mean that the Son was at some point created. And arguing to some point before the world was created does nothing to solve this contradiction. Notice that immediately after saying that the Son is "the firstborn of all creation," Paul explains what he means: "for by him all things were created...".

Either the Son is God or he is not. One of the very characteristics which define the Christian God is that he has existed for eternity past. If the Son is God, he has existed for eternity past. If he hasn't existed for eternity past, then by definition he cannot be God.

 

[mondar]

I have pointed out to you before that it is a contradiction to say that Jesus both is God and isn't God. I have also shown that Scripture is very clear that the Son is uncreated. Therefore, as Doulos has stated, "firstborn" doesn't mean, and indeed cannot mean, that the Son was created, otherwise we would have the same contradiction that you are faced with.

The term "firstborn" has another legitimate biblical usage and meaning, which is that of "preeminence." Looking at Col 1:15-17:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

We can see immediately that if verses 16 and 17 are to be true, then firstborn cannot mean that the Son was at some point created. And arguing to some point before the world was created does nothing to solve this contradiction. Notice that immediately after saying that the Son is "the firstborn of all creation," Paul explains what he means: "for by him all things were created...".

Either the Son is God or he is not. One of the very characteristics which define the Christian God is that he has existed for eternity past. If the Son is God, he has existed for eternity past. If he hasn't existed for eternity past, then by definition he cannot be God.

I fully agree. Its good to see Colossians quoted. It is a very important Epistle on the absolute and complete deity of Christ. So many will focus on statement in the Gospel of John, and I agree with those statements, but it is good to also to do as you did and include the statements from Colossians. Colossians has multiple statements on the absolute equality of Christ with the Godhead.

Colossians 119 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;
Colossians 29 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

The Nicean formula is correct. Christ was begotten, not made. There is not time when God did not have a triune character of having the Son proceed from the Father, and the HS proceed from the Son and the Father. All members of the trinity are of the same essence, and eternal. Christ never came into existence, but he always was, and is, and will be.

That is my agreement with your thought, but I would like to add something of my own. The doctrine of the Trinity is important to me because it is such a profound and amazing statement of Gods condescension. the distance between us and Christ is greater then the distance between a worm and myself. It would be a condescension for me to become a worm so that I might live among other worms. It was a greater condescension for Christ to live among men, and even to be crucified by men. It is a condescension of so many of his attributes. I will illustrate this with 1 of his attributes, his omnipresence. God exists everywhere. There is no place in the universe, and beyond the universe where God does not already exist. When God came down to Mt Sinai and appeared to Moses in the burning bush, or to Israel in the shikinah glory, it was a condescension. When God came to Mt Sinai, it was not that he actually was not already present on Mt. Sinai. In light of God's omnipresence, one might wonder what it means that "God came down" to Mt Sinai. How can God go anywhere when he is already there? In light of his omnipresence, space time looses meaning. It is a condescension to mankind because we live in space time and are limited in our presence to a local area. We can only peer dimly into the essence of God's glorious essence and character. Yet, if it is a condescension for God to be expressed as going to a location (such as Sinai) or in the many anthropomorphic terms that he is expressed in the scriptures, how much greater condescension is it for the omnipresent God to take on human flesh and actually walk from one location to another and actually have a local presence. It totally amazes me that the God who created, became a apart of his own creation! Are we not as worms who crawl around on this planet compared to God, and God became a worm and crawled around as we do. God actually did this? He became a part of his own creation? To remove the doctrine of the trinity, is to remove the value and wonder of the work of Christ in the incarnation. Christ had all the attributes of the Godhead. As Colossians says, he had the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Without the doctrine of the trinity, there is much loss to the humility within the Godhead, the condescension to our level is tremendously lessened. Non-trinitarian doctrine brings Christ most of the way to our level as a created being and reduces the necessity of the humility and condescension of God in Christ. It is no wonder Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. There is so much less to celebrate. I do not care when Christ was born, but the fact of his birth and his encapsulation in human flesh is such an amazing condescension on the part of God that it is totally worth celebrating. I praise God not only for the glorious condescension in the incarnation, but I praise God for the superlative and infinite height from which he came. To do away with the doctrine of the trinity is to do away with that height. May all glory go to God and the firstborn of all creation, Jesus Christ. He was infinitely God, and completely man. He was the creator, and a part of his creation. My heart leaps when I think of these things and I love the doctrine of the trinity. May you (Free and others) who are defending the doctrine of the trinity, go on in your defense!!

 

[jasoncran]

I fully agree. Its good to see Colossians quoted. It is a very important Epistle on the absolute and complete deity of Christ. So many will focus on statement in the Gospel of John, and I agree with those statements, but it is good to also to do as you did and include the statements from Colossians. Colossians has multiple statements on the absolute equality of Christ with the Godhead.

Colossians 119 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell;
Colossians 29 for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,

The Nicean formula is correct. Christ was begotten, not made. There is not time when God did not have a triune character of having the Son proceed from the Father, and the HS proceed from the Son and the Father. All members of the trinity are of the same essence, and eternal. Christ never came into existence, but he always was, and is, and will be.

That is my agreement with your thought, but I would like to add something of my own. The doctrine of the Trinity is important to me because it is such a profound and amazing statement of Gods condescension. the distance between us and Christ is greater then the distance between a worm and myself. It would be a condescension for me to become a worm so that I might live among other worms. It was a greater condescension for Christ to live among men, and even to be crucified by men. It is a condescension of so many of his attributes. I will illustrate this with 1 of his attributes, his omnipresence. God exists everywhere. There is no place in the universe, and beyond the universe where God does not already exist. When God came down to Mt Sinai and appeared to Moses in the burning bush, or to Israel in the shikinah glory, it was a condescension. When God came to Mt Sinai, it was not that he actually was not already present on Mt. Sinai. In light of God's omnipresence, one might wonder what it means that "God came down" to Mt Sinai. How can God go anywhere when he is already there? In light of his omnipresence, space time looses meaning. It is a condescension to mankind because we live in space time and are limited in our presence to a local area. We can only peer dimly into the essence of God's glorious essence and character. Yet, if it is a condescension for God to be expressed as going to a location (such as Sinai) or in the many anthropomorphic terms that he is expressed in the scriptures, how much greater condescension is it for the omnipresent God to take on human flesh and actually walk from one location to another and actually have a local presence. It totally amazes me that the God who created, became a apart of his own creation! Are we not as worms who crawl around on this planet compared to God, and God became a worm and crawled around as we do. God actually did this? He became a part of his own creation? To remove the doctrine of the trinity, is to remove the value and wonder of the work of Christ in the incarnation. Christ had all the attributes of the Godhead. As Colossians says, he had the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Without the doctrine of the trinity, there is much loss to the humility within the Godhead, the condescension to our level is tremendously lessened. Non-trinitarian doctrine brings Christ most of the way to our level as a created being and reduces the necessity of the humility and condescension of God in Christ. It is no wonder Jehovah Witnesses do not celebrate Christmas. There is so much less to celebrate. I do not care when Christ was born, but the fact of his birth and his encapsulation in human flesh is such an amazing condescension on the part of God that it is totally worth celebrating. I praise God not only for the glorious condescension in the incarnation, but I praise God for the superlative and infinite height from which he came. To do away with the doctrine of the trinity is to do away with that height. May all glory go to God and the firstborn of all creation, Jesus Christ. He was infinitely God, and completely man. He was the creator, and a part of his creation. My heart leaps when I think of these things and I love the doctrine of the trinity. May you (Free and others) who are defending the doctrine of the trinity, go on in your defense!!

the jw's don't celebrate Christmas because of the pagan origins of it. there are many messianic jews who are Trinitarians who don't celebrate Christmas. remember I was a jw.

 

[chessman]

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

So, does it make more sense that Jesus is like Him or became like Him or rather, is Him? That's the point of the Trinity doctrine. We don't compare/liken Jesus to God, He is God.

Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

This understanding has been of old:

Yes it's old. Which is why every time one of the Biblical authors called Jesus "Lord", they affirmed Jesus was the old one and the same Holy One that Isaiah spoke about.

Ex 20. 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Note the personal pronoun, 'I', not 'we'. There is One God.

Exactly.

John 10: 29 (NIV) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of _______30 I and the Father are one."

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him​

Mk 12.29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[There is NO hint of plurality there. THE Lord -singular -, our GOD - singular - is ONE Lord - singular ]

Exactly.

Matthew 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, ...
​

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

12 “Truly, truly, I [Jesus] say to you, ...
15 “If you love me[Jesus], you will keep _my__commandments.
[who's commandments?]

6 Who, being in the form of God (as Adam was, in the 'image and likeness' of God), thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
or as ESV did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

[You don't grasp (or rob) something you already have.]

7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form...
​

Merry Christmas.

 

[Randy]

The Father is Spirit, he doesn't have children... unless you're a Mormon. It's like you think the term "Son of God," is some kind of gotcha that we have conveniently forgotten.

Spirit gives birth to spirit. And my assumption from what is written is only Gods Holy Spirit gives birth to spirit at the will of the mind of Spirit. That has nothing to do with a male and female coming together to produce a offspring. Jesus is before all things invisible and visible (except His God) He is the Firstborn of all creation.

 

[Randy]

I have pointed out to you before that it is a contradiction to say that Jesus both is God and isn't God. I have also shown that Scripture is very clear that the Son is uncreated. Therefore, as Doulos has stated, "firstborn" doesn't mean, and indeed cannot mean, that the Son was created, otherwise we would have the same contradiction that you are faced with.

The term "firstborn" has another legitimate biblical usage and meaning, which is that of "preeminence." Looking at Col 1:15-17:

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

We can see immediately that if verses 16 and 17 are to be true, then firstborn cannot mean that the Son was at some point created. And arguing to some point before the world was created does nothing to solve this contradiction. Notice that immediately after saying that the Son is "the firstborn of all creation," Paul explains what he means: "for by him all things were created...".

Either the Son is God or he is not. One of the very characteristics which define the Christian God is that he has existed for eternity past. If the Son is God, he has existed for eternity past. If he hasn't existed for eternity past, then by definition he cannot be God.

Jesus called the Father the One true God. Jesus stated "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"

Your theology doesn't hold to One God. I need not consider the quality of Jesus's Spirit because what I see is that as long as Jesus "was" the fulness Of God has been in Him. Which as I stated based on what Jesus stated was sometime before the world began.

Jesus is the Firstborn and not God. He is all that the Father is (God) because of the Fullness that was pleased to dwell in Him. I read John (Father in Son) and I see again God defined Jesus's being.

About the Son:
He also says, "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Genesis) Ref:Creation as defined by scripture.

However the fullness in the Son is the Father therefore the Father created through the Son. Jesus had a hand in what the Father did.

It is also written:
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

 

[Asyncritus]

You are either not following the discussion or you really don't know what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. No trinitarian is denying the humanity of Jesus nor his subordination, his willful submission, to the Father once he took on the nature of a human. So all the verses you have given do not in any way whatsoever prove the Trinity false.

So let me summarise this statement of yours. There are 3 segments of Jesus' life as recorded in the scriptures, and the one that you claim is not.

His Ministry

1 You agree that Jesus was human, capable of sinning.

2 You agree that He was subordinate to the Father.

His Present State

You didn't say anything about this, so let me fill in the blank:

1 He sits at the right hand of God the Father, being God's Number Two person.

2 He is not equal in status to the Father

3 You agree that God the Father has 'highly exalted Him' to this position, and in fact, the lesser is blessed of the Greater.

4 His Father will dictate the time of His Return, and it is doubtful whether He (Jesus) knows when that time will be.

His Future Role

1 He will return from heaven to judge the world

2 All judgment has been committed to Him by the Father

3 He will reign as King over all the earth, sitting on the throne of David his father, representing God to all the nations, and teaching them of His will and purpose.

4 That reign will continue until:

1 Cor 15.25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he [God] hath put all things under his [Jesus'] 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 [ie God the Father].

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.

So, in His life here, He was subject to, subordinate to, obedient to the Father. There is, therefore no question of equality while He was here.

At present, He is at the right hand of God the Father, and all authority in heaven and in earth has been granted to Him by God the Father.

There is, therefore, no question of present equality with God the Father.

In the future, He will be God's anointed and appointed King over all the earth, ruling in righteousness on God's behalf, as His representative, and will continue to be so until 'the end', when He will be subordinate to the Father as shown above.

Thus far, we are probably in agreement.

But you note, that in His ministry, in His current exaltation, and in His future Kingship over the world, He remains as always, subordinate to the Father.

This, of course is entirely contradicted by the creeds, and presumably, therefore, by your own current position.

The only problem which remains is expressed in your words as:

once he took on the nature of a human.

 

[Asyncritus]

The problem is that you continue to willfully ignore the many passages proving the deity of Jesus, that he is fully and truly God, just as the Father is. You continue to fail to address the significant contradictions in your position, which have been shown with Scripture. It is not I, nor any trinitarian here, that is waving some "theological wand."

You really ought to produce these 'many passages proving the deity of Jesus'. In my opinion, aligned with volumes of passages from the epistles and gospels, there is no doubt that He was human. Here are a handful:


First, God's explicit declaration concerning Himself:


Nu 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


Jesus, on the other hand, is extremely and equally specific on the point:


He IS the son of man. A multitude of references proves this.

Therefore, Jesus was not God.

Mt 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Mt 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Mt 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Mt 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mt 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

Mt 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Mt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Mt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mt 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Mt 17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.

Mt 17:22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:

Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Mt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mt 20:18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,

Mt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mt 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mt 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Mt 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Mt 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Mt 26:2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

Mt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Mt 26:45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Mt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mr 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

Mr 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Mr 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mr 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Mr 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

Mr 9:12 And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.

Mr 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mr 10:33 Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

Mr 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Mr 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Mr 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

Mr 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Mr 14:41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Mr 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

I could, of course, go on quoting such passages, but that should be enough to establish once for all that He is Son of Man, and bears human nature - which is entirely opposed to the divine nature.

Thereby leaving you with a huge problem.

 

[Asyncritus]

He is equally emphatic in stating that He is the Son of God. Even His enemies agree on the point.

Here's Matthew on the subject:

Mt 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

Mt 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Mt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

Mt 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Mt 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

And the other gospel writers:

Mr 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Mr 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

Mr 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Lu 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Lu 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

Lu 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

Lu 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

Lu 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

Lu 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Joh 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?

Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Joh 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Joh 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Joh 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does He say He was God.

Now, can you account for that simple fact? That Jesus NEVER claims, ANYWHERE, to be God?

If He was God, then this would have been the place to say so:

Jn 10.32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

At this point in the argument, if He really was God, He should have shouted out: You’re right! I am God.

But does He do any such thing? No. Here's what He said:

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So you're back to square one - in deep trouble.

Jesus, and I repeat, NOWHERE says that He is God, or even God the Son. Not even here, when He had the most perfect opportunity to do so.

Instead, He repeats the claim, which we all know, that he is the SON OF GOD.

Given all this proof absolute that Jesus is the Son of God, Son of Man, then where do you go from there?