Rethinking the Biblical Definition of the Triune Nature of God

[Free]

Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Apart from this verse, there is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that Jesus is "a Father." It is very dangerous to build a doctrine out of just one verse. Instead, the best and proper way to understand this verse is to let the rest of what is revealed about the Son to bring light to this verse, not the other way around.

From the context of the verse, we can know that he is a Father in some sense to the people of whom this verse is speaking. What it does not say, is that he is the Father of all creation. In fact, just a quick look at Matthew 6 shows Jesus saying some variation of "your heavenly Father" or "your Father," nine times. And more significantly in verse 9, in teaching on prayer, he says to pray "our Father in heaven." (ESV)

We can also look at John 20:

Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (ESV)

Clearly Jesus does not at all think of himself as our Father which means he likely doesn't think of himself as the Father of creation.

He is a son to the Heavenly Father (Hebrews 1:5, Hebrews 10:5, John 1:14 which says he is the ONLY get that ONLY begotten of the (Heavenly) Father...) but Jesus (preincarnate is our Creator John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:13-16, Isaiah 44:24, John1:10, Hebrews 1:2 making him the preincarnate Jesus the Father of creation and to wit the Father of Adam Luke 3:38).

Isaiah 44:24 in no way supports your point. It is speaking of YHWH as being the creator, which the whole OT states often. The OT never splits YHWH as though sometimes it is speaking of the Father, other times the Son, and other times the Holy Spirit. It is simply speaking of the godhead.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (ESV)

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)

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (ESV)

Once again you are building a doctrine around one verse. You have one verse that says "by him," after which it also says, in agreement with the rest, "through him."

But what important passage have you left out? 1 Cor 8:6:

1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)

That verse alone completely undermines your entire argument. So what can we say then? Simply that all three persons of the godhead had roles in the act of creation. Different roles perhaps but none more or less important than the others.

Since the preincarnate Jesus (God the Word) is the lone Creator of all things created in the beginning... the Father of Adam is Jesus (preincarnate).

Nothing you post shows either points of these to be the case.

Colossians 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)
24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;


Luke 3:38 (KJV)
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.

Adam was the son of God (the Word).

Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of (God) the Father:

John 1:14 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Adam and the sons mentioned in Genesis 6 and in Job 1 and Job 2 and Job 38 are sons of God the Word the Creator of all things in the beginning.

And still, nothing you have posted proves your points.

Nope as I showed it's not. The Father was present (1 John 1:2) as was the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) but God the Word created all things created in the beginning (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16) alone by himself (Isaiah 44:24). And again (again and again and again till you "get it") the ONLY O*N*L* Y begotten of the Father (John 1:14) is the body of Jesus (Hebrews 10:5 / Hebrews 1:5).

As I have shown, 1 Cor 8:6 proves all your main points in this quote to be quite incorrect. Not to mention that none of the verses provided actually say what you are making them say.

The Creator is the Father of what he creates. In this case the body of Jesus his Father created for him and John 1:14 says this is the only creation of God the Father.

No, that is not what John 1:14 says.

John 1:14 says Jesus is the ONLY begotten of the Father. Hebrews 1:5 says that makes him his Father.

This still does not show that "the body of Jesus...is the only creation of God the Father". Merely proof-texting doesn't prove anything.

There really is too much that is not quite right in your post that I don't have the time to address at the moment.

So far you haven't been correct once, so don't worry about it.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I believe I have sufficiently shown all your points to be incorrect.

 

[JohnD]

Ok, I agree with you to a point.

I don't agree with the co-equal part. Jesus said the Father is great than He is.

God the Word emptied himself to become a man and as a man he humbled himself (Philippians 2:7-8). John 10:28 is God the Word in this emptied / humble state saying the Father is greater. Also the word used is not to be taken that the Father is [better]. Only in greater position / authority.

I also disagree that The Father is Jesus' Father because He created His physical body. The early Christians taught that the Son was begotten before all worlds. Jesus said that He had come out of God. It is this coming out of God that I believe makes Him the Son and the Father His Father.

Ah, the Eternal Son doctrine.

1. you cannot take the word of all early Christians since some were simply wrong
2. Hebrews 1:5 is the event of the Son becoming the Son and the Father becoming the Father (inferring neither was true prior to this point so there cannot be an Eternal Son).
3. Hebrews 1:5 is referring to a time in the present age "today" or "this day" while in eternity past there were no "days."
4. Hebrews 10:5 clearly says "entering into the world" he (Jesus / God the Word) said... meaning he preexisted the time he was born of the virgin. And that the Father made a body for him.
5. John 1:14 clearly indicates the only begotten of the Father is the flesh the Word became.

You can try to drive a truck load of opinion through some hazy texts you sort of quote "coming out of God" "the Father is greater" etc. But what you conclude goes against at least the high stack of scriptures I have cited above and I am sure many more.

Philippians 2:6 in the greek speaking of Jesus "morphe theos huparchon" = never ceasing to be God. And in the same verse said thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

In John 5:18 he Jesus was accused of making himself equal with God. Which he did not deny.

 

[JohnD]

Re: Rethinking the Biblical Definition of the Triune Nature of God [Quote Originally Posted by JohnD View Post] Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Apart from this verse, there is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that Jesus is "a Father." It is very dangerous to build a doctrine out of just one verse. Instead, the best and proper way to understand this verse is to let the rest of what is revealed about the Son to bring light to this verse, not the other way around.

You said NO verses in the Bible said this at all.

I showed you it did.

I also showed many verses that indicate Jesus is A Father while maintaining he is not THE Heavenly Father (of his incarnation).

Here's another one contrary to your claim that none exist in the Bible:

Isaiah 63:16 (KJV)
16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

If God the Father did not create the heavens and the earth (Hebrews 1:2, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:13-16, Isaiah 44:24)...

...and God the Father is not the Father of Adam (Luke 3:38, John 1:14)...

... HOW can Isaiah 63:16 refer to God the Father?

You explain to me and the rest of us reading HOW is Isaiah 63:16 not referring to the preincarnate Jesus (God the Word)?

Because God the Father is not a Father of the people being referred to here. And in fact, we are his children only through adoption:

Romans 8:15 (KJV)
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Furthermore, God the Father is not our redeemer either.

God the Father is the one to whom the redemption price is paid (the wrath poured out on the actual Redeemer Christ Jesus see Isaiah 52:13-53:12).

Notice this is how he describes himself in Isaiah 44:24 as well.

Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)
24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

How can you sit there and declare I am building a doctrine on one scripture???????

I am going to stop here for your sake. Because I am not here to dress anyone down. Just to point out the Bible truth.

 

[Sparkey]

Guys. It's not that big of a deal if we consider things to be a mystery now, because right now they are a mystery. That's right.

But that is not a permanent condition. What does it mean when we hear the promise that we shall know Him even as we are known? That's pretty clear. We don't know what we will know, but we know that we will know it.
Did that one make sense? It did to me.

Think about that whole "through a mirror darkly" idea.
I trust God to reveal Himself to us. It is promised.

I've read that Jesus said that "I come not to bring peace" but "fire". Luke 12:51 and thereabouts. But we are called to be peacemakers and called blessed if that is who we are found to be.

 

[farouk]

Guys. It's not that big of a deal if we consider things to be a mystery now, because right now they are a mystery. That's right.

But that is not a permanent condition. What does it mean when we hear the promise that we shall know Him even as we are known? That's pretty clear. We don't know what we will know, but we know that we will know it.
Did that one make sense? It did to me.

Think about that whole "through a mirror darkly" idea.
I trust God to reveal Himself to us. It is promised.

I've read that Jesus said that "I come not to bring peace" but "fire". Luke 12:51 and thereabouts. But we are called to be peacemakers and called blessed if that is who we are found to be.

[MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION]:

Or, stated differently maybe: the fact of Biblical revelation does not grant us omniscience...

Blessings.

 

[Free]

Re: Rethinking the Biblical Definition of the Triune Nature of God [Quote Originally Posted by JohnD View Post] Isaiah 9:6 (KJV) 6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Apart from this verse, there is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that Jesus is "a Father." It is very dangerous to build a doctrine out of just one verse. Instead, the best and proper way to understand this verse is to let the rest of what is revealed about the Son to bring light to this verse, not the other way around.

I also showed many verses that indicate Jesus is A Father while maintaining he is not THE Heavenly Father (of his incarnation).

No, you have shown one, single verse that indicates that the Son is a father in some sense to a specific group of people. The rest are you inserting your own meaning into the text. As I stated, you are basing your entire doctrine on one verse (Isa 9:6) which you have miss understood.

Here's another one contrary to your claim that none exist in the Bible:

Isaiah 63:16 (KJV)
16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Here again you are reading your own meaning into the text. There is nothing in this verse to suggest that it is speaking of the Son.

If God the Father did not create the heavens and the earth (Hebrews 1:2, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:13-16, Isaiah 44:24)...

...and God the Father is not the Father of Adam (Luke 3:38, John 1:14)...

... HOW can Isaiah 63:16 refer to God the Father?

But, the Father did create the heavens and the earth (and once again, none of the verses you have given prove otherwise), and the Father is the Father of Adam. So it is in fact the case that Isa 63:16 could be referring to the Father, although it is best said to be speaking of YHWH and not of any particular person of the Trinity. And, yes, once again the verses you have given do nothing to prove your point because you are reading meanings into them that aren't there.

Because God the Father is not a Father of the people being referred to here. And in fact, we are his children only through adoption:

Romans 8:15 (KJV)
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

And?

Furthermore, God the Father is not our redeemer either.

God the Father is the one to whom the redemption price is paid (the wrath poured out on the actual Redeemer Christ Jesus see Isaiah 52:13-53:12).

Notice this is how he describes himself in Isaiah 44:24 as well.

Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)
24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

In one sense the Son is our redeemer because it was he who paid the price. In another sense the entire godhead is our redeemer, as the OT states over and over, such as in the verses you have quoted. Except that you are breaking apart such verses which very clearly state YHWH, and making them speak of the Son alone. And that is poor exegesis as it makes the Bible say things it isn't saying.

How can you sit there and declare I am building a doctrine on one scripture???????

Because you have. Without Isa 9:6, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to think of Jesus as some sort of Father. But in misunderstanding what is said there, you have taken that meaning and read it back unto numerous other verses to make them say things they are not saying.

And you didn't address my main points and the Scriptures I provided.

 

[JohnD]

Free,


Apparently you have made it your life quest from here on out NOT to see what I pointed out with scripture to be true.

After all you apparently feel your reputation is at stake. And you will go on endlessly refusing to see or acknowledge what I have repeatedly shown you despite your denials.

I did not set out to prove you wrong. You simply were wrong. You stated NO scriptures said Jesus was a father of any kind.

THAT is apparently what you cannot get past.

So you set out to prove me wrong.

All I did was quote scripture. So keep opposing scripture all you want.

I'm through with you.

 

[Free]

Free,


Apparently you have made it your life quest from here on out NOT to see what I pointed out with scripture to be true.

After all you apparently feel your reputation is at stake. And you will go on endlessly refusing to see or acknowledge what I have repeatedly shown you despite your denials.

I did not set out to prove you wrong. You simply were wrong. You stated NO scriptures said Jesus was a father of any kind.

THAT is apparently what you cannot get past.

So you set out to prove me wrong.

All I did was quote scripture. So keep opposing scripture all you want.

I'm through with you.

I have acknowledged that there is one verse that states Jesus is a father. I have made that abundantly clear. It is simply that you have taken it out of context and not understood what was said. Anyone can quote Scripture, atheists and other people of other religions do it all the time. Understanding what is being said is something else entirely.

I provided plenty of Scripture which shows your position to be wrong. I have addressed all your points and Scriptures whereas you have not addressed mine. You say I'm wrong but have failed to show how.

 

[reba]

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.
Not necessarily directed at the last poster.

 

[JohnD]

Sparrowhawke, Farouk, it's not rocket science, it is not beyond our ability to comprehend the Triune nature of the one God... once we untangle the terminology and refute the false examples man has tried to explain the Trinity with over the millennia.

The late Doctor D. James Kennedy, for example, misapplied the math. He said "referring to the persons in the Godhead is it not 1+1+1+=1 but 1x1x1=1."

That is modalism. Dr. Kennedy was not a modalist. He was so delighted with the way the idea sounded and seems to be Trinitarian that he never thought it out...

1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1x1=1 is the same 1 repeated over and over. If one uses their finger... hold it up each "time" and you'll realize it's the same finger each "time."

The math is there are three who are of the same nature making the single compound unity the same way a family three would. Let's take it to the ultimate. When the only humans in existence were Adam, Eve, and Cain. There were three who were one family, one race, one nature, but there were three of them.

So the egg model doesn't properly depict God (shell, egg white, yolk) nor does the human make up body, soul, spirit. God is Spirit. No body no soul just Spirit. And there are three who are one. God in Hebrew is a plural word and when we stop thinking of it as a singular word it helps us understand. It is plural as in Gods many? No. Plural as in compound unity. Plurality within. For example, there is no such thing as a family of one. Family is a compound unity word... a singular plurality.

In this thread what I have undertaken is the reevaluating what people think in light of what the Bible describes about all three and what the Bible shows is unique to each individual in the Godhead which lends itself to a clearer understanding of the nature of God.

It's simple to understand but hard to let go of traditions and predeterminations.

 

[Sparkey]

It's simple to understand but hard to let go of traditions and predeterminations.

Are you certain that this is your final answer or would you like to play a "help from the audience" here? Please notice that the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" TV series has eliminated the Fastest Finger round recently and we are told to be quick to listen and slow to speak. I'd like to formally reserve my answer to this and other mysteries until after such time as we may see God and know even as we are known. I've heard it whispered that when the mature (perfect) has come, things like knowledge and prophecy are done away.

Let's fetch that one. So often I misquote slightly and it is worthwhile to get the actual Scripture, right?

Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; ... whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away; that is, ... 1 Cor 13 right? These statements seem rather large in scope. Large like the nature of and/or complete plan of God maybe. Many struggle to understand such things but it is also okay to say, "That's talking about something that I don't know just yet," and remain content to be where I find myself to be, even as we all struggle toward those good goals, even while a friends hand, like yours, is extended. Nobody is slapping that hand away. None that I see, anyway.

"Brain Science and Rocket Surgery indeed," he grumbles into his beard, while recollections of other discussions from time past come to mind. Harrumph. Those were conversations long past from a time before joining CF.net. Certainly it is okay for us to study to show ourselves approved unto God. I'll like to be allowed that chance and will afford you every opportunity to so do also.

Cordially,
~Sparrow