The Trinity

[Randy]

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8


“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

Again how do you know its not the Spirit of your Fathers speaking?
Rev 22
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

 

[JLB]

Again how do you know its not the Spirit of your Fathers speaking?
Rev 22
The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

These are the words of Jesus Christ.

If you choose to deny Him as LORD then that is on you.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8


“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


Who is coming on the Day of the LORD?
Jesus Christ.


Who is coming on the Day of the LORD with His saints?
Jesus Christ.

Thus the LORD my God will come, and all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:5

 

[Free]

I have repeatedly answered your questions. You don't like my answers.

But, that is the problem, you've provided answers that don't actually address the points I am making. There is a difference between merely responding and providing something of substance which actually attempts to show where someone's points are in error.

There is no need to continuously disagree with each other.

Why not? Doesn't truth matter to you, especially the truth of who the Son is and who God is? If Jesus is correct, that "this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," then it seems to me that knowing who God actually is and who Jesus actually is, is rather central to salvation.

All the fullness of the only true God dwells in Christ. He is the image of the invisible God, but He is not the invisible God. Thats God, our Father and Jesus our Lord.

The fullness of God dwells in Christ, but that doesn't preclude him from also being true God.

God is Love.

Not your God; he cannot be, be definition. Love requires an object. The greatest love, which we would expect from a God who is love, must necessarily love someone and receive love in return. Love cannot be intrinsic to his nature if there is no object of that love.

Of course, in his epistle, John is just being consistent with what he states in John 1:1-2:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. John’s readers would have expected “God” next, but instead see “was the Word.” It is significant that God created by speaking and here John says that the Word was in the beginning “with God” yet also, in some way, “was God.” He then states in verse 3 that the Word was involved in the creation of all that came into being. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable— they would be one and the same—which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

Notice how consistent that is with his statement that "God is love." He tells us in his gospel that the Word existed prior to creation, meaning that the Word cannot have been a created thing, the Word cannot have come into existence. He then says that the Word was in intimate relationship with God (hence why God actually is love). The third clause of verse 1 follows from the first two: the Word is (true) God in nature because he has existed for all eternity past and has always been in an intimate, loving relationship with (at least) the Father.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, close communion with the Father.

As a side note, this is all consistent with John 1:3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17, and the logical problem(s) for anti-Trinitarians. The Son cannot have come into being or those three passages are all wrong and it would contradict John 1:1-2, among others. These are things your position simply cannot account for.

God was pleased to create man then later regrated doing so because of man's wickedness. And God our Father so loved the world HE sent His Son. HE reconciled alls things to HIMSELF through Christs blood on the cross. HE gave Jesus a name above all names. HE declared Jesus Heir of all things. HE made the creation by His Son. HE spoke to us in these lasts days by His Son. HE is source of the truth Jesus gave. Its HIS message.

Those things are all true, but as I stated, in order for your God to love, he would have had to create those things in order to have objects to love. That means he couldn't actually be love, as John states. His love only comes about after creation. Therefore, he is deficient and cannot be God.

When you can accept the Lords words then we can discuss further. Further replies with your opinions are not desired.

These sorts of statements are pointless, since anyone could say the same about you.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent

As I've pointed out several times, the Son cannot be God without also being true God, because there never was, is, nor will be another god (or God). That's polytheism and is unequivocally rejected by the Bible.

 

[Free]

Here is something interesting that fairly recently came out: the first known Christian hymn, with musical notation, from some time in the second century.

https://www.thefirsthymnmovie.com/

What I find very interesting are the lyrics:

Let all be silent:
The shining stars not sound forth,
All rushing rivers stilled,
As we sing our hymn
To the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
As all Powers cry out in answer,
"Amen. Amen."
Might, praise, and glory forever
to God, the only Giver
of all good gifts.
Amen. Amen.

Note the Trinitarian language--worshipping the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This supports early church writings from the second century. Outside of Scripture, from very early on, we see the Son thought of as deity, yet he is not the Father, and there is only one God.

 

[follower]

The Revelation of Jesus Being God does not imply Jesus was or is a part of man's religions or man's beliefs.

 

[Free]

The Revelation of Jesus Being God does not imply Jesus was or is a part of man's religions or man's beliefs.

What are you saying here? It isn't clear, imo.

 

[Randy]

But, that is the problem, you've provided answers that don't actually address the points I am making. There is a difference between merely responding and providing something of substance which actually attempts to show where someone's points are in error.


Why not? Doesn't truth matter to you, especially the truth of who the Son is and who God is? If Jesus is correct, that "this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," then it seems to me that knowing who God actually is and who Jesus actually is, is rather central to salvation.


The fullness of God dwells in Christ, but that doesn't preclude him from also being true God.


Not your God; he cannot be, be definition. Love requires an object. The greatest love, which we would expect from a God who is love, must necessarily love someone and receive love in return. Love cannot be intrinsic to his nature if there is no object of that love.

Of course, in his epistle, John is just being consistent with what he states in John 1:1-2:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. John’s readers would have expected “God” next, but instead see “was the Word.” It is significant that God created by speaking and here John says that the Word was in the beginning “with God” yet also, in some way, “was God.” He then states in verse 3 that the Word was involved in the creation of all that came into being. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable— they would be one and the same—which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."

Notice how consistent that is with his statement that "God is love." He tells us in his gospel that the Word existed prior to creation, meaning that the Word cannot have been a created thing, the Word cannot have come into existence. He then says that the Word was in intimate relationship with God (hence why God actually is love). The third clause of verse 1 follows from the first two: the Word is (true) God in nature because he has existed for all eternity past and has always been in an intimate, loving relationship with (at least) the Father.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, close communion with the Father.

As a side note, this is all consistent with John 1:3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17, and the logical problem(s) for anti-Trinitarians. The Son cannot have come into being or those three passages are all wrong and it would contradict John 1:1-2, among others. These are things your position simply cannot account for.


Those things are all true, but as I stated, in order for your God to love, he would have had to create those things in order to have objects to love. That means he couldn't actually be love, as John states. His love only comes about after creation. Therefore, he is deficient and cannot be God.


These sorts of statements are pointless, since anyone could say the same about you.


As I've pointed out several times, the Son cannot be God without also being true God, because there never was, is, nor will be another god (or God). That's polytheism and is unequivocally rejected by the Bible.

As I stated the Son isn't God. (His spirit)

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
The eternal life found in the Son is God, our Father.
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

The Father is the ONLY TRUE God.

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

It is the Fathers Deity.
Col 1:19 -Gifted from the will of another
Col 2:9

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

 

[Randy]

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Revelation 1:8


“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

The Deity in Him is the First and the Last.
How do you not its not the Spirit of God our Father speaking?

If you consider all that is written you should know the Father is His God. The only true God. As in God, our Father.

He and the Father are ONE.
But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

My God doesn't have a God nor a Father and has not received from any other being and does whatever He is pleased to do.

My Lord has a God and Father and has received from the Father and abides within the frame work of His God's will.

 

[JLB]

The Deity in Him is the First and the Last.
How do you not its not the Spirit of God our Father speaking?

If you consider all that is written you should know the Father is His God. The only true God. As in God, our Father.

He and the Father are ONE.
But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

My God doesn't have a God nor a Father and has not received from any other being and does whatever He is pleased to do.

My Lord has a God and Father and has received from the Father and abides within the frame work of His God's will.

You blatantly misrepresent the scriptures.

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

I am coming quickly - Who is coming? Jesus Christ

The book of Revelation is the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.


Who is coming on the Day of the LORD?
Jesus Christ.

Who is coming on the Day of the LORD with His saints?
Jesus Christ.

Thus the LORD my God will come, and all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:5

 

[Free]

As I stated the Son isn't God. (His spirit)

But he is. That is the only logical conclusion when taking the sum of the biblical revelation into account.

Is Jesus God?
He never dies.

Will Christians ever die? No. Are we God? No.

Yes, He is all that the Father is.

No, he isn't; he cannot be, since, according to you, he isn't eternal nor is he "the only true God." It's amazing that you can't see the problem with that. There is also much about the very nature of God that comes from his being eternally self-existent, that you are then excluding from the Son. So there is simply no way whatsoever that you can say that Jesus "is all that the Father is." That contradicts everything.

No, He has always been the Son.
The eternal life found in the Son is God, our Father.
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Where, exactly, does the NT say that "the eternal life found in the Son is God, our Father"? Jesus says that he is "the bread of life" (John 6:33, 35, 41, 48, 51), not the Father, that it is by feeding on him that one has eternal life (John 6:53-58).

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (ESV)

Just as "the Father has life in himself," he "has granted the [incarnate] Son to have life in himself." Again, it is very important to make the distinction between the Son of God as he existed prior to the incarnation and as he existed as Jesus, the God-man. That lack of distinction continually muddles up your theology.

I've mentioned it before, but every time you quote from the Bible, you need to provide book, chapter, verse, and Bible version.

The Father is the ONLY TRUE God.


Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

"And," you keep forgetting the "and." And, again, that does not preclude the Son from also being the only true God.

It is the Fathers Deity.
Col 1:19 -Gifted from the will of another
Col 2:9

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Again, you are failing to make the distinction between the preincarnate Son of God and the incarnate Son of God in the person of Jesus. In whom was "the fullness of God . . . pleased to dwell"? The incarnate Son of God, the person of Jesus. Col. 1:16-17 also prove your use of Col. 1:19 to be out of context, by showing that Son has necessarily always existed.

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)

IF "all things were created" by the Son and IF "he is before all things," then it logically follows that he cannot have come into existence; he necessarily must be just as eternal as the Father is. The Son has always existed because the Father has always existed. Sons are always of the same nature as their fathers.

 

[Free]

Randy, perhaps you would like to address the following, since it seems our other poster doesn't want to:

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 emptied himself, by 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.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself. (cf. 2 Cor 8:9)
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?
6. He "humbled himself by becoming obedient." This is exactly why he prays to the Father, does the Father's will, and only speaks what he hears. He subjected himself to the law of God and obeyed it perfectly, fulfilling it and becoming the sacrificial "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29, ESV).
7. He is given “the name that is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is language used of God:

Isa 45:22 “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
Isa 45:23 By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ (ESV)

This is why Christians rightly worship Christ as God. The only logical conclusion is that he did pre-exist, in the form of God, in the nature of God. This is completely consistent with what John says, which is based directly on what Jesus said.

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.


Feel free to show where any of that is wrong.

 

[Randy]

Some here are not defending the gospel message nor Christ. They are defending Man's doctrine of the trinity.
I have not added nor taken away from the NT. I have not quoted Arius or any unitarian.
One God our Father and One Lord Jesus Christ.

Perhaps they can explain how Jesus is from another as a begotten Son of a Father if He has no beginning or starting point?
True God from True God

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

They state to you Jesus had the spirit of a man. (human)

Perhaps they can explain to you how all of Him can be God if body and soul are human. If He had a human body and a human soul what part of Him was God?

What part of Jesus descended from above and was in that human body if NOT His own spirit?

Its clear to me the spirit of the Firstborn of all creation, not Deity, descended from above and was in that human body.
"Father into your hands I commit MY spirit"

The Deity of the First and Last that dwells/lives in the Son is God our Father. They are ONE.

GOD has spoken to us in these last days BY HIS SON. - The Deity living in Jesus delivering HIS MESSAGE OF TRUTH.

The same GOD who created by/through and for His Son. God our Father.

The Spirit sent in Jesus's name He received from the Father. Its the Fathers Spirit always. Hence I have the Spirit of Christ in me and my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

But he is. That is the only logical conclusion when taking the sum of the biblical revelation into account.


Will Christians ever die? No. Are we God? No.

Its the "why" you overlook. We live/through Jesus.
Jesus lives by the Father.
The eternal life in the Son is His Fathers deity.
John 6:57
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

My belief
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Your belief
Now this is eternal life: they know us the only true God.

My belief
One God, our Father; One Lord Jesus Christ

Your belief
One God, Father, Son, Spirit

No, he isn't; he cannot be, since, according to you, he isn't eternal nor is he "the only true God." It's amazing that you can't see the problem with that. There is also much about the very nature of God that comes from his being eternally self-existent, that you are then excluding from the Son. So there is simply no way whatsoever that you can say that Jesus "is all that the Father is." That contradicts everything.

He is and can be all that the Father is as the Spirit/deity without limit was gifted to Him. Col 1:19
I hold that it is and remains the Deity of the only true God. They are one. He is the image of the invisible God but He is not the invisible God.

We disagree on the how this is so but it is my belief.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,

Where, exactly, does the NT say that "the eternal life found in the Son is God, our Father"? Jesus says that he is "the bread of life" (John 6:33, 35, 41, 48, 51), not the Father, that it is by feeding on him that one has eternal life (John 6:53-58).

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (ESV)

Just as "the Father has life in himself," he "has granted the [incarnate] Son to have life in himself." Again, it is very important to make the distinction between the Son of God as he existed prior to the incarnation and as he existed as Jesus, the God-man. That lack of distinction continually muddles up your theology.

I've mentioned it before, but every time you quote from the Bible, you need to provide book, chapter, verse, and Bible version.


"And," you keep forgetting the "and." And, again, that does not preclude the Son from also being the only true God.

And doesn't mean He is the invisible God.

Again, you are failing to make the distinction between the preincarnate Son of God and the incarnate Son of God in the person of Jesus. In whom was "the fullness of God . . . pleased to dwell"? The incarnate Son of God, the person of Jesus. Col. 1:16-17 also prove your use of Col. 1:19 to be out of context, by showing that Son has necessarily always existed.

Col 1:19 (was pleased)-From the will of another -A creation of God by that other. Thats not coeternal

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.

Through Him and For Him speaks of another.

My belief is that God my Father created by His Son. Just as He spoke to us in these last days by His Son. That is the Deity of the Father living in His Son doing His works. The Fathers works Jesus performs testify to this truth "He and the Father are ONE" How then can the Son not be all that the Father is,

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

by the Deity found in Him. God our Father. Apart from the Father He could do nothing.

IF "all things were created" by the Son and IF "he is before all things," then it logically follows that he cannot have come into existence; he necessarily must be just as eternal as the Father is. The Son has always existed because the Father has always existed. Sons are always of the same nature as their fathers.

Yes I understand you believe He is born of the Father, begotten, but has no beginning.
I don't share your belief in that. He is God's Firstborn, (His spirit), and has always been the Son.

The Son who was, His spirit, descended from above and was that human body prepared for Him. And we read the Father was living in Him and they are one in that manner.

If Jesus had the spirit of a man what part of Him descended from above and was in that body if not His own spirit?

 

[Randy]

You blatantly misrepresent the scriptures.

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

I am coming quickly - Who is coming? Jesus Christ

The book of Revelation is the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.


Who is coming on the Day of the LORD?
Jesus Christ.

Who is coming on the Day of the LORD with His saints?
Jesus Christ.

Thus the LORD my God will come, and all the saints with You.
Zechariah 14:5

I consider all that is written of Him. God has spoken to us BY His Son which includes REV. The Deity of the Father in Him is the First and last. They are ONE.

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

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.

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

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

 

[JLB]

I consider all that is written of Him. God has spoken to us BY His Son which includes REV. The Deity of the Father in Him is the First and last. They are ONE.

To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

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.

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

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

You are talking in circles.

We all who have the Spirit are sons of God, but we are not the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, which is a reference to God.

• I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

“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


Do you believe Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last?


Yes or No?

 

[deepfaithpraise]

But, that is the problem, you've provided answers that don't actually address the points I am making. There is a difference between merely responding and providing something of substance which actually attempts to show where someone's points are in error.
Why not? Doesn't truth matter to you, especially the truth of who the Son is and who God is? If Jesus is correct, that "this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent," then it seems to me that knowing who God actually is and who Jesus actually is, is rather central to salvation.
The fullness of God dwells in Christ, but that doesn't preclude him from also being true God.
Not your God; he cannot be, be definition. Love requires an object. The greatest love, which we would expect from a God who is love, must necessarily love someone and receive love in return. Love cannot be intrinsic to his nature if there is no object of that love.
Of course, in his epistle, John is just being consistent with what he states in John 1:1-2:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)
Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. John's readers would have expected "God" next, but instead see "was the Word." It is significant that God created by speaking and here John says that the Word was in the beginning "with God" yet also, in some way, "was God." He then states in verse 3 that the Word was involved in the creation of all that came into being. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.
In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses "direction towards," as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.
When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable— they would be one and the same—which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the logos, who the logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."
Notice how consistent that is with his statement that "God is love." He tells us in his gospel that the Word existed prior to creation, meaning that the Word cannot have been a created thing, the Word cannot have come into existence. He then says that the Word was in intimate relationship with God (hence why God actually is love). The third clause of verse 1 follows from the first two: the Word is (true) God in nature because he has existed for all eternity past and has always been in an intimate, loving relationship with (at least) the Father.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)
We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active, close communion with the Father.
As a side note, this is all consistent with John 1:3, 10, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17, and the logical problem(s) for anti-Trinitarians. The Son cannot have come into being or those three passages are all wrong and it would contradict John 1:1-2, among others. These are things your position simply cannot account for.
Those things are all true, but as I stated, in order for your God to love, he would have had to create those things in order to have objects to love. That means he couldn't actually be love, as John states. His love only comes about after creation. Therefore, he is deficient and cannot be God.
These sorts of statements are pointless, since anyone could say the same about you.
As I've pointed out several times, the Son cannot be God without also being true God, because there never was, is, nor will be another god (or God). That's polytheism and is unequivocally rejected by the Bible.

I've been following this conversation about the Trinity with real interest. I find these discussions fascinating!

What "Free" is explaining here touches on something really deep - the idea that God's very nature is love, and what that means for understanding the Trinity. I think this is one of those places where our human minds struggle with something that's bigger than we can fully grasp.
The explanation of John 1:1-2 here is really helpful! I like how it breaks down the Greek words to show that John was carefully choosing his language. He wasn't being sloppy or contradicting himself when he described the Word (Jesus) as both "with God" and "was God." He was trying to express something profound about God's nature.

I think many of us struggle with the Trinity because we're trying to fit God into categories our human minds can fully understand. It's like trying to explain three dimensions to someone who can only see in two dimensions. Our brains naturally want things to be simpler!

The point about love requiring an object is especially interesting to me. If God truly IS love (not just that He loves, but that love is His very essence), then this suggests relationship within God's being even before creation. For love to be eternal, God couldn't have been all alone before creating us - otherwise love would just be something God does, not something God is.

Throughout church history, this understanding of God's nature as inherently relational has helped Christians make sense of the Trinity. It's not three Gods (polytheism) or one God wearing different masks (modalism), but one God whose very nature involves eternal relationship.
I think what makes these conversations hard sometimes is that we try to use logic alone, when we're discussing something beyond our full comprehension. It's like using a ruler to measure the ocean - the tool itself is good, but not sufficient for the job.
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful explanation! Even when Christians disagree on the details, these kinds of respectful conversations help us all think more deeply about our faith.

 

[Free]

I've been following this conversation about the Trinity with real interest. I find these discussions fascinating!

What "Free" is explaining here touches on something really deep - the idea that God's very nature is love, and what that means for understanding the Trinity. I think this is one of those places where our human minds struggle with something that's bigger than we can fully grasp.
The explanation of John 1:1-2 here is really helpful! I like how it breaks down the Greek words to show that John was carefully choosing his language. He wasn't being sloppy or contradicting himself when he described the Word (Jesus) as both "with God" and "was God." He was trying to express something profound about God's nature.

I think many of us struggle with the Trinity because we're trying to fit God into categories our human minds can fully understand. It's like trying to explain three dimensions to someone who can only see in two dimensions. Our brains naturally want things to be simpler!

The point about love requiring an object is especially interesting to me. If God truly IS love (not just that He loves, but that love is His very essence), then this suggests relationship within God's being even before creation. For love to be eternal, God couldn't have been all alone before creating us - otherwise love would just be something God does, not something God is.

Throughout church history, this understanding of God's nature as inherently relational has helped Christians make sense of the Trinity. It's not three Gods (polytheism) or one God wearing different masks (modalism), but one God whose very nature involves eternal relationship.
I think what makes these conversations hard sometimes is that we try to use logic alone, when we're discussing something beyond our full comprehension. It's like using a ruler to measure the ocean - the tool itself is good, but not sufficient for the job.
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful explanation! Even when Christians disagree on the details, these kinds of respectful conversations help us all think more deeply about our faith.

Beautiful post! Thanks for that.

Yes, if God wasn't truly expressing love for all "eternity past" (actually a misnomer, since time is a created thing) if his love wasn't actualized, then it only had potential, meaning it could not have been intrinsic to his nature, and he needed to create in order for his love to be actualized. But, John's grammar in John 1:1-2 fully supports his claim that "God is love" in his first epistle.

This is a central problem for every non-Trinitarian belief.

 

[Randy]

You are talking in circles.

We all who have the Spirit are sons of God, but we are not the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, which is a reference to God.

• I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

“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


Do you believe Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last?


Yes or No?

You are talking in circles.

We all who have the Spirit are sons of God, but we are not the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, which is a reference to God.

• I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

“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


Do you believe Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last?


Yes or No?

Only in the context that Jesus and His Father are one in Deity. The Deity is the one true God, the First and Last.
The Deity dwells IN Christ. The Father is Deity.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Jesus is the very image of the invisible God.

 

[Free]

Only in the context that Jesus and His Father are one in Deity. The Deity is the one true God, the First and Last.
The Deity dwells IN Christ. The Father is Deity.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Jesus is the very image of the invisible God.

You believe the Father literally begat the Son prior to creating everything else. Who was the Son, what was his nature, prior to coming in the flesh?

 

[Randy]

You believe the Father literally begat the Son prior to creating everything else. Who was the Son, what was his nature, prior to coming in the flesh?

His spirit was born/begotten from the Father certainly not the spirit of a man nor Deity. The Deity in Him was gifted not formed at that time.
The Son has the Fathers nature in Him always.

I asked you what part of the Son who was descended from above into the human body prepared for Him if NOT His own Spirit.

If the spirit of the Son who was wasn't in the body prepared for Him then NO part of Him descended from above.
Likewise if the Spirit of the Son who was was in the body prepared for Him then all of Him descended into that human body.
"Father into your hands I commit "MY" spirit"




You believe this
This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

I believe this.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Its "GOD" singular being /person our Father.

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

Hence
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

Without a beginning how did He become the Son of a Father with a God? How can a true God be from any other?

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,

The Father from whom all things come in the NT and the source true God in the creed is Deity. That Deity was pleased to dwell in the Son is and remains the Fathers.

 

[Free]

His spirit was born/begotten from the Father certainly not the spirit of a man nor Deity. The Deity in Him was gifted not formed at that time.
The Son has the Fathers nature in Him always.

So, he was just simply a spirit?

I asked you what part of the Son who was descended from above into the human body prepared for Him if NOT His own Spirit.

If the spirit of the Son who was wasn't in the body prepared for Him then NO part of Him descended from above.
Likewise if the Spirit of the Son who was was in the body prepared for Him then all of Him descended into that human body.
"Father into your hands I commit "MY" spirit"

Your question makes no sense. It is simply the Son who was incarnate in Mary's womb. Did the Son have different parts prior to the incarnation?

You believe this
This is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

That would essentially be correct.

I believe this.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Its "GOD" singular being /person our Father.

This is saying nothing different, when the full context of the biblical revelation is taken into account.

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

Hence
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

I've put the two logical problems with this to you many times and you have yet to provide a response. (Don't worry, no anti-Trinitarian has bothered with an actual response that deals with the contradictions, so you're not the only one.)

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)

First, if you want the verse to say that "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then it necessarily follows that "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Yet that would contradict what Paul writes in many passages, such as 1 Tim. 6:15. It would also contradict numerous other passages in the NT, such as Luke 10:21.

Second, if "of whom are all things" speaks of the Father's absolute existence and his nature as God, then it necessarily follows that "by whom are all things" speaks of the Son's absolute existence and nature as God. We cannot say that in relation to the Father "all things" means absolutely everything that has come into existence but that it means something different in relation to the Son. And John 1:1-3, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 10-12 confirm that absolutely everything that has come into existence came into existence by or through the Son. The only logical conclusion is that the Son can never have come into existence, meaning he must have necessarily always existed.

So, simple, sound logic leads to the only conclusion that Jesus, or rather the Son, is also God in nature, being of the same substance as the Father. Yet, he clearly is distinct from the Father and is not a separate God, as both are mentioned as being involved in creation, albeit in different roles.

It is also worth noting that this is likely Paul's expansion of the Shema.

1Co 8:4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.”
1Co 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
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)

First, we should note that Paul dismisses the idea of any other actual god or lord, supporting the monotheism he had just stated in verse 4. This does away with your argument that Jesus is God but not the true God.

Second, notice that at the end of verse 4, Paul says "there is no God but one." That is, at least in part, from Deut 6:4:

Deu 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (ESV)

Third, now look at what Paul writes in verse 6: "there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." Note that verse 6 is a continuing argument from verse 4. Putting the argument together then, without the aside in verse 5, we see: "we know . . . that there is no God but one yet for us there is one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ." This strongly suggests that Paul was expanding on the Shema, as some theologians, such as N.T. Wright, claim. Was that not the whole point of the Shema, to tell the Israelites that Yahweh was the only true God among the many gods of the pagan nations around them?

Without a beginning how did He become the Son of a Father with a God?

I have no idea what you're asking here.

How can a true God be from any other?

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,

The Father from whom all things come in the NT

Why do you continue to ignore what John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16-17 state? They also say that all things came through the Son, correct? You're doing what the JWs' Watchtower has done with the NWT in Col. 1:16-17 by inserting "other," so that the Son created "all other things." They at least recognized the issue with the text as far as their (unbiblical) beliefs were concerned, although, for unknown reasons, they did it inconsistently by not also falsely inserting "other" into John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6.

and the source true God in the creed is Deity. That Deity was pleased to dwell in the Son is and remains the Fathers.

Are you saying the Father dwelt in the Son prior to the incarnation?