Proof of Trinity

[th1b.taylor]

Hello Taylor,

You mentioned above that the Son of God "emptied Himself of His divine powers," where Phi 2:7 just says that Jesus "emptied himself."

I am curious what leads you to think that Jesus emptied Himself of His 'divine powers.'

God bless you brother.

Hello Grreg,
Nice to meet you, brother. The Son of God, like the Father and the Holy Spirit, are just that before Jesus was born, Spirits. And when we read the record, in the Gospels, of the Christ, He depends, entirely, on the Father.

This can be a tough doctrine to defend but if one does the study with prayer, meditation and the leading of the Holy Spirit, I believe all, true, followers will be shown what was taught to me by the Spirit. The large issue with teaching this is people's lack of submission to the Holy Spirit.



On another forum I was asked where I had received my degree from by a Prof. that had been a Bible Instructor for 40 years and a Pastor for 36 years. He finished his question, not in a PM but in open forum, with, "and don't give me that Holy Spirit s___." This man, until year before last taught future young Pastors and he, certainly, was not led by the Spirit.

I pray this is fgood for you, God bless.

 

[Gregg]

No doubt that God is Spirit, and that Jesus depended entirely on His Father; but that is not the matter that I had in mind.

The question in my mind is 'Was the Son of God at any time without His Divinity?' My understanding is that He always possessed His Divinity, but He did not display the appearance of His eternal glory when He took the form of a servant, in the likeness of men (Phi 2:6-7).

Paul was talking about the "attitude" of Jesus in Phi 2:5-8, such as "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped", "servant", "likeness of men", "humbled Himself", "obedient to the point of death on the cross"; but nowhere here or in other Scriptures does it indicate that the Son of God somehow gave up possession of His Divinity.

I believe that the whole Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, being both Divine God and Man, was crucified. The LORD (YHWH) was crucified; God who gave the Law was the One who fulfilled the Law. See John 1:17.

How did you arrive at the doctrine that at any time the Son of God was without his Divinity? I would like to study those verses if you will identify them.

 

[Asyncritus]

Asyncritus, to draw doctrine from a passage, you must do much more then just look at one word, you look at all the words of the passage and also you look at the interrelationship of those words. What you did was not exegesis, but it was merely just a dash away from the context of Colossians 2:9. I cannot say I blame you for running from that context, words like "θεοτητος" (Godhead) pack a doctrinal punch. Christ was not only θεοτητος (God in his attributes) but he was "fullness" (πληρωμα) of God. He was not even merely just the fullness of the Godhead, but he was "all" (παν) the fulness of the Godhead.

Mondar

I appreciate your effort to expound the Greek of Col 2.9.

Unfortunately for your case, theotes is only used ONCE in the NT, and that is right here in Col 2.9.

It is therefore exceedingly unwise to base the whole of a gigantic doctrine on this single occurrence of the word: in the NT, and the whole of the OT too!
It is utterly remarkable that it NEVER, NEVER occurs, not even once, in the whole of the LXX of the OT!!! Therefore, it is a concept utterly unknown to the Jews and the prophets and Moses.

They didn't know about it, Jesus didn't either, and I follow in their footsteps.

I'm sure you didn't know this, and so you can be forgiven for the error.

What it means in Col 2.9 is not entirely clear, but the trinitarian translators of the AV seized upon it with both hands, unfortunately for you.

Unfortunately for them, we can easily check these things nowadays.

So you are now faced with another gigantic problem. This support is an entirely feeble one - and as I say, to erect such a gigantic doctrine on the single occurrence of a word in the whole Bible is unwise in the extreme.

You disagree with my following up kataoikew , but at least it is used in many places. Matt 23.21 seems a highly relevant one, though you seem to dismiss it rather airily. It makes a great deal of sense to me, to think that the spirit of God dwelt in Him without measure or restriction: in its 'fulness'.

Did you know that if Jesus was God, then we are God too? Why, Paul says so:

Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

So that "filled with all the fulness of God" does NOT mean that we are part of the Godhead, God of very God etc etc etc. Why should you then think that it means that Christ was 'very God of very God' etc etc?

 

[Gregg]

Did you know that if Jesus was God, then we are God too? Why, Paul says so:

Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

This is the very reason why I brought up the Divinity of Jesus, stating that He was never without His Divinity. If you can prove that Jesus at any time could be separated from His eternal attributes or Person, then it opens the door to make false claims against Him; such as "if Jesus was God, then we are God too", and that 'Jesus was not God'.

I would like to ask permission from the original poster, Allenwyne, to veer of the Trinity for a moment and post a few things here regarding the Deity of Jesus.

 

[Free]

No doubt that God is Spirit, and that Jesus depended entirely on His Father; but that is not the matter that I had in mind.

The question in my mind is 'Was the Son of God at any time without His Divinity?' My understanding is that He always possessed His Divinity, but He did not display the appearance of His eternal glory when He took the form of a servant, in the likeness of men (Phi 2:6-7).

Paul was talking about the "attitude" of Jesus in Phi 2:5-8, such as "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped", "servant", "likeness of men", "humbled Himself", "obedient to the point of death on the cross"; but nowhere here or in other Scriptures does it indicate that the Son of God somehow gave up possession of His Divinity.

I believe that the whole Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, being both Divine God and Man, was crucified. The LORD (YHWH) was crucified; God who gave the Law was the One who fulfilled the Law. See John 1:17.

How did you arrive at the doctrine that at any time the Son of God was without his Divinity? I would like to study those verses if you will identify them.

Good post. I, too, don't see how God can somehow become "not God." Laying aside something such as his glory does not mean that he laid aside his divinity:

John 1:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

And for those anti-trinitarians, this verse clearly shows at least Jesus' existence prior to being "being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7, ESV). But I would also argue it points to his eternal pre-esistence, as he shared in the glory of the Father prior to the earth's existence, prior to the beginning of time.

 

[Free]

This is the very reason why I brought up the Divinity of Jesus, stating that He was never without His Divinity. If you can prove that Jesus at any time could be separated from His eternal attributes or Person, then it opens the door to make false claims against Him; such as "if Jesus was God, then we are God too", and that 'Jesus was not God'.

I would like to ask permission from the original poster, Allenwyne, to veer of the Trinity for a moment and post a few things here regarding the Deity of Jesus.

Go ahead. It is impossible to discuss the Trinity without at the same time providing proof for the deity of Jesus. The same of course goes for the Holy Spirit, but if we can't even get past the deity of Jesus...

 

[Free]

There is a vast difference between "a savior" and "the Savior." If God says, and it has been shown that he does, that he is "the Savior" and apart from him there is no other savior, then clearly he means something much more significant than those in the passages you give. God is the Savior, as he clearly states he is, and since Jesus is also the Savior, as the very Scriptures you give state, then one must conclude that Jesus is in some way that very God. It is your continued inability to see the same language used of God that is used of Jesus which is a big part of your error.

Since the above post wasn't addressed, I figured it would be a good time to add substantial support to my argument which I had forgotten about (all from ESV):

Titus 1:1-4, 1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began 3 and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior; 4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Titus 2:10-13, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Titus 3:4-7, 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

In each chapter Paul is drawing some significant parallels between God being our Savior and Jesus being our Savior, not to mention the clear statement, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."

 

[Gregg]

“looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, [our] Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:13-14). Paul issued the preceding statement according to the inspiration of the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God, who is from God and knows the mind of God, equates ‘God who is Savior’ with ‘God who is Christ Jesus.’ The construction of the Greek text places the article ‘the’ prior to ‘God’ but not before ‘Savior’; however, the words God and Savior are connected by the coordinating conjunction ‘and.’ As such, the text equates God and Savior as opposed to drawing a possible distinction between ‘the God’ and ‘the Savior.’ The following phrase, “our Christ Jesus” is adjectival to “our great God and Savior” - presenting a more comprehensive description of Him whom he already named. Accordingly, Christ Jesus is our great God and Savior. The Deity of Jesus Christ is as the Deity of God.

 

[Gregg]

The following Scripture advocates the unquestionable Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. “Then He [Jesus] said to Thomas, ‘Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Jesus said to him, ‘Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed’” (Jn 20:27-29). Thomas believed and acknowledged the Living and Eternal Jesus Christ as “Lord” and “God.”

 

[Gregg]

Luke refers to Jesus Christ as “the Lord their God” and as “the Lord.” Luke describes John the Baptist as being the one like Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah. He [John the Baptist] “will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God” (Lk 1:16). In the next sentence Luke refers to the Lord their God with the personal pronoun ‘Him’, saying that it is John the Baptist “who will go as a forerunner before Him [the Lord their God, the Messiah] in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children,’ and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk 1:17). Jesus Christ is He to whom John the Baptist was forerunner. Jesus Christ is the Lord for whom the people were being prepared.

 

[Gregg]

Paul was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Athens (Act 17:16-17). The Athenians were familiar with the Jewish God, as there were synagogues in that city (Act 17:17); but some of them did not know about Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Several philosophers and others in Athens understood that Paul's Gospel message included the claim that Jesus Christ was God; as they accused Paul "to be a proclaimer of strange deities" (Act 17:18); Jesus being that Deity, the Son of God. When Paul found a statue dedicated to an unknown God in Athens (Act 17:23), Paul identifies the God of His Gospel message and the Creator, "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth" (Act 17:24). Paul identifies the Creator [who is God] as Jesus Christ (Heb 1:2. He consistently identifies Jesus Christ as both Creator and God throughout his New Testament writings (Rom 1:19-20, 25, Eph 3:9, Col 1:15-16, 1Tim 4:4).

 

[Gregg]

Some one posted earlier that Jesus never claimed He was God, but here:

Jesus said, "I and the Father are One" (Jn 10:30). The verb "are" is plural, where "One" is the first cardinal numeral, '1.' The Jews understood exactly that Jesus was referring to Himself as God, as they picked up stones to kill Him thinking that He had blasphemed (Jn 10:31). "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (Jn 10:33). The Jews knew that Jesus was referring to Himself as God, being of One essence with the Father (Jn 10:33), yet Jesus humbly deferred that Glory to the Father by calling Himself "Son of God." Jesus was claiming to be God, and is here stating that His title "Son of God" (Jn 10:36) implies His Deity.

 

[mondar]

Mondar

I appreciate your effort to expound the Greek of Col 2.9.

Unfortunately for your case, theotes is only used ONCE in the NT, and that is right here in Col 2.9.

It is therefore exceedingly unwise to base the whole of a gigantic doctrine on this single occurrence of the word: in the NT, and the whole of the OT too!
It is utterly remarkable that it NEVER, NEVER occurs, not even once, in the whole of the LXX of the OT!!! Therefore, it is a concept utterly unknown to the Jews and the prophets and Moses.

They didn't know about it, Jesus didn't either, and I follow in their footsteps.

I'm sure you didn't know this, and so you can be forgiven for the error.

What it means in Col 2.9 is not entirely clear, but the trinitarian translators of the AV seized upon it with both hands, unfortunately for you.

Unfortunately for them, we can easily check these things nowadays.

So you are now faced with another gigantic problem. This support is an entirely feeble one - and as I say, to erect such a gigantic doctrine on the single occurrence of a word in the whole Bible is unwise in the extreme.

You disagree with my following up kataoikew , but at least it is used in many places. Matt 23.21 seems a highly relevant one, though you seem to dismiss it rather airily. It makes a great deal of sense to me, to think that the spirit of God dwelt in Him without measure or restriction: in its 'fulness'.

Did you know that if Jesus was God, then we are God too? Why, Paul says so:

Eph 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

So that "filled with all the fulness of God" does NOT mean that we are part of the Godhead, God of very God etc etc etc. Why should you then think that it means that Christ was 'very God of very God' etc etc?

Interesting. When I see words like "gigantic problem" and the extreme emotion you convey in your choice of words, it sound like I have a problem that is so painfully obvious to everyone, yet it is you that is throwing the verse out on the basis of the word "θεοτητος" (God head) being only used once in the NT. Your post reminds me of the hold preacher who put in his notes "point weak, scream loud."

Tell me, what rule of exegesis is there that requires us to throw out a verse because a term is used only 1 time? Do we throw out 2nd Tim 3:16 because the word "θεοπνευστος" (inspired or God breathed) is also only used once in the scritpures also. There are many more words used only 1 time in the Greek NT. Do we throw them all out? No, I do not see any problems whatsoever in using a verse for theology just because one of the terms is used only 1 time. Actually, I told you that myself in my previous post, so I was already aware of this. Feel free to pick your translation. Which translation would you like to work in. I would not object to you using a greek New Testament if you feel like it. You can even go to a fake translation like the New World Translation if you wish.

Do you accept verbal/plenary inspiration.... that is each and every word and also the whole?

By the way, Colossians 1:19 has some of the same terms. Colossians is not the only book claiming full, absolute, and complete deity for Christ, The Gospel of John has much in it which defends the absolute divine nature of Christ. I am aware of other places I could go, but was hoping not to jump all over the bible on the issue and just discuss one verse. Now you tell me you refused to believe the word "Godhead" has any authority. If I were to go to another text, would you again say that verse has no authority because some term is vague?

In any case, the word is not really that difficult. The words has an obvious breakdown with the word "θεος" (God) at the beginning.

By the way, there are contextual differences between Ephesians 3:19 and Colossians 2:9. In Ephesians 3:19 what fills us with the fulness of God is knowing the love of Christ. The proposition of Ephesians 3:19 is simply about the efficacy of us knowing the love of Christ. As we know Christ, his love shows through in our character. The language is related to the statement in verse 17 where Christ dwells in our hearts through faith. Colossians is not talking about the Father merely dwelling in the heart of Christ. In fact the Father is not in view in Colossians 2:9. The thing in Colossians that is filling Christ is not another person but it is divine attributes itself that is completely filled with.

If it were me, Christ would fill me in Ephesians, but in Colossians, I am filled with what I am... me.

 

[Gregg]

Isaiah prophesied about John the Baptist, the Elijah that was to come and the Messiah’s forerunner (Mal 3:1, Mat 11:14, Mk 1:1-11, Jn 1:23), calling for the preparation of the countryside surrounding Jerusalem for the arrival of the Messiah. “A voice is calling, ‘Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3). Isaiah rightly calls the Messiah “the Lord” and “our God” [Yahweh and Elohiym in the Hebrew text, Kuriou and Theou in the Greek LXX]. Isaiah then admonishes those of Jerusalem to shout, “Here is your God!” (Isa 40:9) - identifying Jesus the Messiah as God - Elohiym. And again, “Behold, the Lord God will come with might” (Isa 40:10) - naming Jesus as Adonay Yahweh [Sovereign, Eternal, Covenant God of Israel].

 

[th1b.taylor]

No doubt that God is Spirit, and that Jesus depended entirely on His Father; but that is not the matter that I had in mind.

The question in my mind is 'Was the Son of God at any time without His Divinity?' My understanding is that He always possessed His Divinity, but He did not display the appearance of His eternal glory when He took the form of a servant, in the likeness of men (Phi 2:6-7).

Paul was talking about the "attitude" of Jesus in Phi 2:5-8, such as "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped", "servant", "likeness of men", "humbled Himself", "obedient to the point of death on the cross"; but nowhere here or in other Scriptures does it indicate that the Son of God somehow gave up possession of His Divinity.

I believe that the whole Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, being both Divine God and Man, was crucified. The LORD (YHWH) was crucified; God who gave the Law was the One who fulfilled the Law. See John 1:17.

How did you arrive at the doctrine that at any time the Son of God was without his Divinity? I would like to study those verses if you will identify them.

I must apoligize because I did the study teaching the Men's Class during my fifth year as a Christian, when none of the Deacons would step up and I proofed all of the lessons on this topic through the Pastor to insure accuracy and two of the Deacons were in the class, testing me.

All of those notes are gone, these thirteen years later and with ovr seventy scars shown on my brain in the MRI, my hand and leg are not the only things affected.

I'll do my best to recall but it might not be enough. Jesus, before His birth, created the Earth and all that is here. But that is small, He created the entirety of creation and the suns, planets, moons, asteroids and meteoroids are held in His hand before He was born. He let all of that power pass to the Father and He held onto none of it. I never pull this verse and that verse out of their context to find theological truth because all I find tat way are lies.


When I taught this in class it took months to get through the four Gospels and to compar4e them to the truths found of the character of Jesus in the Old Testament. The primary obsticle I've found is the lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit in a person's life. Without that indwelling there is no infilling and without it, Jesus cannot be seen in the Old Testament. I know this because I studied the scriptures before my conversion and made a good deal of fun of Believers over this. The day before my conversion, the KJV Bible was gibberish, save John 3, and that night, after the indwelling presence of the
Spirit, the KJV, the NASB, the WEB and the other versions were and are perfectly clear to me.

The Spirit, generally, gave me my lesson and then, I would introduce the text and the Spirit taught the class with my mouth. I cannot tell you why but that is all the Spirit is giving me right now.

 

[chessman]

I, too, don't see how God can somehow become "not God." Laying aside something such as his glory

and then sacrifice Himself to pay the debt of our sins, yet not be God.

It makes zero sense.

And furthermore, someone that didn't think Christ was God while on the cross, why even call yourself a Christian?

Procreate-ian maybe. But Christian, no.
​

 

[th1b.taylor]

Good post. I, too, don't see how God can somehow become "not God." Laying aside something such as his glory does not mean that he laid aside his divinity:

John 1:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

And for those anti-trinitarians, this verse clearly shows at least Jesus' existence prior to being "being born in the likeness of men" (Phil 2:7, ESV). But I would also argue it points to his eternal pre-esistence, as he shared in the glory of the Father prior to the earth's existence, prior to the beginning of time.

Free,
He was never, not God, but with His divinity, is all power, which He emptied Himself of and relied on the Father to care for. This is indeed a hard teaching but the Son created, in the name of the Father, and He held the universe in His hand... until He had, not, that power in the Human Body.

 

[Free]

Free,
He was never, not God, but with His divinity, is all power, which He emptied Himself of and relied on the Father to care for. This is indeed a hard teaching but the Son created, in the name of the Father, and He held the universe in His hand... until He had, not, that power in the Human Body.

To me it is the same. How could he still be God and not be divine?

 

[th1b.taylor]

and then sacrifice Himself to pay the debt of our sins, yet not be God.

It makes zero sense.

And furthermore, someone that didn't think Christ was God while on the cross, why even call yourself a Christian?

Procreate-ian maybe. But Christian, no.
​

I have never claimed He was no longer the Son of God, being the second person in the God Head. I said He emptied Himself of His Divine power.

 

[Gregg]

I think confusion arises when we include 'Divinity' as something Jesus emptied Himself of, while the context does not specifically mention or call for in Phi 2.

Bill, and others,
I admire your deep love of God, and your dedication to Him. It is humbling to me and refreshing to read these posts.