The Trinity

[Randy]

Sorry, I got interrupted while I was responding earlier, and just sent my response without editting. Anyway, you seem to be saying here that Jesus was two people, which you call "two natures." The human side was not from the beginning, was not God. The Divine side was an independent spirit of some kind that was from the beginning and was God.

So you have, essentially, two Jesuses, one human and one Divine. And dividing up a single human person into two people is "off." It doesn't make sense. It is just a conjuration or rationalization meant to meet the biblical test of what was said while maintaining your own independent sense of what it means.

It is true that Jesus had two natures, one Divine and one human. But it was all resident in a single person, indicating that the human spirit of Jesus was both human and Divine. Both natures were emanated, or generated, from eternity. Both were Divine. The Divine Spirit came to be in the form of a Divine Man, a Divine Word expressing God in that form.

How can a strictly human person emanate from eternity, you ask? Well, this is the essence of what Divine revelation, or the Word, can do. It originates with God in eternity and is generated in time, still consistent with the Divine Person from which it comes, or emanates.

The words we hear the Father say here and now about His Son is the Word, or revelation, that is being generated from eternity, and remains completely consistent with God's eternal Word and God's eternal Being. It is just His transcendent Being being expressed in time.

All this can become gibberish if you don't care to understand this simple reality, that God spoke out of eternity and into time without stopping from being who He was and the fact He was really saying it. If you can understand that, you won't have any trouble with seeing Jesus' human spirit as being *from* eternity, if only being generated within time.

I don't agree. I have asked but you continue to ignore. If Jesus had human spirit and a human body what part of Him was God?

What part of Jesus descended from above to the earth in that body if not His own spirit?

Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, the beginning of the creation of God. His spirit. God is His God and Father as He states in heaven and earth. His spirit while not human is not deity. It's clear to me the Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him and we read, the Father who is deity, was living in Him doing His work.

I didn't read human. A persons spirit never changes. Where was the spirit of the logos? Did it cease to exist? Please explain since you think you know the truth of the matter.

"Father into your hands I commit my spirit"

I read to us there is but one God, identified as the Father. I read Jesus words to the Father, the only true God. That is my belief. Jesus's spirit, not deity, didn't give birth to my spirit and He is not my God nor my Heavenly Father. He is Christ the Lord. Gods Christ and my Lord. In regard to the Son I read all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Him. He is the image of the invisible God and the imprint of Gods very being. That unity with the Father's deity is the oneness He spoke of. The Father living in Him. He is all that the Father is and in that context only is He called God.

I read GOD created all things through the Son. All things are from the Father

 

[Randy]

This is strange to me. You say that Jesus' human spirit is not God. And yet you say his spirit is from eternity? If his spirit is from eternity, that spirit must be Divine. If you say his *human* spirit is from eternity, then you contradict the Scriptures that indicate God created humans in time, and not from all eternity.

So the Son as a Divine Person certain preexixted the world. John said he was "with God" from eternity, and "was God" from eternity. So there is an eternal relationship between God and His Word, the latter of which became known as the Son.

I never stated Jesus had a human spirit. I stated the Son who was, His spirit, was in that human body. He did in fact descend and ascend to where He was before. I do state His spirit is not deity as He is Gods firstborn and has always been the Son and that the deity that was pleased to dwell in Him from the will of another is and remains the Father.s. Col 1:19

Since you think you know the truth please explain how Jesus is from the Father as a Son but has no beginning.

While the Father is unbegotten He doesn't suggest to me a God such as Himself as having no beginning.

"No God was formed before me"

So in regard to the Father I state, "If the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being"

However Jesus is the Fathers first begotten. Jesus's spirit was formed by the Father as the first of the Fathers works and can not be deity. The Deity that dwells in the Son is the Fathers.
Clearly a creation of God. Col 1:19 at a point in history before the world began. That's not coeternal.

 

[Randy]

I guess we are not seeing eye to eye, just talking past each other. You are distinguishing between the Persons of the Trinity, and in so doing stating that Jesus' human spirit is not a Divine Spirit.

You are failing to distinguish between God being a transcendent spirit and the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer. The Holy Spirit enters into time and space on our behalf, to aid in our redemption, whereas stating that the Father is spirit is simply stating what substance He consists of, with no concern about the role His transcendent Spirit can play within our time and space.

To say that Jesus' human spirit is limited and cannot be associated with God's transcendent Spirit is an error and a heresy. But I believe you do not mean to act in opposition to Christ, and that matters. You just can't recognize that there is any association between a transcendent Spirit and a finite human spirit.

But as I understand it, this is precisely what the Bible is advocating for, that the transcendent, infinite God can express His Person as a limited, finite human person in Jesus. That is, his human spirit, human body, and human experience are all intended to be expressive of Deity, communicated in such a way that limited creatures like us can relate to it, understand it, and benefit from it.

God's Word is so powerful, so infinite, that what God expresses in human language is equal to its origin in an omnipotent, heavenly God. When we hear God say, "This is my beloved Son," it comes to be, for us, equal to God's voice from heaven.

When we see Jesus we see God in human form. We certainly do not see all of God. We do not see just a "piece" of God. But what we see is all God in a kind of "compressed" finite form.

I don't think you have bad motives here. But if your language if too flawed, people with bad motives will pick it up and run with it. It may indicate Jesus is God to you, but to them, saying Jesus' "human spirit" is not God will become an excuse for them to see Jesus as an "example," and not as a "Divine Savior."

Otherwise, the human spirit of Jesus is not God, and you are contradicting yourself to say he is God if you deny that his human spirit is God, as well. In effect, you're either confused or rebellious.

I believe in one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, only. From the Father and through His Son in all things as I read.

God the Father, the only living true God, who is in heaven sent both HIS Spirit and HIS Son into the world. The Holy Spirit of the Sovereign Lord testifies to the truth.

They shall all be taught by God.
Those who listen and learn from the FATHER go to Jesus.
Jesus -ALL that the Father gives me will come to me.

 

[LeviR]

So, you continue to dodge. To be expected, but not a good look, especially when it seems you don't understand the verse and can't account for what it plainly states.


This suggests that you likely haven't studied the issue and seem to not understand the translation process and issues that arise. Some translations omit it because it is not in every manuscript; it's all about the manuscript evidence. So, yes, there is a valid reason to omit it.


Based on what, exactly?


No, not really.


I agree.


Yes, he would have been saying that. And what would that suggest? The verse can only be understood as showing the full deity of Christ, even more so with the omitted phrase. You would have done well to just ignore it and especially not to argue that that is how it should be.


So, when Jesus (supposedly) says, "even the Son of man which is in heaven," in the present tense, you want to make it say something about the future?

Do you see what you did here? You are again ignoring a plain meaning of the text. On the one hand, you charge that some Trinitarian translations omit the phrase because it might be "something which is hard to understand." On the other hand, you take what is plainly stated and twist it into something else that makes no sense of the context. It is indeed hard to understand for those who deny the plain meaning of it and many other verses which clearly show that Jesus is truly God in human flesh, having preexisted with the Father as the Son and Word.

Could Jesus, or rather the Son, have actually been, in some sense, in heaven at the same time? Yes.

Joh 10:38 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 am in the Father.” (ESV)

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Yet, the Father was in heaven.

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—
Eph 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, (ESV)

In some sense, perhaps the same or a similiar sense, believers are "in Christ" and are "seated . . . with him in the heavenly places."

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (ESV)

This speaks of omnipresence, which is an attribute of God alone.

So, far from creating a difficulty for Trinitarians, the removed phrase in John 3:13 actually makes the case stronger.


Where is this ever stated? Where is it ever stated that the Father came down from heaven in any form?

Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (ESV)

The Father is in heaven and the Spirit descends like a dove onto the Son.


Throughout the NT, as I've shown, Jesus unequivocally claims to have come down from heaven, to have preexisted with the Father prior to all creation. That is why John, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews repeat the very same claim.

Those of us who believe, as Jesus does, that the Father is the only true God, also know that the spirit of God is the spirit of the Father.
You reject this truth.
Sorry for you.

 

[Free]

Those of us who believe, as Jesus does, that the Father is the only true God, also know that the spirit of God is the spirit of the Father.

And, as I have shown many times, the Spirit of God is also called the Spirit of his Son, the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of Jesus Christ, even being equated with the Spirit of God in the OT by which the prophets prophesied.

You reject this truth.
Sorry for you.

You're continuing to dodge and being dishonest.

 

[Randy]

They shall all be taught by GOD.
Who is this God?
Jesus-All those who listen and learn from the FATHER come to me.

In the last days I will pour out MY Spirit.
Who is the God promising this gift?
Jesus-Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.

The Father is noted in the NT and the creeds as the source true God and God the Father from whom all things come. Its His Spirit always.

We note the name of Spirit of Christ used in regard to the ONE Spirit of the Sovereign Lord.
“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

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

Since there is only one Divine Spirit how are you distinguishing the Father, Son, Holy Spirit from one another? To me it's the "mind of the Spirit" that differs. The Spirit, as Jesus stated doesn't speak on
His own but only what He hears. Where does He hear from if not from the mind of the Spirit? The Father as its His Spirit always, the Son as all things have been placed in His hands by the Father and He was gifted the fullness. Col 1:19

Why would Jesus need to ask and receive from the Father for His own spirit and why would He speak of the advocate as another from Himself if it's His own spirit? As shown above in the Fathers promise He stated "My" Spirit. So the Father doesn't state another from Himself as does Jesus even though the Spirit He sent is sent in Jesus's name.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—

The Father remains in Heaven until the New Jerusalem comes down from Him to the earth. Its clear to me He sent His Spirit and His Son into the world and they bear witness to the truth as given from the Father.

Now I'm tired of debating the God Head. You're free to believe in 3 coeternal persons of the God Head. I don't share your belief in how that is stated. I believe in one God the Father who is the source of all things given and all things brought into existence and one Lord Jesus who is Gods Christ through whom the Father brought all things into existence and through whom all things are given. The Spirit Jesus sends He receives from the Father. I don't reason Jesus had to receive His own spirit from any other.

So were at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

But this is NT.
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.

This is NT and is from the will of another. Not coeternal.
Col 1:19

And the Father Himself doesn't suggest to me A God such as Himself that has no beginning. Unbegotten for sure though. Why is He stating "was formed" doesn't He understand your trinity?
"No God was formed before me"

What we see, measure, hear and study, the universe, the living God brought into existence. But the invisible God is Spirit. We can't know about the realm where Spirit came from. But we can state if the Father has a beginning it could NOT be by any other being. Jesus is begotten of the Father alone.

Peace

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

I'm trying to follow what you're saying, but it's starting to creak. You say that the Son is everything the Father is, but he's still not God as the Father is. That's a total failure.

There are quite a few who don't know Christianity. Following Christ and denying the Holy Trinity has nothing to do with Christianity.

That's why it doesn't matter to them what God is like as a Being. Some individual who seems convenient to them in their perverted intuition.

The topic of the Trinity is much broader, so the discussion so far is only one part of the story. The rest of the story is not for those who don't participate in it.

 

[Randy]

Randy

I'm trying to follow what you're saying, but it's starting to creak. You say that the Son is everything the Father is, but he's still not God as the Father is. That's a total failure

Not God-He has always been the Son. Is God-He is all that the Father is. Your words are a total failure to me.
Jesus-The Father is the only "true" God. Paul -To us there is but one God the Father. Jesus-My God and your God. My Father and your Father
I understand you can't accept it but that doesn't make it a falsehood.

There are quite a few who don't know Christianity. Following Christ and denying the Holy Trinity has nothing to do with Christianity.

That's why it doesn't matter to them what God is like as a Being. Some individual who seems convenient to them in their perverted intuition.

The topic of the Trinity is much broader, so the discussion so far is only one part of the story. The rest of the story is not for those who don't participate in it.

That wasn't helpful to anyone. Nor does it answer or explain with sound reasoning the many questions asked to you. Total Failure

 

[Milan Nikolic]

Randy

What questions did you ask me that I did not answer? I just want to discuss it in a historical context, and to point out the unique teaching of the Church. I would ask everyone who wants to discuss everything else, but does not want to discuss this, not to reduce the whole topic to apologetics which was already resolved during the first centuries.