The Trinity

[RandyK]

Noted.

J.

You may be a little disturbed that I don't connect to your link or think the way you do, but I'm being honest without an agenda. We know God wasn't saying to Man, who He had yet to create, "Let us make Man in our image." God doesn't use Man to make Man!

So that isn't the issue at all. That is not the "Majestic Plurality" I'm talking about. And Free is clearly right about that, and throws into question whether Man has any role at all in the use of "Let us make Man?"

And although that is true, there is still the question: Is God using the "us" with the knowledge He is communicating through Moses to Israel, knowing that Israel works as one nation using all individuals jointly, and is not to have many gods? All of God's works spring out of a single Deity, and that Deity works, like Man does, in a joint effort, through His Word and through a process that involves the moving of His Spirit over the deep.

God is one God, and He operated in creation within Himself in some kind of joint operation. There is God the Creator, God the Word, and God the Spirit. These all worked together as a single Deity.

This may not be edifying for you. I'm just giving my thoughts to respond to Free's well-spoken words. I'm definitely on board his Trinitarian theology, and just don't want to seem to be moving away from that.

I've had these kinds of discussions about the Trinity for many years now. They started back in the 70s when I unfortunately got myself into a modalistic cult. I didn't stay in there long, but it forced me to think over what I actually believe, whether I agree with the various Church Fathers. It is quite a read if you want to study it. ;)

 

[Johann!@#]

You may be a little disturbed that I don't connect to your link or think the way you do, but I'm being honest without an agenda. We know God wasn't saying to Man, who He had yet to create, "Let us make Man in our image." God doesn't use Man to make Man!

So that isn't the issue at all. That is not the "Majestic Plurality" I'm talking about. And Free is clearly right about that, and throws into question whether Man has any role at all in the use of "Let us make Man?"

And although that is true, there is still the question: Is God using the "us" with the knowledge He is communicating through Moses to Israel, knowing that Israel works as one nation using all individuals jointly, and is not to have many gods? All of God's works spring out of a single Deity, and that Deity works, like Man does, in a joint effort, through His Word and through a process that involves the moving of His Spirit over the deep.

God is one God, and He operated in creation within Himself in some kind of joint operation. There is God the Creator, God the Word, and God the Spirit. These all worked together as a single Deity.

This may not be edifying for you. I'm just giving my thoughts to respond to Free's well-spoken words. I'm definitely on board his Trinitarian theology, and just don't want to seem to be moving away from that.

I've had these kinds of discussions about the Trinity for many years now. They started back in the 70s when I unfortunately got myself into a modalistic cult. I didn't stay in there long, but it forced me to think over what I actually believe, whether I agree with the various Church Fathers. It is quite a read if you want to study it. ;)

I agree with most of your points here; however, there's one aspect I'd like to focus on. When referring to God's Word, are you speaking of the spoken word (דָּבָר - davar in Hebrew, λόγος - logos in Greek) or the preexistent Christ (as in ὁ Λόγος - ho Logos from John 1:1)?

J.

 

[Free]

If you believe it can only be three “Persons” then that is your choice.

If you don’t like three “Beings” are one then that’s ok.

That is according to historic, orthodox Christianity. God is one, that is, one being; we are told that numerous times in the Bible. Three beings can only mean tritheism.

The Trinity was carefully defined to avoid contradiction. We cannot say that the one Being is three Beings, nor that one Person is three Persons. Those are nonsense because they are self-contradictory. It is one Being that exists as three coeternal, coequal Persons.

We should be looking for ways to cultivate unity without compromising the truth of the scriptures.

Which is what I'm doing--getting to the truths of the matter.

 

[JLB]

That is according to historic, orthodox Christianity. God is one, that is, one being; we are told that numerous times in the Bible. Three beings can only mean tritheism.

What’s the difference between beings and persons?

Don’t bother mentioning Orthodox Christianity because that just another way of saying… this is what my denomination believes.

 

[JLB]

Which is what I'm doing--getting to the truths of the matter.

The truth that the scriptures teach is the truth.

When it comes down to it, denominations add their own preferred “words” and meanings to the scriptures.

The is only one truth. The truth of the scriptures without man made words and terms.

Until you come face to face with that reality you will never grow in your understanding.

 

[Johann!@#]

What’s the difference between beings and persons?

To say that God is three beings would imply tritheism--a belief in three separate gods, which contradicts Scripture.

To say that God is one person would imply modalism--the idea that God manifests in three modes rather than existing as three distinct persons.



John 10:30 (NASB):

"I and the Father are one."

The oneness (Greek: ἕν - hen) here speaks of unity of essence, not a singularity of personhood.


Being: Refers to what God is--one divine essence.

Person: Refers to who God is---Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons sharing the same essence.

The Triune Godhead is therefore one in being, three in persons.

So in essence---misunderstanding or conflating these terms can lead to theological errors such as tritheism or modalism.

That's the difference.

J.

 

[Free]

What’s the difference between beings and persons?

Don’t bother mentioning Orthodox Christianity because that just another way of saying… this is what my denomination believes.

No, it isn't. You're not actually reading what I'm writing. I did not say "Orthodox Christianity," I said historic, orthodox Christianity, which means, it is how the Trinity has always been defined. It's what every Christian denomination and every believer believes. You really need to study this issue more if you don't know why the Trinity was defined using the term "person," and how it is used, so as to differentiate it from "being."

The truth that the scriptures teach is the truth.

Obviously. It goes without saying.

When it comes down to it, denominations add their own preferred “words” and meanings to the scriptures.

Denominations and even individual people, like you.

The is only one truth. The truth of the scriptures without man made words and terms.

Until you come face to face with that reality you will never grow in your understanding.

And yet, you still avoid addressing the problems with what you say and instead dodge and attack. Why is that? Your biblical understanding is deficient, or at least the wording you use to express a biblical understanding, and you're unwilling to even attempt addressing it. That strongly suggests you're not even willing to grow in understanding (which suggests something else).

Do you agree that Jesus cannot be the name of God?

Do you agree that if by "Jesus is the Name of the LORD," you mean "Jesus is the name of God," that that is Modalism/Oneness teaching?

Do you agree that "Jesus is the Name of the LORD" is the same as saying "Jesus is the Name of the name of God"? Do you agree that that is nonsense?

Do you agree that "YHWH the LORD God" is the same as saying "YHWH YHWH God," and that is also nonsense?

 

[JLB]

To say that God is three beings would imply tritheism--a belief in three separate gods, which contradicts Scripture.

Ok. I understand that you believe that, however that is what you learned from men not scripture.

Someone might say … by saying these re three divine persons you are implying they are not God, but human.

That is what is called denominational dogma; the tradition of men.

So let’s see if we can find agreement.

Is the Father God? I say yes. What do you say?
Is the Son God? I say yes. What do you say?
Is the Holy Spirit God? I say yes. What do you say?


…These three are one. 1 John 5:7

However it doesn’t say what these three are.

If I said these three are one LORD, would you agree?

If I said these three are one Spirit, would you disagree?

If I said these three are one Family, would you agree?

If I said these three are one God, then you would agree.

But by agreeing would that mean the other things these three are, would be wrong?

 

[Johann!@#]

Ok. I understand that you believe that, however that is what you learned from men not scripture.

Why should I respond to you when you’re approaching me with that overbearing attitude? By your own admission, you don’t consult secondary sources, and what I’ve learned is directly from Scripture.

You’re looking for a simple “yes” or “no,” but that’s not how it works... and Free, take note--he is deflecting.

You’ve backed yourself into a corner and are unwilling to accept correction.

Not my problem.

J.

 

[JLB]

Do you agree that "Jesus is the Name of the LORD" is the same as saying "Jesus is the Name of the name of God"? Do you agree that that is nonsense?

I don’t agree that is nonsense.

I believe that Jesus is God; God who became flesh.

That’s not nonsense. That’s biblical.

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

Now here is my question -

What is the name of God Who became flesh?


I will await your answer.


By the way, you can ask me 10 questions in one post all you like.

I’m only going to answer one of them then I will ask you a question.

You can say all you want that I didn’t answer your other nine questions but please understand I’m answering only one.


I have many posts to answer everyday on this Forum and others so I won’t be answering but one at a time.

 

[JLB]

Why should I respond to you when you’re approaching me with that overbearing attitude?

Brother, I want to discuss scripture not commentary from other men and other denominations. That only leads to division.

Let’s discuss the truth of Jesus words from scripture, through His apostles.

If you want to discuss systematic theology or what this man said, or what this person taught, then I’m sure there are many who would like to discuss those things.

Do you believe the Son is God? If so then we agree?


Ask me a question from scripture and I will answer. Then I will ask you one.


Let’s establish a good rapport of teaching what Jesus and His apostles taught.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9


Have you considered that implications of this scripture?

Does not have God is a serious word.

 

[Free]

I don’t agree that is nonsense.

I believe that Jesus is God; God who became flesh.

That’s not nonsense. That’s biblical.

Once again, that is not what I asked about. Please, for goodness's sake, address what I'm asking; don't change it and then say you disagree. I've already had to address this once with you, I don't want to have to do it again.

By the way, you can ask me 10 questions in one post all you like.

I’m only going to answer one of them then I will ask you a question.

You can say all you want that I didn’t answer your other nine questions but please understand I’m answering only one.


I have many posts to answer everyday on this Forum and others so I won’t be answering but one at a time.

Lol! You didn't even answer one.

 

[JLB]

You’ve backed yourself into a corner and are unwilling to accept correction.

Not my problem.

Please explain what corner I have backed myself into?

Because I believe Jesus is LORD? The LORD God of Israel.

The Creator of all things.


What question would you like me to answer?

 

[JLB]

Once again, that is not what I asked about.

Here is the question I answered.

Do you agree that "Jesus is the Name of the LORD" is the same as saying "Jesus is the Name of the name of God"? Do you agree that that is nonsense?

I answered your question.

Now if you answer my question I will be glad to answer another question.

 

[JLB]

Lol! You didn't even answer one.

Here is the post where I answered your question.

 

[JLB]

Do you agree that Jesus cannot be the name of God?

No not at all.

What is the name of God who 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.
1Timothy 3:16

 

[JLB]

Once again, that is not what I asked about. Please, for goodness's sake, address what I'm asking; don't change it and then say you disagree. I've already had to address this once with you, I don't want to have to do it again.


Lol! You didn't even answer one.

Are going to answer my question?

When you do I will answer yours.

Maybe you should consider asking your question in a different way.

 

[JLB]

The oneness (Greek: ἕν - hen) here speaks of unity of essence, not a singularity of personhood.


Being: Refers to what God is--one divine essence.

Person: Refers to who God is---Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons sharing the same essence.

The Triune Godhead is therefore one in being, three in persons.

So in essence---misunderstanding or conflating these terms can lead to theological errors such as tritheism or modalism.

That's the difference.

This is all just opinion, commentary, not scripture bro.

The next person could have their personal definitions as well.

These are just you trying to define out of your own experience what you believe, and that’s ok. That’s what you believe. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong or right.


But to say that is a person uses the word “Being” instead of the word “Person” makes them into some man made category called tritheism, is ridiculous.

 

[Free]

Here is the question I answered.

Do you agree that "Jesus is the Name of the LORD" is the same as saying "Jesus is the Name of the name of God"? Do you agree that that is nonsense?

I answered your question.

Here is the post where I answered your question.



View attachment 21363

Once again, you gave an answer, but you did not answer my question. You changed the question and answered your own question. I did not ask if you agreed that Jesus was God was nonsense, I very clearly asked if "Jesus is the Name of the name of God" was nonsense. How can you not see that that is a nonsense statement?

No not at all.

What is the name of God who 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.
1Timothy 3:16

Yet again, that is not the question I asked. You changed this question as well and then answered your own question. And you are now, once again, implicitly promoting Modalism/Oneness theology.

I'm done playing your games. I would prefer it you would leave these discussions to those who are serious.

 

[JLB]

Jesus is the Name of the name of God

Yes, Jesus is the name of God who became flesh.


I believe what you mean to ask is Jesus the name of the Trinity.