The Trinity

[JLB]

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 didn’t change the question. I asked you a question, that you are either unwilling or unable to answer.

Can you answer this question?

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


Notice that I posed a question that comes from scripture.

This is how those who are serious discuss things from God’s word.

 

[JLB]

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?


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.

Your just talking in circles.

Try posting a scripture and ask a question that comes from scripture, not from your denominational theology.

Claiming someone is promoting a cult or heresy, when you refuse to answer their questions and when they answer yours you label them, which means you attack them.


This is your MO.

 

[Johann!@#]

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

I'm not your "bro"--no offense intended--I don't know you, and you don't know me.

J.

 

[JLB]

I'm not your "bro"--no offense intended--I don't know you, and you don't know me.

J.

Ok

It is one Being that exists as three coeternal, coequal Persons.

That’s basically what Oneness teaches.

At the end of the day it’s a manmade definition.

I’m not saying it’s wrong. Im saying what certain men have decided is true.

It doesn’t mean it’s true.

My main point is Jesus Christ is LORD.

The LORD God became flesh.


If you don’t agree with that then so be it.

 

[Johann!@#]

That’s basically what Oneness teaches.

At the end of the day it’s a manmade definition.

You’re just playing the devil’s advocate here... he is biblically sound, but you, on the other hand...

The phrase "one Being that exists as three coeternal, coequal Persons" accurately reflects the classical doctrine of the Trinity, not Oneness theology.

To say "That’s basically what Oneness teaches" is incorrect because Oneness doctrine does not affirm three distinct coeternal, coequal Persons but rather one God who appears in different forms or modes.

Saying "it’s a manmade definition" disregards the theological foundation laid out by the early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea and Chalcedon) that sought to articulate biblical teaching regarding the nature of God.


"It is one Being that exists as three coeternal, coequal Persons. That’s the classical doctrine of the Trinity, not Oneness theology, which teaches that God manifests as different modes rather than being three distinct Persons.

Claiming the Trinity as merely a manmade definition overlooks the biblical and historical development rooted in early Christian orthodoxy."

Free is correct, you don't WANT to be corrected.

J.

 

[Free]

That’s basically what Oneness teaches.

No, it isn’t. Not at all.

At the end of the day it’s a manmade definition.

I’m not saying it’s wrong. Im saying what certain men have decided is true.

It doesn’t mean it’s true.

My main point is Jesus Christ is LORD.

The LORD God became flesh.


If you don’t agree with that then so be it.

Yeah, you haven’t understood anything I’ve posted.

 

[JLB]

You’re just playing the devil’s advocate here... he is biblically sound, but you, on the other hand...

The phrase "one Being that exists as three coeternal, coequal Persons" accurately reflects the classical doctrine of the Trinity, not Oneness theology.

To say "That’s basically what Oneness teaches" is incorrect because Oneness doctrine does not affirm three distinct coeternal, coequal Persons but rather one God who appears in different forms or modes.

Saying "it’s a manmade definition" disregards the theological foundation laid out by the early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicaea and Chalcedon) that sought to articulate biblical teaching regarding the nature of God.


"It is one Being that exists as three coeternal, coequal Persons. That’s the classical doctrine of the Trinity, not Oneness theology, which teaches that God manifests as different modes rather than being three distinct Persons.

Claiming the Trinity as merely a manmade definition overlooks the biblical and historical development rooted in early Christian orthodoxy."

Free is correct, you don't WANT to be corrected.

J.

Please tell me what I need to be corrected about?

I laid out my beliefs line by line so you and everyone else could see what I believe.

Free said he refuses to even address it.



So hears your chance to correct me.

Here is what I believe.


I believe Jesus (the Son) is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

I believe the Father is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

I believe the Holy Spirit is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

I believe collectively these three are God; (YHWH) the LORD God.

These three individual divine Beings (Persons) are collectively God;
(YHWH) the LORD God

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
Genesis 1:26

Also here is the dictionary definition of person for your reference.

Notice that one of the synonyms of “person” is being.

If you prefer “person” instead of “being” then thats your choice.

 

[JLB]

No, it isn’t. Not at all.


Yeah, you haven’t understood anything I’ve posted.

I know it’s all about me not understanding you.


All you have to do is post a scripture and make your point from scripture then ask me a question that actually is based in a passage of scripture.

Again I believe these three are one.

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

Oneness believes there is one person in the Godhead and that is Jesus.

I don’t believe that.

 

[JLB]

No, it isn’t. Not at all.


Yeah, you haven’t understood anything I’ve posted.

Here is what I believe..

I believe Jesus (the Son) is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

I believe the Father is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

I believe the Holy Spirit is God; (YHWH) The LORD God.

I believe collectively these three are God; (YHWH) the LORD God.


Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

The thread has moved on, but a brief response to your Post, despite the continued repetition. Perhaps we should clarify this first.

I never suggested this. I claim that Jesus continued the theme most recently stated in John 8:24,28 "I am he".

I never suggested that Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I was". I claim that Jesus stated "Before Abraham was, I am he".

But you did, and you do so again in this post.
In the post I was addressing, you stated: "But Jesus claims that even though he was the promised seed of Abraham, he was also before Abraham. He was the seed promised concerning the seed of Eve:"

Yes, Jesus was the central focus of the promises to Abraham and he was also the central fulfillment of all that was transacted in Genesis 22. Jesus was not physically there in the time of Abraham, and Jesus did not see Abraham in person. Jesus is the promised Messiah of Genesis 3:15, the promise concerning the woman's seed. He was also in the plan and purpose of God before the creation.

We should clear the following as well.

I claim that Jesus continued the theme most recently stated in John 8:24,28 "I am he".

You have claimed that as well, but I have adequately shown that that is not the case. He is answering a different question, the one found in verse 57.

Looking at your original Post, which includes the question of verse 57:

All of this ignores verse 57 and the question that was asked of Jesus. It doesn't matter that the Pharisees "deliberately muddied the waters" in verse 57, since Jesus responded directly to their question:
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (ESV)
Notice that Jesus did not say "before Abraham was, I was," as though he was claiming mere existence prior to Abraham. It certainly cannot merely mean that he is "the seed of the woman." He is that, but that has nothing to do with the question he was asked.

I suggest that Jesus did not directly answer the mud and disruption that they delivered but nevertheless he answered the question in accordance to what he had been consistently teaching in the immediate context and the whole discussion in John 8, including the "I am he" of John 8:24,28. But they were blind, deaf and heart hardened against what he was teaching and were only interested in trying to entrap him. They failed because sufficient of the crowd saw through their subterfuge and avarice.

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

I suggest that the KJV is the accurate translation:
John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Trinitarians reject the conception and believe in a supposed incarnation. Guess who altered the original to conform to their wrong doctrine.

What do you mean by "He will be"? Jesus is from above because he is the person of the Word, the eternal Son, who entered into time to take on the additional nature of a human.

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father is fully revealed through Jesus the Son of God. Jesus is the Word of God because he fully reveals God's words and fully speaks God's word.

Deuteronomy 18:15,18 (KJV): 15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Isaiah 55:8–11 (KJV): 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

All of this ignores verse 57 and the question that was asked of Jesus.

An additional thought that interposes between John 8:58 and the Pharisees attempt to stone Jesus, is if they had even a grain of faith in what Jesus has just stated in the immediate context, or in the discussion leading up to this, then they would have been stopped in their tracks. But the Pharisees acted in the role of the seed of the serpent.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

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.

It depends on the context in which I use the term, "the word of God." God's word refers primarily to His spoken word. We tend to also use "the word of God" as synonymous with the Scriptures, or the written word of God.

The word of God can be described also as the "revelation of God." What issues from God in terms of revelation can be many things. God issued by His revelation, or word, His Son, the creation of the universe, and anything God wishes to do. He simply speaks it into existence.

In the case of Christ, God spoke into existence the revelation of His own Person in the form of a man. He did this with theophanies, appearing as angels or men, and He did this with Christ, His own Son.

Put simply, I use the "word of God" for God's means of revealing things to us. He speaks, and we can then understand. But it has also been recorded in the Scriptures, and so we refer to that as the "word of God" also.

 

[RandyK]

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.

This is exactly what got me in hot water with Christian Research Institute many years ago when I was leaving a modalistic cult that I had briefly joined. My formula was one Person equals three Persons. I was told, when corresponding with CRI, what you said, that it is a contradiction, or nonsense.

But in my mind, at the time, and even now, I think of the one God as both a "Being" and a "Person." When OT saints thought of God they thought of the one God as being one Divine Person, I would think--not just one Being. I'm not sure the biblical language makes such a distinction?

Anyway, I think the ancient Hebrews may have understood the composite nature of God's unity, because they could read God say, "Let us make man." But they certainly thought of Him as a single Divine Person, as I see it!

So, I've had to modify my own personal formula to avoid misunderstanding and to avoid creating confusion with those who have a different, seemingly contradictory formula. I now state that the one Divine Person is expressed as an infinite Person, whereas the Trinitarian Persons are finite expressions of the same infinite Divine Person.

Nobody has to accept my formula--it just satisfies me. ;) Others are sometimes thrown off when I say that the Trinitarian Persons are "finite expressions," because they quickly argue that God and His Persons are not "finite."

But any expression that we can conceive of must be finite by nature because we ourselves are finite by nature and cannot, by definition, understand anything that transcends our finite, limited nature.

We can experience the infinite Person and revelation of God because He condenses His reality in order to be experienced by us. But this is the limit to which we can experience the infinite God.

We cannot experience God beyond the condensed product of His revelation, which is what the word of God is to us, as well as the Son and the Spirit. Even the conception of the Father is understood by a condensed version that represents Him to us and for us.

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.

You're quite right in using the original formula. It just never explained the difference between God as a Being and God as a Person. How can a Being not be a Person?

But I do understand and accept the formula, even if it doesn't offer me understanding personally. I just don't have any problem with "One Infinite Person equals Three Finite Persons."

 

[RandyK]

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?

I think, brother, you are just stating a truism, that the Bible claims Jesus is the Lord God. So that isn't even the issue, nor has it ever been the issue. I think Free spelled it out quite clearly that the issue is when you say that Jesus is the *name* of Yahweh, or God.

I haven't read any of these posts in an orderly way, so please let me know if you've backed down from this position, or at least have revised it to describe it properly?

 

[RandyK]

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


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

Yes, it appears you're conflating :Jesus is the name of Yahweh" with "Jesus is the name of Yahweh after he's become flesh?"

 

[RandyK]

I suggest that the KJV is the accurate translation:
John 1:18 (KJV): No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Trinitarians reject the conception and believe in a supposed incarnation. Guess who altered the original to conform to their wrong doctrine.

I have a difficult time understanding how you're reading this. Trinitarians, of course, accept what this verse says, and naturally believe in the Incarnation. Jesus made a full declaration of the Person of God by revealing Him as a man.

He did this as a revelation originating from Deity who preexisted everything and is eternal. That is, Jesus is the eternal God who emanated from Him as Source and revealed this Deity to us as a man.

The One God, Yahweh, God the Father is fully revealed through Jesus the Son of God. Jesus is the Word of God because he fully reveals God's words and fully speaks God's word.

Jesus isn't just the Word of God because Jesus "fully speaks God's word." He is the Word of God because he *is* God!

He is, more specifically, the revelation of God to our world in the form of a man. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

That is, God, through His Word, became flesh. In doing so through His Word He was not reducing His infinite identity to something strictly finite. Rather, He was reducing His revelation to a means by which finite creatures can understand and know Him.

 

[RandyK]

If you prefer “person” instead of “being” then thats your choice.

I have my own formula that is somewhat different, but I can at least understand what Free is saying! You apparently can not?

He is saying, as I understand it, that there is a history of words and an historic formula. In using arbitrary words, and in ignoring the technical use of these words, historically, you produce confusion.

At least with my formula I explain how my terminology conforms to and agrees with the historic formulation! I say "One Infinite Person" in place of "One Being" so as to not produce the confused formula, "One Person equals Three Persons."

I had a problem with "One Substance" not representing a Person. But at least I understand why there has to be a distinction between the one God Yahweh and the Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit.

In my view the "Being" of God may legitimately be described as an "Infinite Substance" which is parceled out into diverse revelations, including Father, Son, and Spirit. An Infinite Person, if you must, is revealed in these 3 finite expressions of Persons who reveal God on a lower level than His infinite Being.

This may not help anybody except myself! ;)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings RandyK,

I have a difficult time understanding how you're reading this. Trinitarians, of course, accept what this verse says, and naturally believe in the Incarnation.

I appreciate your comment. There are two different renditions using the KJV and ESV and I will also quote John 1:14:

John 1:14,18 (KJV): 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:14,18 (ESV): 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

I accept the KJV rendition of these two verses and reject the ESV. Please note that while John 1:14 is different in these two translations, the ESV of John 1:18 is radically different. And while we are about it, consider the following:

John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 (ESV): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Trinitarians believe in a supposed incarnation of God the Son. Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14 teaches that Jesus is The Son of God through conception.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Yes, it appears you're conflating :Jesus is the name of Yahweh" with "Jesus is the name of Yahweh after he's become flesh?"

Do you agree that Jesus is YHWH?

Not God the Father but the Son.

 

[JLB]

At least with my formula I explain how my terminology conforms to and agrees with the historic formulation! I say "One Infinite Person" in place of "One Being" so as to not produce the confused formula, "One Person equals Three Persons."

That may make sense to you and it may be right.

It doesn’t make sense to me.

I believe we all may have a variation of the truth. I doubt any one person can fully explain or comprehend God.