The Trinity

[Randy]

Randy

The problem you have with Christianity is that you do not consider the being of the Son to be equal to the being of the Father. It is unclear what the person of the Son actually is for you. In the end, you always end up with One Person as God. For you, that Person does not even have to be the Father, but everything that relates to the Son, at some point „becomes”.

Okey-dokey

 

[Randy]

That’s Jesus Christ who spoke that.

If that were true He would told His disciples to wait for the gift He promised.

 

[JLB]

If that were true He would told His disciples to wait for the gift He promised.

That’s your opinion.

Do you understand that the Spirit of Christ was speaking through the mouth of Joel, of Zechariah, of Isaiah ?

 

[Randy]

That’s your opinion.

Do you understand that the Spirit of Christ was speaking through the mouth of Joel, of Zechariah, of Isaiah ?

If that were so then it's His promise. He Himself stated it was the Fathers promise and that is not my opinion. The Spirit He sent He received from the Father and that is not my opinion. Either way, "My Spirit" is not a 3rd distinct person from the Father and Son as others here argue for.

 

[Randy]

Free:
"Apart from that, it was also in my latest post and in what you quoted for the above response: you called the Holy Spirit an Advocate. But, as I stated, advocates are only persons. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is a person, the third divine person."


Free: "What was the whole point of Jesus sending the Spirit, just so that the Spirit would live around us but not in us?"

Are our bodies temples of God? YES or NO?

All Three Persons are God.
God's Tri Unity is so confusing to fallible man who makes up useless expectations. So they try to force God into the silly unitraian box!! Unitarinism limits God because it is wrong and false. Made BY man FOR man.
If you can fully comprehend all aspects of the nature of your version of God, chances are your version is MADE UP.
----
Even people who accept the Trinity dont fully comprehend that Truth.

In what way does that mean that God is not Three Persons, One God?

I can claim that of the Bible verses you cite too. Weak rebuttal.

You reply to free with my words? Am I then suppose to answer your questions asked?

There is no 3rd person bearing witness. Yet the Spirit bears witness.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Those who listen and learn from the Father go to Jesus. The Spirit is bearing witness of Jesus.

A distinction is being made between the Spirit and the mind of the Spirit. The mind of the Father and the mind of the Son. I state to you the Spirit does not have a 3rd distinct mind separate from the Father and Son.

The Father is unbegotten and from Him all things come. It is His Spirit always. Sent from Him in Jesus's name. So in us the same Spirit and the mind of Christ is the person shown. Yet it is always the Fathers Spirit. In that manner both the Father and the Son make their home with us. That's 2.

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Oneness
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I have the Spirit of Christ in me.

I read this I didn't write it. I state this. Your problem is not with me.
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.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Those who listen and learn from the Father go to Jesus. The Spirit is bearing witness of Jesus.

A distinction is being made between the Spirit and the mind of the Spirit. The mind of the Father and the mind of the Son. I state to you the Spirit does not have a 3rd distinct mind separate from the Father and Son.

You are showing again what I first interpreted about your belief. Even the Father is not the primary notion of God for you. You believe in a Monad that you call Spirit, whose mind split into Father and Son. Some believe as you do, but add a third split. In fact, those like you believe in one Person as God, who plays many persons.

 

[JLB]

He Himself stated it was the Fathers promise and that is not my opinion.

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11


Do you understand that the Spirit of Christ was speaking through the mouth of Joel, of Zechariah, of Isaiah ?

Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH the LORD God.

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6


“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Revelation 22:12-13


“And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
Joel 2:28-29

Jesus is the LORD who is coming on the Day of the LORD.

And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved…
Joel 2:32

What is the name of the LORD we call on to be saved?

 

[Randy]

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11


Do you understand that the Spirit of Christ was speaking through the mouth of Joel, of Zechariah, of Isaiah ?

Jesus Christ is LORD; YHWH the LORD God.

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God.
Isaiah 44:6


“And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”
Revelation 22:12-13


“And it shall come to pass afterward
That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your old men shall dream dreams,
Your young men shall see visions.
And also on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
Joel 2:28-29

Jesus is the LORD who is coming on the Day of the LORD.

And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved…
Joel 2:32

What is the name of the LORD we call on to be saved?

It is also written:
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,
I didn't reason who spoke the promise as it was given by Jesus
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

If Jesus spoke the promise "pour out MY Spirit" why is He asking and receiving from the Father?
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—

 

[Randy]

You are showing again what I first interpreted about your belief. Even the Father is not the primary notion of God for you. You believe in a Monad that you call Spirit, whose mind split into Father and Son. Some believe as you do, but add a third split. In fact, those like you believe in one Person as God, who plays many persons.

The Father is my God and from Him ALL things come.
So the Father doesn't have a Spirit He calls His own that searches His deep thoughts and acts on His will? We do;Jesus does, the Father does. The Spirit does NOT.

As shown the Spirit does not speak on His own. He speaks only what He hears.
It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Does Jesus ever refer to the Spirit as His God or Father?
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God

Is He confused as there is only ONE Divine Spirit?
Matt 10:20
for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

This is a theology forum stop your accusations about me and stick to theology. I suggest sound reasoning with scripture please. I am not your enemy and despite what you think about me I defend the gospel message.

I'm not hiding anything and have been open with my beliefs.
ME TO
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.

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

Even if I understand the belief in a split personality, I still don't understand why you don't leave this topic alone where we want to talk about the Trinity.

 

[JLB]

It is also written:
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,
I didn't reason who spoke the promise as it was given by Jesus
On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

If Jesus spoke the promise "pour out MY Spirit" why is He asking and receiving from the Father?
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—

Do you understand the term “rightly dividing the word”?

In one setting He is speaking as YHWH the LORD God.
In another He is speaking at a Man to His disciples.

He became flesh.

God became flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became 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. John 1:1,14

 

[Randy]

Do you understand the term “rightly dividing the word”?

In one setting He is speaking as YHWH the LORD God.
In another He is speaking at a Man to His disciples.

He became flesh.

God became flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became 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. John 1:1,14

I understand the only true God the Father from whom all things come and for whom we live and I understand Jesus, our Lord is His Son through whom all things come and through whom we live.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Jesus stated the Fathers promise. YOU state His words. I follow Him. 1 Timothy has nothing to do with the Fathers promise. Acts 1 testifies about acts 1 not 1 Timothy 3:16 The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body. Not a human spirit formed in Mary's womb. So yes I believe the eternal life with the Father in the beginning appeared in flesh.



Dr Daniel Wallace is a Trinitarian and He was on the Net bible translation team.
1 Timothy 3:16 NET
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:

He was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

If you think you have the training and expertise.
His reasoning for He
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅςsince it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς(as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεόςwritten as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅςor ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος(kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tn Grk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians[NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

 

[Randy]

Randy

Even if I understand the belief in a split personality, I still don't understand why you don't leave this topic alone where we want to talk about the Trinity.

It's the Apologetics forum. And your statement is off topic. Jesus and the Father are not the same person. There is no spilt personality.

God's one Spirit does not speak on His own but only what He hears. Where do you think He hears from? The mind of the Father and the mind of the Son. Matt 10:20 The Spirit of your Father. Jesus-the Father living in Him doing His work. Jesus those who listen and learn from the Father. In us the same Spirit -the Spirit of Christ. I have asked things of Jesus and He has answered via the Spirit. The Spirit conveyed to me what He heard from the mind of Christ. The one Divine Spirit acts on the will of Jesus as if He was the Father Himself. He is all that the Father is.

Your spirit knows your mind its you not another person with another distinct mind.

The Spirit bears the testimony of the Father and Son. NOT on His own. There is no 3rd distinct mind that is the Spirits alone. He is the Spirit OF God. The unbegotten God the Father.

 

[Free]

I have shown much as well which you ignore.

Where? Link to what I have ignored. Do you want to see what you ignored? It's THIS post.

I see a person the person of the Father. Hence in the last days He states I will pour out my Spirit. A complete silence in regard to another person. Why wouldn't that person state they're coming?

Why should he? The Father said he was going to send the Spirit and the Spirit is clearly a person. You don't seem to understand the roles or functions of each person as it relates to salvation. As it is, the Holy Spirit seeks to glorify the Son, and the Son seeks to bring glory to the Father.

The Father was living in Jesus as He stated would that be by His Spirit? The Spirit of God.

Jesus said that the Father was in him. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.

The Father sends the Spirit in Jesus's name. Again the Spirit Jesus sends He received from the Father. If that is a 3rd person wouldn't they come on their own?Why would Jesus need to receive His own Spirit from the Father?

I've already addressed this, so why are you repeating it?

Yes as also written "In the last days I will pour out MY Spirit." So "My Spirit' is a 3rd person? And Jesus did receive that Spirit from the Father not a 3rd person coming to Jesus.

Jesus- another advocte
Father pour out MY Spirit.
The Fathers promise "In the last days I will pour out My spirit does not distinguish that Spirit from the Father but is another in regard to Jesus.

You're fallaciously begging the question by saying that it was the Father who said "I will pour out my Spirit." God said that.

The Fathers own Spirit is the Spirit of God.

That is begging the question. As I have stated, the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, and also known as the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11), the Spirit of his Son (Gal. 4:6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19). Why do you continually avoid addressing these clear passages, especially Rom. 8:9 and 1 Pet. 1:11 which unequivocally equate the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ? You're not being honest in this discussion by avoiding everything to difficult for your position to take into account and simply repeating your beliefs.

I see the Father sending His Spirit in Jesus's name. So in the believer the Spirit conveys the will and presence of Christ. Since it is the Fathers Spirit then He and the Father make their home with us.

The Fathers Spirit is the Spirit of God which He sends into the world. Those who listen and learn from the Father go to Jesus. All those the "Father" the Father gives Him.

Again, you're ignoring the clear references to the Spirit as also being the Spirit of Jesus.

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is just that Spirit.
They shall all be taught by God. Those who listen and learn from the Father. His Spirit is Holy and in the world. His Spirit is truth.

The Divine Spirit of the Father has His nature. It's not the nature of that Spirit we disagree on.

If the Father is a person and the Spirit has the nature of the Father, then the Spirit is either a divine person who is distinct from the Father or is the Father, which makes mention of the Holy Spirit and the consistent distinctness from the Father pointless.

I have given you verses where Jesus Himself equates that Spirit as the Father as well.

No, you haven't, because Jesus never equates the Spirit with the Father, otherwise the Father would be the Holy Spirit. But that is clearly not the case.

You think Jesus is true God from the Father. Why wouldn't He send His own spirit and why would His own spirit be spoken of by Him as another advocate?

Yes, Jesus is true God from the Father, as is the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. This isn't hard.

The Father by name is the one Jesus stated is living in Him. Wouldn't that be the Spirit of God without limit. (fullness). God gives the Spirit without limit again that is not shown as a 3rd person coming on their own.

The very fact that you keep mentioning the Father as distinct from the Holy Spirit is proof that they are not one and the same.

Your position is needlessly confusing, but that is what happens when you continually ignore large amounts of Scripture, including the consistent distinctions made between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[for_his_glory]

1. God is Spirit, John 4:24, not flesh and blood and in the OT either spoke directly to the prophets or by angels and also various objects like a burning bush or an ass for example. Between the OT and NT God was silent towards Israel as when they returned to Israel from the Babylonian captivity they came back as merchants and not shepherds as they were disobedient to God going after other gods, Book of Malachi.

2. Jesus being the very Spirit of God before the foundation of the world as He and the Father are one was prophesied by the Prophets in the OT and spoken of by John the Baptist in the NT as John being the forerunner of Christ calling all to repent. As foretold Christ did come as the word of God made flesh (skin, bone, blood) to be that light that shines in darkness. He came as redeemer Savior through Gods grace as Christ is our faith that all can repent of their sins and have eternal life with the Father to all who will believe in Him as Lord and Savior. John 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:13-21

3. After the sacrifice of Christ God raised Him from the grave and as He had to ascend back up to heaven the promise was that He would never leave us or forsake us as when He ascended He sent down the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) to indwell all who will believe in Christ and His finished works on the cross. In the OT Gods Spirit fell on them for a time and purpose under heaven. Now we are indwelled with that power and authority through Gods grace that the Holy Spirit now works in us and through us teaching all things God wants us to learn. All three are Spiritual and Spiritual awaking's in us to know the will of God and walk in His statures. John 16:7-15

Ephesians 4: 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water (word) and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water (word), and the blood: and these three agree in one.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit as all three coequal Gods Spirit.

Jesus being the right arm of God. Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus is the word of God. John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Jesus is word, light and life that is God come in the flesh. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Gods Holy Spirit has come to indwell us and teach us. John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8


Scriptures that refer the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Otherwise, in the Orthodox understanding, creation cannot achieve a personal relationship with God the Father, except through the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[JLB]

I understand the only true God the Father from whom all things come and for whom we live and I understand Jesus, our Lord is His Son through whom all things come and through whom we live.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Jesus stated the Fathers promise. YOU state His words. I follow Him. 1 Timothy has nothing to do with the Fathers promise. Acts 1 testifies about acts 1 not 1 Timothy 3:16 The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body. Not a human spirit formed in Mary's womb. So yes I believe the eternal life with the Father in the beginning appeared in flesh.



Dr Daniel Wallace is a Trinitarian and He was on the Net bible translation team.
1 Timothy 3:16 NET
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:

He was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

If you think you have the training and expertise.
His reasoning for He
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅςsince it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς(as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεόςwritten as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅςor ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος(kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tn Grk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians[NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre.

You posted some commentary that is supposed to somehow explain away scripture?


God became flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became 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. John 1:1,14

 

[Randy]

Where? Link to what I have ignored. Do you want to see what you ignored? It's THIS post.


Why should he? The Father said he was going to send the Spirit and the Spirit is clearly a person. You don't seem to understand the roles or functions of each person as it relates to salvation. As it is, the Holy Spirit seeks to glorify the Son, and the Son seeks to bring glory to the Father.


Jesus said that the Father was in him. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.


I've already addressed this, so why are you repeating it?


You're fallaciously begging the question by saying that it was the Father who said "I will pour out my Spirit." God said that.


That is begging the question. As I have stated, the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, and also known as the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11), the Spirit of his Son (Gal. 4:6), the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19). Why do you continually avoid addressing these clear passages, especially Rom. 8:9 and 1 Pet. 1:11 which unequivocally equate the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ? You're not being honest in this discussion by avoiding everything to difficult for your position to take into account and simply repeating your beliefs.


Again, you're ignoring the clear references to the Spirit as also being the Spirit of Jesus.


If the Father is a person and the Spirit has the nature of the Father, then the Spirit is either a divine person who is distinct from the Father or is the Father, which makes mention of the Holy Spirit and the consistent distinctness from the Father pointless.


No, you haven't, because Jesus never equates the Spirit with the Father, otherwise the Father would be the Holy Spirit. But that is clearly not the case.


Yes, Jesus is true God from the Father, as is the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son. This isn't hard.


The very fact that you keep mentioning the Father as distinct from the Holy Spirit is proof that they are not one and the same.

Your position is needlessly confusing, but that is what happens when you continually ignore large amounts of Scripture, including the consistent distinctions made between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We will agree to disagree

 

[Randy]

You posted some commentary that is supposed to somehow explain away scripture?


God became flesh.


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became 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. John 1:1,14

I posted the Net translation "He" was manifested in the flesh. The commentary was the reasoning for He.

We will agree to disagree

While I believe all the fullness of God dwells in the Son its the Fathers Deity.

 

[Randy]

Otherwise, in the Orthodox understanding, creation cannot achieve a personal relationship with God the Father, except through the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

No one comes to the Father except by the Son.
No one comes to the Son unless the Father enables them.