The Trinity

[Asyncritus]

[...] If there was a point when the Son did not exist, he is not God, by definition.

That is correct.

But since that is the point being debated, then you may not assume the conclusion.

The conclusion has to be established, proven if you like.

You may hypothetically assume the conclusion along the lines of:

If the Son is/was God, then we would expect to find a
b
c etc.

That is a line of argument, and I would be happy to go along with it, and treat it as such.

But you are not doing so hypothetically. Rather, you have stated it as a fact which has already been validated.

It hasn't - or there wouldn't be all this argument about it. It is not a self-evident truth, because up to the time the NT (and especially John's gospel) was written, there was no semblance of the doctrine anywhere visible.

Either in the text itself, or in the Jewish and other commentators.

If you've managed to find some (Jewish commentators who thought like you), I'd be very pleased to hear about it.

Not to mention surprised.

 

[Asyncritus]

Osgiliath

You are writing a great deal of sense, and I agree with you about 90% of the way.

However, this quote cannot be correct, because you have not observed the correct meaning of ALL THINGS.

That is what pleased the "one God of whom are ALL THINGS (Christ included) We all, as well as the entire creation, came into being through Christ, but it all is "of God" the Father.

We easily understand what the ALL THINGS are which the Father created. It's the whole of the natural world with man upon it.

The ALL THINGS which Christ has created is a subset of the ALL THINGS which the Father has created.

How do we know that?

Because it is IN CHRIST that the subset is created.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in (εν χριστω) Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Col.1.16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

The by is the incorrect translation of the preposition en which is most commonly and correctly translated IN, as in Eph 2.10 above.

It is extremely easy to understand how one can be IN CHRIST.

We believe in Him, and are baptised INTO his Name, and thus become a part of His New Creation:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ (εν χριστω), he is a new creature (= creation ESV and RSV)): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

You may not have noticed, but every element of the New Creation in Christ is specified as being of HUMAN origin. Thus:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

You will object that all things 'that are in heaven' cannot be of human origin. Yet that is exactly what Paul is saying:

'whether they be' is the specification of the all things that are in the political heavens and earth:

thrones (meaning, disciples who were rulers of one sort or another),

dominions (= government, so disciples who were in government one way or another, such as the Ethiopian eunuch)

principalities (= people, disciples, who were the first in many things as Strongs indicates, or even princes fom which the word principality derives)

powers (= disciples who held presumably civil and other jurisdictions)

visible = the living disciples

invisible = the buried disciples

So I conclude that there is a very logical delineation of the ALL THINGS which Christ created. That boundary is marked by the words IN CHRIST, and IN HIM.

 

[Randy]

The Trinity has always been or Jesus cannot be God.

Jesus is God in that the Fathers fullness dwells in Him. That fullness or the Father has no beginning in scripture. The Son (who we now know as Jesus) has a beginning. The firstborn of all creation. Father=>Son=>angels=>the creation (All the aspects listed in Genesis)

So the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In that manner they are One. Jesus the Son has His own spirit. In that manner He is not God. (a son) There is only One Holy Spirit or Spirit of the Soverign Lord. (The Fathers being) But a Jesus apart from the fullness has never existed so as I state I need not consider the quality of the Son apart from that fulness. The Father is in the Son. The Father is Jesus's God and our God.

In the name of the Father, SON, Holy Spirit.

 

[Asyncritus]

Jesus is God in that the Fathers fullness dwells in Him. That fullness or the Father has no beginning in scripture. The Son (who we now know as Jesus) has a beginning. The firstborn of all creation. Father=>Son=>angels=>the creation (All the aspects listed in Genesis)

So the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In that manner they are One. Jesus the Son has His own spirit. In that manner He is not God. (a son) There is only One Holy Spirit or Spirit of the Soverign Lord. (The Fathers being) But a Jesus apart from the fullness has never existed so as I state I need not consider the quality of the Son apart from that fulness. The Father is in the Son. The Father is Jesus's God and our God.

In the name of the Father, SON, Holy Spirit.

This question about the 'fulness' of God interested me and I looked it up. This is what I found:

It means a patch on a garment:

Matthew 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up <4138 = fulness> taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

It means when something is filled to the brim:

Mark 8:20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full <4138> of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

The Jews will have a certain 'fulness':

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness <4138>?

So will (or do) the Gentiles:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness <4138> of the Gentiles be come in.

The earth has a certain fulness:

1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness <4138> thereof.

There is a fulness of time:

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness <4138> of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The church is the fulness of Christ:

23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

We will be filled with the fulness of God:

Ephesians 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness <4138> of God.

So it simply means that the richness, the overflowing, the superabundance which God has, has been given to Christ, and most importantly in the context of this discussion, will be given to us.

That, of course, does not and will not make us members of the trinity! Equally, it does not make Christ a member of the trinity.

Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness <4138> dwell;
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness <4138> of the Godhead bodily.

As someone pointed out above, Godhead is a terrible mistranslation. It sounds as if it's an ordinary noun, but in reality it is an abstract noun, and describes a quality, rather than a thing. Divinity, and not the divine.

 

[Butch5]

The Bible clearly shows that the Son has always existed, therefore, the Trinity has always existed. If the Trinity hasn't always existed, which was implied in the question I was addressing, then that would mean there was a point when the Son didn't exist (unless one argues for a binity and says only the Holy Spirit didn't exist). If there was a point when the Son did not exist, he is not God, by definition.

1. Where does the Bible clearly show that the Son has always existed?

2. Whose defintion of God?

 

[Eventide]

My LORD and my GOD...

Whose defintion of God?

Excellent question imo..

We're trying to explain the one who inhabits eternity with like 20-50 years of experience..

Thomas called Jesus his LORD and His GOD..

Jesus of Nazareth was worshipped by His disciples..

GOD alone is worshipped... right ? Isn't that correct at least..?

 

[Osgiliath]

Re: My LORD and my GOD...

Originally Posted By Eventide,

Jesus of Nazareth was worshipped by His disciples..

GOD alone is worshipped... right ? Isn't that correct at least..?

Certainly Christ can be worshipped (Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 14:33 and 15:25). Does being worshipped make one "Father of whom are all things?" Apparently not. Notice Revelation 3:9 - "…I will make them of the synagogue of Satan…to come and worship before your feet…" Worship is apparently something reserved for gods, but only for those gods who can say with Christ "...my Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28)

 

[Asyncritus]

GOD alone is worshipped... right ? Isn't that correct at least..?

Erm...no.

In connection with 'worship', I spotted this verse:

1 Chronicles 29:20 And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.

Does that make the king God? I very much doubt it.

In the OT, most notably, the children of Israel worship a lot of things which are definitely not God:

1 Kings 22:53 For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the LORD God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.

2 Kings 17:16 And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.

2 Kings 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them.

2 Kings 21:21 And he walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them:

So being worshipped is by itself is no indication of being a god, or a part of the 'Godhead'.

Again, may I take this opportunity to remind you guys out there who wish to do serious Bible Study, that there's no better tool available than The Online Bible.

It's cheap, dead accurate, contains innumerable versions, and any computer literate can use it, very effectively indeed.

It's very useful in sifting out the correct from the incorrect.

Unless I'm mistaken, there's a free download here: http://www.onlinebible.org/

Please do have a look.

 

[Eventide]

Re: My LORD and my GOD...

Certainly Christ can be worshipped (Matthew 8:2; 9:18; 14:33 and 15:25).

Then this would certainly seem to conflict with Exodus 34:14. How could any Israelite worship The Lord Jesus Christ and not be violating the Lord's command to worship no other gods ?

How could Thomas call Him God ?

Does being worshipped make one "Father of whom are all things?" Apparently not. Notice Revelation 3:9 - "…I will make them of the synagogue of Satan…to come and worship before your feet…" Worship is apparently something reserved for gods, but only for those gods who can say with Christ "...my Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28)

Christ isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit IMO.. The scriptures teach us that the Father is in us, that Christ is in us, and that the Holy Spirit is in us.. And yet I experience them as one within this earthen vessel so to speak.

No doubt many other things are worshipped in the scriptures although that's the problem isn't it.. Worship belongs to God alone..

Why would we worship Christ if he's not God ? Wouldn't that be offensive to God ?

 

[Butch5]

Re: My LORD and my GOD...

Excellent question imo..

We're trying to explain the one who inhabits eternity with like 20-50 years of experience..

Thomas called Jesus his LORD and His GOD..

Jesus of Nazareth was worshipped by His disciples..

GOD alone is worshipped... right ? Isn't that correct at least..?

Hi Eventide,

My question was to hopefully get us to look at the different definitions being placed on the word God by our theological biases. The Greek word means deity or divine. However, from reading some posts it's implied that God means a being or an entity. This, I believe, comes from the idea that God is a being and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are beings and somehow these three beings are one being. That's not hte definition of the word God or the original orthodox definition of the Trinity. That idea didn't come into the Church until the 400-500's AD.

 

[Eventide]

Erm...no

Then it's ok for a person to worship Christ if he isn't God ?

What else could we worship.. Angels ? Should we worship saints etc ?

Is that ok ?

Serious questions.. Trying to emphasize the question..

Is it ok to worship The Lord Jesus Christ it He is not God ? I guess I don't understand how an Israelite could do that in good conscience so to speak ?

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Eventide,

Why would we worship Christ if he's not God? Wouldn't that be offensive to God?

No, and here's why:

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son IS GIVEN: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Christ has been "given a name that is above every name."

Philippians 2:9 "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and GIVEN HIM a name which is above every name."


But the indicative word in that verse is the word 'given.' It was the Father who "gave" the Son a name which is above every name. The only 'names' which are above every name are the names 'Father' and 'Almighty God.' Here 'in type' is how Christ was given "a name which is above every name":


Genesis 41:39 "And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:
Genesis 41:40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.
Genesis 41:41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.
Genesis 41:42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;
Genesis 41:43 And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.
Genesis 41:44 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt."


Here, God has shown His entire plan. "Only in the throne" is the Father greater than Christ. That phrase "only in the throne" disproves the doctrine of the trinity, which insists that Christ is "co-equal" with the Father. The Father is "greater than Christ in the throne," and Christ Himself says so:

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.



If Christ has eternally existed, then that would not be so. It COULD NOT BE SO - impossible. But Christ is God's original creation and again, He tells us that this is true:

Revelation 3:14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God."


Christ's "subjection" to His "greater" Father is how the 'ALL IN ALL' is accomplished:

1 Corinthians 15:28 "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God the Father may be all in all."


This is how it works:

John 14:20 "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou GAVEST ME I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

 

[Randy]

This question about the 'fulness' of God interested me and I looked it up. This is what I found:

It means a patch on a garment:

Matthew 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up <4138 = fulness> taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

It means when something is filled to the brim:

Mark 8:20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full <4138> of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

The Jews will have a certain 'fulness':

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness <4138>?

So will (or do) the Gentiles:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness <4138> of the Gentiles be come in.

The earth has a certain fulness:

1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness <4138> thereof.

There is a fulness of time:

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness <4138> of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

The church is the fulness of Christ:

23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

We will be filled with the fulness of God:

Ephesians 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness <4138> of God.

So it simply means that the richness, the overflowing, the superabundance which God has, has been given to Christ, and most importantly in the context of this discussion, will be given to us.

That, of course, does not and will not make us members of the trinity! Equally, it does not make Christ a member of the trinity.

Colossians 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness <4138> dwell;
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness <4138> of the Godhead bodily.

As someone pointed out above, Godhead is a terrible mistranslation. It sounds as if it's an ordinary noun, but in reality it is an abstract noun, and describes a quality, rather than a thing. Divinity, and not the divine.

Without Limit - everything the Father is : Thats how I view fullness

R.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally Posted By Asyncritus,

Again, may I take this opportunity to remind you guys out there who wish to do serious Bible Study, that there's no better tool available than The Online Bible.

Thanks Ace. I'll check it out. When in forums I've always used Bible Gateway for Scripture because it has many translations. Also, Wigram's and/or e-sword will both give you every single appearance of a given word in the scriptures. I have learned that the only safe way to understand any word is to read and study ALL those entries, and not rely on Strong's and/or Young's. How does TOB compare to those?

 

[Randy]

Re: My LORD and my GOD...

Then this would certainly seem to conflict with Exodus 34:14. How could any Israelite worship The Lord Jesus Christ and not be violating the Lord's command to worship no other gods ?

How could Thomas call Him God ?




Christ isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit IMO.. The scriptures teach us that the Father is in us, that Christ is in us, and that the Holy Spirit is in us.. And yet I experience them as one within this earthen vessel so to speak.

No doubt many other things are worshipped in the scriptures although that's the problem isn't it.. Worship belongs to God alone..

Why would we worship Christ if he's not God ? Wouldn't that be offensive to God ?

It is the Father who has glorified the Son. Those that listen and learn from the Father go to the Son. Jesus is as taught Christ the Lord.

Besides Jesus was found worthy for such honor and glory by God in case one wanted to argue with God. ref Rev 5 It was Jesus who went to the cross in behalf of the Fathers Will. It was the Son who suffered intensely on the cross. Jesus purchased us by His blood.

God even commanded His angels concerning Jesus

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him

Jesus has a place forever on His Fathers throne.

 

[Free]

Jesus is God in that the Fathers fullness dwells in Him. That fullness or the Father has no beginning in scripture. The Son (who we now know as Jesus) has a beginning. The firstborn of all creation. Father=>Son=>angels=>the creation (All the aspects listed in Genesis)

So the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father. In that manner they are One. Jesus the Son has His own spirit. In that manner He is not God. (a son) There is only One Holy Spirit or Spirit of the Soverign Lord. (The Fathers being) But a Jesus apart from the fullness has never existed so as I state I need not consider the quality of the Son apart from that fulness. The Father is in the Son. The Father is Jesus's God and our God.

This is not the biblical position. I have already shown that "firstborn" does not necessarily mean "born," but rather can be a title used speak of position, namely, preeminence and sovereignty. Indeed, in at least one context it can only mean that or else it contradicts the rest of the context.

To keep things simple, the Word/the Son/Jesus, has always existed. This is what the Bible makes very clear, hence the doctrine of the Trinity.

In the name of the Father, SON, Holy Spirit.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

Yes, "name" which is singular being used to denote the summation of all that singular name means: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Bible clearly shows that the Son has always existed, therefore, the Trinity has always existed. If the Trinity hasn't always existed, which was implied in the question I was addressing, then that would mean there was a point when the Son didn't exist (unless one argues for a binity and says only the Holy Spirit didn't exist). If there was a point when the Son did not exist, he is not God, by definition.

1. Where does the Bible clearly show that the Son has always existed?

For starters, in the passages I have already given: John 1:1-3,14; John 8:58; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:15-17.

2. Whose defintion of God?

Why do you even ask this question? The Christians', of course. Within the context of what I was stating, I was arguing to the eternal existence of God--that God's existence outside of time, so having existed for "eternity past," is an attribute of God. So unless you want to argue that God has not always existed, which wouldn't be the biblical God, I don't see the point of the question.

 

[Free]

Re: My LORD and my GOD...

GOD alone is worshipped... right ? Isn't that correct at least..?

Yes. There is "worship" of men but that is not at all the same as speaking of the worship of God.

Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."
Rev 19:10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (ESV)

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me,
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." (ESV)

Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, (ESV)

We are not to worship anything or anyone other than God, yet we clearly see the disciples giving this same worship to Jesus without a single denunciation.

 

[Butch5]

For starters, in the passages I have already given: John 1:1-3,14; John 8:58; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8; Col 1:15-17.

Hi Free,

I don't see where any of these say the Son has always existed. Actually, the passage from Colossian 1 says He is the "firstborn." If one is the firstborn he could not have always existed.

Why do you even ask this question? The Christians', of course. Within the context of what I was stating, I was arguing to the eternal existence of God--that God's existence outside of time, so having existed for "eternity past," is an attribute of God. So unless you want to argue that God has not always existed, which wouldn't be the biblical God, I don't see the point of the question.

It seems "The Christian's" definition is multifaceted and changes depending on who you ask. The reason I asked was because the definition of the word God means deity or divine. There is nothing in the definition that requires one be eternal. I think we impose our theological biases onto the word. Now, that’s not to say that God isn't eternal, I'm just making the point that the definition of the word doesn't require it. Since Jesus or the Logos is the Son of God, He is by default deity or divine, thus He is God (deity).

 

[Free]

Hi Free,

I don't see where any of these say the Son has always existed. Actually, the passage from Colossian 1 says He is the "firstborn." If one is the firstborn he could not have always existed.

If you can't see that, I can't help you. And I have pointed out more than once that the term "firstborn" has more than one meaning in Scripture and need not mean that one was "born" or had a beginning. You, like the others, are wanting to take Col 1:15 and completely divorce it from the immediate context of verses 16 and 17. If one wants to take verse 15 and make it say that "firstborn" means Jesus hasn't always existed, then that is in direct contradiction to verses that follow.

It seems "The Christian's" definition is multifaceted and changes depending on who you ask. The reason I asked was because the definition of the word God means deity or divine. There is nothing in the definition that requires one be eternal. I think we impose our theological biases onto the word. Now, that’s not to say that God isn't eternal, I'm just making the point that the definition of the word doesn't require it. Since Jesus or the Logos is the Son of God, He is by default deity or divine, thus He is God (deity).

Now you are playing semantic games. Being that this is a discussion on the Trinity in a Christian forum, it is quite clear that one says "God," they mean the Christian God, YHWH, since there is only one God. Jesus is God in the same way the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

 

[farouk]

1. Where does the Bible clearly show that the Son has always existed?

2. Whose defintion of God?

'The same was in the beginning with God' (John 1).

'Unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Hebrews 1).