The Trinity

[smaller]

There is a great deal of emphasis in Trinitarian understandings, that God Himself arrived in the flesh of His Son, Jesus.

God In Flesh. I accept this understanding on the basis of GODS OWN SPIRIT in HIS FLESH SON. A Body He made and formed FOR HIS OWN HABITATION.

There is no diminishing of this fact. It is a simple open fact.

We are however to know NO MORE Jesus after the FLESH as Paul showed us all here:

2 Corinthians 5:16
Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

We are not even to know ourselves or others 'after the flesh' yet alone Christ.

It is an important principle to understand the VALIDITY of God in Flesh. It is also important to know Him after the FLESH no longer.

s

 

[farouk]

...but remember His resurrection was bodily.

 

[smaller]

...but remember His resurrection was bodily.

The 'Body' of Jesus is shown in MANY ways after His Resurrection.

Here is one of my favorites. This is THE SON OF MAN, the SON OF GOD that stands in our 'midst' presently:

Revelation 1:
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

And if you saw Him in this way, you too would fall AS DEAD.

Yet with HIS RIGHT HAND He touches with LIFE and UNDERSTANDINGS.

"And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not;"

s

 

[Free]

Please, show me where any of the passages you posted in that post require the interpretation that the Son has always existed. To say, "If you can't see that, I can't help you" doesn't address the issue.

It does because they are so self-explanatory. I've shown them throughout this thread and I don't want to repeat myself.

Could you explain how it's taking the word out of context when that is just what the passage is saying, He was the firstborn of creation? I don't see anything in the surrounding context that requires that the Son has always existed.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
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 "by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities" and if "all things were created through him and for him," then it follows that he cannot have been created. Clearly then, the context of verse 15, speaking about the Son, does not and cannot allow for "firstborn" to mean that the Son did not exist at some point.

I'm not playing semantic games, I've also not suggested any other god than the God of the Bible. What I've suggested is that Christians don't have the same definition of what God means. For instance, your interpretation of the word God requires that one must have always existed as is evidenced by your statement, 'If Jesus didn't always exist He couldn't be God.' This definition is different than the dictionary definition of God. The dictionary defines the word God as divinity or deity. I've heard other definitions in this thread also. I think we need to determine just exactly what the word means.

Again, in a discussion on the Trinity in a Christian forum, we most certainly are talking about the God of the Bible, not the general theos or a dictionary definition. I don't care if a dictionary definition doesn't include the idea that God has always existed because the Bible is abundantly clear that God always has.

 

[Butch5]

It does because they are so self-explanatory. I've shown them throughout this thread and I don't want to repeat myself.

Free, none of them require the interpretation you're giving them.

Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
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 "by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities" and if "all things were created through him and for him," then it follows that he cannot have been created. Clearly then, the context of verse 15, speaking about the Son, does not and cannot allow for "firstborn" to mean that the Son did not exist at some point.

No one said He was created, He was the first born, not hte first created. This argument is based on Him being created which He wasn't.

Again, in a discussion on the Trinity in a Christian forum, we most certainly are talking about the God of the Bible, not the general theos or a dictionary definition. I don't care if a dictionary definition doesn't include the idea that God has always existed because the Bible is abundantly clear that God always has.

You're begging the question. You're defining God as one who has always existed and then applying that definition to the Son who is also called God. It is the Father that has always existed, He is the "Unbegotten" God. The Son is the "begotten" God. The quality of being unbegotten belongs to the Father alone.

 

[Free]

Free, none of them require the interpretation you're giving them.

If you disagree, then show how they do not. Simply saying they don't require such an interpretation is not a refutation.

No one said He was created, He was the first born, not hte first created. This argument is based on Him being created which He wasn't.

You initially stated: "If one is the firstborn he could not have always existed."

If something came into existence, it was created. I don't know why you can't see that.

You're begging the question. You're defining God as one who has always existed and then applying that definition to the Son who is also called God. It is the Father that has always existed, He is the "Unbegotten" God. The Son is the "begotten" God. The quality of being unbegotten belongs to the Father alone.

No, I am not begging the question. Eternal existence is a necessary attribute of being God, therefore, if Christ is called God, and he is, then he has always existed. If there was a time when the Son did not exist, then he cannot be called God. This is how logic works.

As for "begotten," I suggest you are once again sticking to one definition while ignoring another, namely, that monogenes also means "unique" or "one and only."

 

[Yah1]

The Bible, scriptures and anything that pertains to sin and flesh will never make sense to a person who doesn't believe Jesus was God in the Flesh. They will continue to find excuses to sin. Convincing yourself you are baptized in the spirit, but do not follow a God is the definition of a false prophet. The true prophets understand this. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins and wasn't God, then what was the point of Jesus suffering in the flesh, coming down from heaven to begin with. It doesn't make sense. If he wasn't God, then why do people say he lived a perfect life. People accused Mary of having an affair, but the reality is that God placed himself in the womb of Mary and formed himself into a human being, a baby. God took the form of a human being and suffered in the flesh and bore our sins, and he overcame the world by resisting the devil. God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person working together in unity, The Holy Trinity. To be born again, you must believe in your heart and soul that Jesus was God in the flesh. Unfortunately, not many people will find him. Matthew 7:13.

They'll keep living in sin while spreading false doctrine. You see, the only difference between someone who has seen and felt the light of the holy spirit is that you can't convince them that Jesus wasn't God in the flesh. Born again Christians have felt the peace and love of God. What they feel is not earthly love and peace, it's directly from HEAVEN. NOT AS THE WORLD GIVETH John 14:27

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Yah1,

God placed himself in the womb of Mary and formed himself into a human being, a baby.

Carefully read this passage:

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."


Is Jesus "The Father" who "formed Himself" into a human being, as you say? Or is Jesus the Son of His Father? Or, is He the Son of the Holy Spirit? The Scripture says: "She was found with child of the Holy Spirit."


So, I would ask that you answer a very important question using the Scriptures; and I would also ask that you pray and meditate on this question thoroughly before you answer:

• If the trinity is true, how is it that Jesus Christ was CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, but is the SON OF GOD THE FATHER???

 

[farouk]

Let's stick to the statements of Scripture, and not over-rationalize them to the extent of supposedly having to doubt some in order to accept others.

 

[Free]

Let's stick to the statements of Scripture, and not over-rationalize them to the extent of supposedly having to doubt some in order to accept others.

Yes, agreed. As I stated earlier, we should neither say too much nor too little.


Jesus is the God-man, God Incarnate, truly God and truly man. What precisely happened within Mary's womb we cannot know and we should be very careful in stating what happened, lest we take away from either the Son's humanity or his deity.

 

[Webb]

My brethren have coined a phrase which goes: "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent". Such isn't always easy to do, but I want to be as narrow as the scripture is narrow, and not one wit narrower, and, I want to be as broad as the scriptures are broad and not one whit broader. Again, such isn't always easy to do but a good goal to have.

 

[smaller]

The early church fathers saw the futility of trying to divide God from Jesus and marked that effort as a basic foul of understandings.

Many of the early disputes within the churches came up on this exact ground when certain men made such division attempts and were 'rightfully' branded.

I am not a Matt Slick doctrines fan so don't take this citing as a hand of friendship to his particular doctrines, but he has a nice summary of these early heresies posted at his site:

Heresies

• Adoptionism - God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
• Albigenses - Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
• Apollinarianism - Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
• Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
• Docetism - Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
• Donatism - Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
• Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
• Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
• Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
• Monarchianism - God is one person.
• Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature: divine.
• Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
• Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
• Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
• Semi-Pelagianism - Man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.
• Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
• Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
• Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

s

 

[farouk]

In summary, while the term Trinity isn't actually in the Bible, what it refers to certainly is Biblical. If we trace through references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit working together in John's Gospel, especially chapters 13 thru 17, and John's First Epistle, the end of Matthew 28 (etc.), it is abundantly clear.

 

[Webb]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one--I Jn.5:7.

 

[Butch5]

If you disagree, then show how they do not. Simply saying they don't require such an interpretation is not a refutation.

Show how they do not? Just read them, there is nothing there that requires the Son always existed. For those passages to say the Son always existed there would have to be something to the effect of the Son has always existed, there's nothing indicating such in those passages.

You initially stated: "If one is the firstborn he could not have always existed."

If something came into existence, it was created. I don't know why you can't see that.

Is a baby created or does it grow? A baby grows from two other living organisms, one from the male and one from the female. These in turn were formed by two previous organisms. This process goes all the way beack to Adam and Eve who were created. Only Adam and Eve were created, everyone else grow from those two people. Likewise, the Son came from the Father. He wasn't created. The Father has always existed, He brought forth the Son out of His very being thus the Son was not created but brought forth from the Father, just as a child is brought forth from the parents.

No, I am not begging the question. Eternal existence is a
necessary attribute of being God, therefore, if Christ is called God, and he is, then he has always existed. If there was a time when the Son did not exist, then he cannot be called God. This is how logic works.

It's not logic, it's a logical fallacy, the "No true Scottsman." You're taking an attribute of the Father and making it part of the definition of the word god to attempt to show that the Son ahs always existed.

The same word that is applied to the Father, theos, is also applied to men by the David and Jesus.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psa 82:6 KJV)

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?​

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (Joh 10:34-35 KJV)

I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that these men had always existed. If not then, having always existed cannot be part of the definition of the word God. I agree it is an attribute of the one true God, the Father.

[/quote]As for "begotten," I suggest you are once again sticking to one definition while ignoring another, namely, that monogenes also means "unique" or "one and only."[/QUOTE]

Not at all. What I think you are missing is that then John calls him the only begotten he says "of the Father." Of the Father is translated thus because Father is in the genitive case. The genitive case can indicate stem. Couple this with Jesus statement about coming "out of" the Father it should be clear that begotten means He came from God. Whether you want to say He's the unique one out of God or the one and only out of God, the point is He's out of God.

 

[Butch5]

The early church fathers saw the futility of trying to divide God from Jesus and marked that effort as a basic foul of understandings.

Many of the early disputes within the churches came up on this exact ground when certain men made such division attempts and were 'rightfully' branded.

I am not a Matt Slick doctrines fan so don't take this citing as a hand of friendship to his particular doctrines, but he has a nice summary of these early heresies posted at his site:

Heresies

• Adoptionism - God granted Jesus powers and then adopted him as a Son.
• Albigenses - Reincarnation and two gods: one good and other evil.
• Apollinarianism - Jesus divine will overshadowed and replaced the human.
• Arianism - Jesus was a lesser, created being.
• Docetism - Jesus was divine, but only seemed to be human.
• Donatism - Validity of sacraments depends on character of the minister.
• Gnosticism - Dualism of good and bad and special knowledge for salvation.
• Kenosis - Jesus gave up some divine attributes while on earth.
• Modalism - God is one person in three modes.
• Monarchianism - God is one person.
• Monophysitism - Jesus had only one nature: divine.
• Nestorianism - Jesus was two persons.
• Patripassionism - The Father suffered on the cross
• Pelagianism - Man is unaffected by the fall and can keep all of God's laws.
• Semi-Pelagianism - Man and God cooperate to achieve man's salvation.
• Socinianism - Denial of the Trinity. Jesus is a deified man.
• Subordinationism - The Son is lesser than the Father in essence and or attributes.
• Tritheism - the Trinity is really three separate gods.

s

Have you verified any of this?

 

[smaller]

Have you verified any of this?

These have been around for quite awhile, with an even larger number of blends and subsets under each.

It would not appear that you have orthodox understandings, as much as you make claims to same. But rather maybe a blend of adoptionism, Arianism and a touch of subordinationism.

It can get pretty interesting sometimes...;)

For the record I certainly wouldn't think to damn any believer for these matters. Early churches struggled with them for quite some time before even beginning to try to make summaries of same. Hundreds of years later. It's not like Trinitarianism dropped into their laps. And in fact a flap over 4 words in their description split the early churches of orthodoxy, which split carries on over same and both sides hurl claims of heresy back and forth.

Not easy territory by any means. But for me to brand somebodies heretics for subject matter I studied for years before understanding just ain't my gig. There is greater danger there for anyone diving therein imho.

s

 

[Asyncritus]

You guys are getting yourselves into a fearful tangle on this subject, and it is all so unnecessary!

1 Jesus is the Son of God and had a beginning at His conception and birth.

Tangles with:

1 Jesus is God the Son and never had a beginning

2 Jesus could sin

Tangles with:

2 God cannot even be tempted with evil.

3 Jesus had our nature, and so was 'in all points tempted like as we are'.

Tangles with:

3 God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.

4 Jesus is made the firstborn of all creation (Ps 89.27)

Tangles with

4 Jesus was never born and always existed.

5 Jesus is equal to God

Tangles with:

5 'To whom shall I be equal?' says the Lord.

6 To us there is but One God, the Father (1Cor 8.6)

Tangles with:

6 Jesus is God.

I really don't see any way out of this impasse.

My opinion is well known to you all, and I believe that I have come to it using the very easily comprehensible words of scipture.

Doubtless, the trinitarians feel the same way.

The Gordian knot needs to be sliced open - but who can do this, I wonder.

 

[smaller]

You guys are getting yourselves into a fearful tangle on this subject, and it is all so unnecessary!

1 Jesus is the Son of God and had a beginning at His conception and birth.

Your picture of Jesus seems to be entirely based on His flesh, or in the case of another of you here, his baptism, and another, his resurrection. These are all simply a wrong turns of understanding.

Tangles with:

1 Jesus is God the Son and never had a beginning

No tangle exists. Gods Word was in flesh and in time, but that is no denigration of His Eternal Nature.

2 Jesus could sin

Tempted as 'we' contains a very LARGE caveat...that being without sin.

Many read Jesus was tempted like we are and assume that every vile thought that has ran rampant through their own minds ran through His Mind. That is NOT the case.

Tangles with:

2 God cannot even be tempted with evil.

Satan spoke to God in the Old Testament, even tempting God to pull down the hedge of Job, and God did so. Was God tempted? Or did God TEMPT the tempter?

God can not be tempted, yet God is tempted, as shown with both Jesus and with God.

Temptation itself does not mean it was EFFECTIVE or WORKING temptation with or upon God.

3 Jesus had our nature, and so was 'in all points tempted like as we are'.

Tangles with:

3 God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.

There is no tangle. Just limited engagements of thinking things through and then rather slamming into brick walls trying to force God into being an internall tempted sinner, a place where more than one person has landed. And such are seldom shook from their personal insistence. There has been a fly trap set in their own head that caught them.

4 Jesus is made the firstborn of all creation (Ps 89.27)

Of the Eternal Endless Order, yes. To be born of God is to have been in God to start with. Expressions in time and place are an entirely different observation.

Tangles with

4 Jesus was never born and always existed.

None dispute that Gods Spirit inhabited a body and is deemed His Son and Image. The Word Himself was Gods Image in the Old Testament.

Part of the trinity is to understand the eternal and simultaneous existence of all 3, yet also understanding their role as One.

5 Jesus is equal to God

Tangles with:

5 'To whom shall I be equal?' says the Lord.

6 To us there is but One God, the Father (1Cor 8.6)

Tangles with:

6 Jesus is God.

I really don't see any way out of this impasse.

You sew your own tangled web in all of the above.

My opinion is well known to you all, and I believe that I have come to it using the very easily comprehensible words of scipture.

Christophanies are matters of fact in the text as well.

We are treated to one here:

Acts 7:
44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Doubtless, the trinitarians feel the same way.

The Gordian knot needs to be sliced open - but who can do this, I wonder.

Why you think you bear some sword of dissection discourse on these matters has yet to show or bear.

s

 

[Butch5]

These have been around for quite awhile, with an even larger number of blends and subsets under each.

It would not appear that you have orthodox understandings, as much as you make claims to same. But rather maybe a blend of adoptionism, Arianism and a touch of subordinationism.

It can get pretty interesting sometimes...;)

For the record I certainly wouldn't think to damn any believer for these matters. Early churches struggled with them for quite some time before even beginning to try to make summaries of same. Hundreds of years later. It's not like Trinitarianism dropped into their laps. And in fact a flap over 4 words in their description split the early churches of orthodoxy, which split carries on over same and both sides hurl claims of heresy back and forth.

Not easy territory by any means. But for me to brand somebodies heretics for subject matter I studied for years before understanding just ain't my gig. There is greater danger there for anyone diving therein imho.

s

Have you verified that information?