The Trinity

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by BornAgain,

The miraculous conception of Jesus is here assigned as the reason for His being called the Son of God. Viewed on the side of his human nature,this cannot be misunderstood. As Christ was the Son of the Father and begotten of Him, John 1:14, this must be understood as the divine influence exerted through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not create the world, but only moved to bring order out of confusion. So Christ was not begotten of the Holy Spirit, although the influence of the Spirit was used in the conception of Mary. This is further emphasized by the statement that "the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee."

wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten—It is emphatically declared here that Jesus was called the "Son of God" because in His human nature He was begotten of God, and sustained a relation to God such as no one else. Christ is the Son of God only in His relation to the redemption of man. He is His "Son" only in that He was born of a woman. He existed with God in eternity and was not the "Son of God" before He came in the flesh. He was "in the beginning" a member of the "Godhead". But since He came in the flesh, suffered, died, and was raised from the dead, He is spoken of as "the Son" of God. His divinity and deity are from eternity.

Well, that's just not Scriptural. You are just doing your best to reiterate the pagan invention of two bishops: Alexander, and Athanasius from Alexandria, Egypt.



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."


We know that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (above), therefore if the Holy Spirit were a person then Jesus prayed to the wrong "Father" in John ch. 17; and other places.


If the Holy Spirit is actually and literally "God" as Trinitarians maintain, and Jesus was "CONCEIVED" 'BY' the Holy Spirit, then Jesus would have to be "The Son of the Holy Spirit" and NOT the Son of God the Father!

It is not possible to be "conceived" by one person and then when born, be the son of another person! Whoever causes a women to conceive is also the FATHER of the child conceived, NOT A SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT PERSON! Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit "OF" God. It was the spirit "OF" the Father, not some other spirit that caused Mary to conceive. Therefore "God," not the "spirit of God," is the FATHER of Jesus.



Luke 1:35 comes right out and says Who the Father of Jesus is:

Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son OF GOD."

Not the son of the Holy Spirit - "...The HIGHEST..." also refers to God the Father, not the Holy Spirit.

God, Who is called "the power of the Highest" caused Mary to conceive by and through His own (the Father's OWN) Spirit. Hence Jesus is the Son of the Highest, the Son of the Father, the Son of God.


Luke 1:29 "But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was.
Luke 1:30 Then the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.
Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will GIVE HIM the throne of His father David.'"

Ironic for Trinitarians, the Scriptures never speak of Jesus having a relationship with the Holy Spirit, and yet, according to their own theory, the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus. Unbelievable!


In Matthew 12:28 Jesus said He cast out demons "by the SPIRIT of God." Yet the Pharisees claimed He did it by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus told the Pharisees that accusing Him of casting out demons "by the power of Beelzebub," when He did it by the "Spirit 'OF' God," is blasphemy against the "Holy Spirit" (Ver. 32).

Here is clear and simple proof that the "Spirit of God" and the "Holy Spirit" are ONE AND THE SAME SPIRIT--not a third person of a so-called trinity!


Here is another emphatic proof:

Luke 12:11-12 "Now when they bring you to the synagogues and magistrates and authorities, do not worry about how or what you should answer, or what you should say. For the HOLY SPIRIT will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."


But notice now how Matthew is inspired to relate this same event,


Matthew 10:17-20 "But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the SPIRIT OF YOUR FATHER who speaks in you."


There it is, made plain by the scriptures. The HOLY SPIRIT is the SPIRIT "OF " THE FATHER. A gift the Father gives to those who ask Him (Luke 11:13).



Anything that is "of" or "from" someone else cannot 'BE' that same someone else! Nothing can be "OF" someone and yet, at the same time, "BE" that same someone! This is axiomatic.


The Holy Spirit is something that God the Father possesses--it is not a separate, third person or deity of some fabled trinity. The spirit "'OF'" God is "God's" spirit. And notice that God offers His spirit as a gift to those who ask:

Luke 11:13 "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"


The Holy Spirit is not an entity of its own, but is rather a possession OF God which He gives to us.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Deborah13,

1 John 5:7-8

King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

• 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost]: and these three are one."

There is a problem with this verse. The words that I typed in bold print are NOT in the Scriptures.


The only Greek manuscripts IN ANY FORM which supports the words, 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth' are the "Monfortianus of Dublin", copied from the MODERN Latin Vulgate; the "Revianue", copied from the COMLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT; a "manuscript at Naples", with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; "OTTOBONIANUS, 298", of the fifteenth century, the GREEK of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin.

ALL the older versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the VULGATE omit them: the earliest VULGATE manuscript which has them, "WIZANBURGENSIS, 99", is of the eighth century.

 

[BornAgain]

Well, that's just not Scriptural. You are just doing your best to reiterate the pagan invention of two bishops: Alexander, and Athanasius from Alexandria, Egypt.

Actually it is scriptural and is based on Matt 28:19:

Matthew 28:19 (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

John 1:13, Col 1:16, Heb 1:8.

All power, in an absolute sense, cannot be attributed to Him in His human nature, for it cannot be possessed and used by any creature. Since He has been raised from the dead, He now can claim all power in his person as Christ, both God and man. he Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

John 5:22, 23, 1 Cor 15:25, Eph 1:20-23 Phil 2:9-11.

"As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." John 20:21.

 

[BornAgain]

• 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost]: and these three are one."

There is a problem with this verse. The words that I typed in bold print are NOT in the Scriptures.


The only Greek manuscripts IN ANY FORM which supports the words, 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth' are the "Monfortianus of Dublin", copied from the MODERN Latin Vulgate; the "Revianue", copied from the COMLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT; a "manuscript at Naples", with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; "OTTOBONIANUS, 298", of the fifteenth century, the GREEK of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin.

ALL the older versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the VULGATE omit them: the earliest VULGATE manuscript which has them, "WIZANBURGENSIS, 99", is of the eighth century.

1 John 5:7, 8 KJV
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The Spirit was manifested at the Lord's baptism; the Spirit recorded and thus bore witness to both his baptism and his death.

7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. The Spirit here referred to is the Holy Spirit; the function which He is said to perform is that he bears witness; that to which he witnesses is the deity of Jesus; His testimony is reliable because the Spirit is the truth (of the essence of truth); and that to which he bears testimony were the matters primarily under consideration in the verse preceding this—the water and the blood. As indicated both here and in the verses which follow, the Spirit becomes the third witness to the identity of the Lord, the first and second being the water and the blood. The Spirit bore witness to Jesus at his baptism by descending in the form of a dove and lighting upon him. Matt 3:15. John the Baptist accepted this as a token of the Spirit's witness to Christ, when he said, "I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." John 1:32, 33, 24.

8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water and the blood: and the three agree in one.—The Spirit (the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Godhead), the water (of baptism) and the blood (which flowed from the Lord's side on the cross), are here declared to bear witness, to testify. That to which they bear witness is the deity of Jesus, the lordship of him who was baptized in Jordan and from whose side the blood flowed. These three—the Spirit, the water and the blood—agree in one, their testimony harmonizes, and point to the same end. The Spirit is mentioned first, because he is the only living witness, and the testimony of the water and the blood depend on the revelation of the Spirit. As there are three divine persons in one God, so there are three witnesses on earth testifying. The testimony which these witnesses give is constant; the Spirit's revelation in the scriptures speaks to all generations; the act of baptism, for nearly twenty centuries, has been picturing the central fact of redemption—the burial and resurrection of Christ—and the blood is that which makes redemption possible. (Heb. 10:1-4.) Compare 1 John 5:10; Rom. 6:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Wherever the people of God assemble on the Lord's day, there is, in the Lord's supper which they observe, a memorial of the blood which was shed.

 

[Randy]

Re: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Hebrews 7 also teaches us that our Lord Jesus Christ is a priest forever after the order of Melchisedek.. who had no father, nor mother, nor beginning or ending of days...

What does that mean ?

IMO it's obvious.. it's written in Genesis which is ALL ABOUT fathers and mothers and genealogies etc.. and then we see Melchizedek who has no father, no mother, no beginning or end..

And of course that's Christ's priesthood.. unchangeable.. because He continueth ever..

It means Jesus is a priest forever by Gods appointment. So you are touching on that with genealogies. That is Jesus is not a son of Levi and Melchizedek was also before Levi. So their Priesthood is not based on genealogies. I believe Melchizedek was a man who was born of a women. Jesus is a Priest in the order of Melchizedek. (By Gods appointment)

Randy

 

[Randy]

Re: The One who inhabits eternity...

Just pointing out to the poster that Jesus did existed before the world began.

Ok.

Randy

 

[Randy]

If Jesus is the begotten son of God then he is God in every way. Name a son who is not equal to his father. Everything reproduces after its own kind.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Jesus taught the Father was greater then Him. But Jesus, as one who the Fullness of God was pleased to dwell, is all that the Father is. But that fullness IS the Father and Jesus received authority from the His God and our God. (Father)

God placed all but Himself (Jesus's God and Father) under Jesus. The Father is greater.

 

[Randy]

Re: The One who inhabits eternity...

I thought that I did..

We know for a fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is the FIRSTBORN from the dead.. and that's with respect to His creation... for DEATH has passed upon all men.. in the first Adam.. and even the Last Adam was made in the likeness of sinful flesh precisely to put away sin in the flesh.. He bore our sins in His own body on that forsaken cross..

Now seriously.. how does Christ being the FIRSTBORN from the dead mandate that He had a beginning..? He obviously existed prior to coming into this world.. He obviously existed prior to going to the cross for our sins.. and yet He is the FIRSTBORN from the DEAD... because He ROSE from the dead according to the scriptures..

That has massive implications for His CREATION... because as in Adam all DIE.. so in CHRIST all shall be made alive.. in their time..

The LORD isn't finished with His CREATION by any stretch of the imagination.. and as mentioned.. the whole CREATION groans and is waiting.. even WE who HAVE the first fruits of the SPIRIT.. we groan within ourselves.. and we're WAITING for that DAY.. when He will change these vile bodies and fashion them like unto HIS GLORIOUS BODY..

That's a simple example of how He can also be the FIRSTBORN over His creation.. by being the FIRSTBORN from the DEAD.

The first man is of the EARTH.. EARTHY.. the second man is the LORD from HEAVEN.

He's not finished with us yet... and we know not yet what we shall be.. but we shall be like HIM..

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

There's infinitely more to come.. in Christ Jesus our LORD..

I don't agree. What was written about Jesus is regard to what God created through Jesus is past tense. Also God rested on the 7th day after all the aspects of creation we read of in Genesis.

Firstborn of all creation. A Son with a beginning. "All beings such as" = Son + angels + mankind (As is the firstborn being of God)



Setting that aside you can't answer my questions in regard to how you hold to one God with the "Jesus always was" premise. As I state I believe Jesus is all that the Father is. Its the "always was" that is incorrect. Its clear to me the Father defined Jesus's being and was pleased to share His fullness with His Firstborn. And in regard to that Jesus is the "One and Only" there will never be another who God the Father gives His fullness to.

As Paul wrote: (One God, One Lord)
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world†and that “There is no God but one.†5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods†and many “lordsâ€), 6 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.

John 17
As Jesus taught:“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

 

[icee]

Jesus taught the Father was greater then Him. But Jesus, as one who the Fullness of God was pleased to dwell, is all that the Father is. But that fullness IS the Father and Jesus received authority from the His God and our God. (Father)

God placed all but Himself (Jesus's God and Father) under Jesus. The Father is greater.

In authority yes...in BEING they are the same.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[smaller]

The reality of Trinitarian outlines is this: They were argued about and debated for a THOUSAND YEARS post Cross. A THOUSAND YEARS.

So, men of faith, reasoned and educated in LETTERS and religious doctrines after a THOUSAND YEARS still didn't have a real solid outline.

In contemplations about God, His Son and Spirit they are often best tended to in eternal contemplations of the individuals engaged, rather than trying to 'box them up' and 'sell' our opinions to others, or even worse, the end up possibly eternally condemning another believer for not taking on our solely subjective contemplations.

There is a basic difficulty that arises in 'all' contemplations, and that is the fact that the contemplaters themselves only see in part.

This will always be a present difficulty in any theological construct.

People see what they think they see, but all such thinkers only see factually 'in part.'

And some will say, well, using that measure we wouldn't know anything! And I would say some things are best tended to by unending contemplations and are not meant for the subjectively imposed fences of anyone.

If God is real, then God Himself should bring you, personally, the present tense values of any contemplations, and most often such are ENDLESS in 'nature.' One does learn to enjoy that sight. Beating each others with our God boxes is not a pleasant activity.

If so called educated men of faith argued and debated these matters for a thousand years, one contemplation may be that they will go on debating. Another may be 'why' that happens. And then we confront the reality of our own limited contemplations. And the results of taking on another man's debated constructs.

The fact is that Trinitarians are the initiators of divisions and damnations to other believers as well.

Mysteries are best handled apart from detriments to others, as the devourer and destroyer does come to the fore in the heart. And nobody sees it coming til they have been taken and et.

enjoy!

s

 

[smaller]

An observation that came to the fore in early Trin understandings is that matters of Tri yet One can be generally understood, yet not fully understood.

I appreciate they had the good sense to bow to the Mystery.

When applying 'language' to these matters is where they always found their difficulties. The analogies themselves seem to always prove insufficient to capture the understandings.

I accept their eventual 'attempt' at definitions as the most legitimate attempt at coalescence, as generally described and cited as follows:

"The Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty co-eternal. In this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are co-eternal and coequal with each other."

The Holy Spirit formulations themselves did not enter the formula frays until much later, and seemed to bring even more difficulties, when for example the east stated the Spirit proceeded from the Father and western orthodoxy inserted that the Spirit proceeded 'and from the Son.' Those 4 little words drove the spike in the split. When words as simple as 'proceeding from' they brought difficulties.

If for example the east said the Spirit proceeded from the Father and did not include the Son, it produced a difficulty that the west added words to settle. And if one reversed the proceeding from verbiage in the cause of co-equals it gets even more problematic, such as who proceeded from who in the co-equal co-eternal no greater no lesser formats?

If they put those words aside and stuck to the early format their issues would go away, but they can NOT do so at this point to retain their 'respective' infallible seats. So they will remain locked and loaded against each others as long as they exist as sects.

A pity really.

s

 

[Free]

It's nonsensical because you haven't come to FAITH yet.

No, it's nonsensical because throughout the Bible the Father is always shown as distinct from the Son. A father is never the same person as his son and a son cannot be his own father. That is nonsense.

As C. S. Lewis said, "nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God" (to quote roughly).

If Bethel Church or Jason Upton for example, stated that Jesus was the Father on their websites, then what's the difference between Bethel and Jason stating it and me telling you on this thread. You wouldn't believe Bethel and Jason anymore than you would believe me.

Of course I wouldn't believe but that is not why I am asking. You made the claim that they believe Jesus is the Father and now you need to support it.

I'm backing it up by giving you Kim's email. She is part of Bethel Church, the church that you claim is in agreement with you. How do you know their in agreement if you don't email them, Free. The Trinity to them is ALREADY COME TRUE. They know in their hearts! You emailing Kim would be you stepping out of your boundaries and searching for Truth. There's more out there than what you think you know. Lemme know how it goes, Kim is very nice!

It doesn't matter to me how nice Kim is or anyone else for that matter. I am not going to email anyone from Bethel Church to get an answer that you need to provide.

Are you still thinking of Jesus as a Son and not a person who suffered immensely in this world, and took on the human flesh? Do you know what i mean by suffered, i don't think any of us can comprehend what he went through. Your religious doctrines are blinding you to who Jesus is. He wasn't just a man who taught the Word and went on his merry way. He SUFFERED!! This is why persecution and religious wars exists, because he was also God.

Where have I ever stated that Jesus is not a person or that he didn't take on human flesh? Where have I ever said that he was just a man?

It is abundantly clear that you have no understanding about what the doctrine of the Trinity really is and aren't interested in learning.

 

[Asyncritus]

An observation that came to the fore in early Trin understandings is that matters of Tri yet One can be generally understood, yet not fully understood.

And this is one of the reasons I keep sounding warnings about theologians. They haven't a clue what they're talking about - if in 1000 years they still can't figure out the essential nature of God, especially when it's stated so clearly in Scripture - then I'm entitled to ask if they have half a brain between them.

And I'd like to know exactly what their followers are doing too.

And their followers are entitled to ask what the dickens is going on too.

I appreciate they had the good sense to bow to the Mystery.

Good sense? What good sense? If it took 400 or more years for the doctrine to be stated in the incredibly confused way that the athanasian exemplifies, then what would have happened after 1000 years? Confusion worse confounded.

When applying 'language' to these matters is where they always found their difficulties. The analogies themselves seem to always prove insufficient to capture the understandings.

They would be, since they are trying to foist something on to scripture that is simply not there.

The incredibly great and categorical statements of the unity of God the Father are so simple a child can understand them with ease.

The confusions of the trinitarian convolutions are such that theologians haven't been able to figure it out in 1000 years and more as you've said.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Why not apply it here?

I accept their eventual 'attempt' at definitions as the most legitimate attempt at coalescence, [you're very tolerant!] as generally described and cited as follows:

"The Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one, their glory is equal, their majesty co-eternal. In this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are co-eternal and coequal with each other."

A-a-a-a-a-a-r-r-r-rrrr=gggghhhhh!!!!!

The Holy Spirit formulations themselves did not enter the formula frays until much later, and seemed to bring even more difficulties, when for example the east stated the Spirit proceeded from the Father and western orthodoxy inserted that the Spirit proceeded 'and from the Son.' Those 4 little words drove the spike in the split. When words as simple as 'proceeding from' they brought difficulties.

If for example the east said the Spirit proceeded from the Father and did not include the Son, it produced a difficulty that the west added words to settle. And if one reversed the proceeding from verbiage in the cause of co-equals it gets even more problematic, such as who proceeded from who in the co-equal co-eternal no greater no lesser formats?

Theologians! Who needs them? Sound more like lawyers to me.

If they put those words aside and stuck to the early format their issues would go away, but they can NOT do so at this point to retain their 'respective' infallible seats. So they will remain locked and loaded against each others as long as they exist as sects.

Just a general question here. Why is a creed necessary? There isn't one in the OT or the NT. They obviously feel that they can improve on the two of them.

A pity really.
s

That's exactly what I keep saying.

Question: Do you really know what you think? Or are you content to leave it all up in the air?

 

[Yah1]

No, it's nonsensical because throughout the Bible the Father is always shown as distinct from the Son. A father is never the same person as his son and a son cannot be his own father. That is nonsense.

As C. S. Lewis said, "nonsense is still nonsense even when it is spoken of about God" (to quote roughly).


Of course I wouldn't believe but that is not why I am asking. You made the claim that they believe Jesus is the Father and now you need to support it.


It doesn't matter to me how nice Kim is or anyone else for that matter. I am not going to email anyone from Bethel Church to get an answer that you need to provide.


Where have I ever stated that Jesus is not a person or that he didn't take on human flesh? Where have I ever said that he was just a man?

It is abundantly clear that you have no understanding about what the doctrine of the Trinity really is and aren't interested in learning.

This is obviously getting nowhere, i've said what i needed to say. I'm moving on.

 

[Free]

This is obviously getting nowhere, i've said what i needed to say. I'm moving on.

There is a lot left unanswered but you are free to do so.

 

[smaller]

And this is one of the reasons I keep sounding warnings about theologians. They haven't a clue what they're talking about - if in 1000 years they still can't figure out the essential nature of God, especially when it's stated so clearly in Scripture - then I'm entitled to ask if they have half a brain between them.

The responses arose largely to measure 'other promotions' that were not holding water. That effort does not fault them for response.

And I'd like to know exactly what their followers are doing too.

Anyone who spends any amount of time in the text will sooner or later have to take a look at the same things IF they have any interest in harmony.

And their followers are entitled to ask what the dickens is going on too.

There was a veritable plethora of 'alt' positions and philosophies competing for attentions. Vast amounts. The early church fathers were all to the last man, influenced by an abundance of dissections and philosophies.

I am also NOT discounting government interference in these matters either. Constantine was one of the first to try to 'use' christianity to make a new state sanctioned religion, to quell perpetual infighting by the various sects, and to coalesce power under a theocracy. I think most know these matters.

Good sense? What good sense? If it took 400 or more years for the doctrine to be stated in the incredibly confused way that the athanasian exemplifies, then what would have happened after 1000 years? Confusion worse confounded.

Your dissections will fall along the exact same ground. Most believers who have grappled with these matters and have other conclusions just have another 'form' of God box. And 99 out of 100 times it's worse than Trinitarian understandings, usually flirting with various heresies. One of the worst I've seen is those who promote that Jesus was tempted like you. In fact isn't that your claim? And those who promote so, do so for the sole intent of making Jesus a sinner just like you and I. These are usually the most adamant and the worst to deal with.

They would be, since they are trying to foist something on to scripture that is simply not there.

To claim these matters are not in the scriptures is patently false. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are most assuredly presented therein. Trinitarian understandings seek to harmonize the nature of God in these matters in the face of alternatives.

The incredibly great and categorical statements of the unity of God the Father are so simple a child can understand them with ease.

There were actually quite an incredible amount of pitfalls they fell into almost immediately, which the early church fathers sought to still. The Cappodocian fathers, whom I tend to appreciate for their efforts, seemed to some to have fallen into Tri Deity. And clarifications were rightfully sought. The amount of time and study they applied was worthy of clarifications.

The confusions of the trinitarian convolutions are such that theologians haven't been able to figure it out in 1000 years and more as you've said.

Already stated some of the obvious issues in these matters. No amount of human language by partial seers is able to entirely box these matters, and rightfully so. And the unfortunate part is they will eventually break apart on a single word or two, often even just an inflection or a partial word. It's a common anomaly in theology itself because of the nature of the subject matters.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Why not apply it here?

Simplistic notion on your part.

A-a-a-a-a-a-r-r-r-rrrr=gggghhhhh!!!!!

Your self imposed alternatives will more than likely contain even more of same. You will divide and diminish any one of the matters in some way, which will not compute.

Theologians! Who needs them? Sound more like lawyers to me.

Again, you will merely parade another alternative. And more than likely not well thought out and in conflict with texts as well. So I wouldn't be expecting any better attempt at harmony from whatever it is you are trying to prove.

Just a general question here. Why is a creed necessary? There isn't one in the OT or the NT. They obviously feel that they can improve on the two of them.

I'm certainly not saying that millions of religious folk with these various formulas stuffed into their mouths and certain delivery or understanding systems/formats have much of an interest at all, as that takes a sincere interest in the topic matter.

You'll probably not find too many in the pews who even care and prefer to sit upon the findings of their sects.

That's what makes religious systems and sects.

That's exactly what I keep saying.

Question: Do you really know what you think? Or are you content to leave it all up in the air?

I spent probably nothing less than a decade on this subject myself. I 'generally' accept the statement given prior. What they did and do with it I object to.

Had it been left at that it would have been fine, but obviously that did not happen.

They used that understanding among many other understandings to wage war and to torture and kill people for hundreds of years.

Which should tell you the value of doctrines. If a believer understands everything and doesn't have love, the results of all of those efforts mean exactly nothing.

s

 

[Butch5]

For starters, look at what I posted to you previously regarding 1 Cor 8:6 and then read about John 1:1-3,14 below. Whether one considers them explicit or implicit statements is irrelevant. They are both methods of communication.

You haven’t shown where the Son has always existed.

And for all intents and purposes, babies are created. The point being, they begin to exist. Jesus did not begin to exist.

The y begin to exist as a separate being, just as the Son began to exist as a separate being.

Wow. I'm dumbfounded as to how you're completely missing what I am saying. I honestly don't get it. This is not at all hard.

For the fourth time:

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. Do you understand what I have said here? That in such a discussion in a Christian forum when the word "God" is used--notice the use of the capitalized "G"--we mean YHWH, the one and only God?

I can all but guarantee that in any other discussion if someone says something like "God is love," you heartily agree. I don't understand why when I use God here it suddenly means something ambiguous.

I already said that I was talking about the Father. I’m not sure you understand the terms being used. The Scripture talk about the Father and they call him “Theos.†I’m not sure why you want to define “God†apart from the Scriptures. The Scriptures use the word “Theos†to speak of the Father. However, here you’ve said,
That in such a discussion in a Christian forum when the word "God" is used--notice the use of the capitalized "G"--we mean YHWH, the one and only God?
YHWH, the one and only. Is the Father the one and only, or is the Son that one and only, or are they both the one and only?


You see YHWH, is Jehovah, and it is a title given to both the Father and the Son.

Genesis 19:24 (KJV)
24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
Both instances of Lord are Jehovah. If you’re saying He’s the one and only then you’re left with modalism.
As you pointed out Paul said there is one God, the Father.

I have never said that the use of theos requires that one must have always existed. I have clearly stated that theos is used of the Father, the Son and men. I have clearly stated that it can be used as a general term. I have also been clear that it takes on a different nuance in meaning and greater significance when it is used of God. Again, when we are speaking of God--notice the capitalized "G"--there is only one being we are talking about and for him, eternal existence is a necessary attribute.

Therefore, when we speak of Jesus being God, as the Bible states, then he must have always existed. If you deny that then you are very close to polytheism.

Not at all, please show me where Scriptures states the Son has always existed. I’m not talking about a passage that you’ve inferred it from but where it’s stated.

It doesn't matter if one agrees or disagrees that Jesus is "of the Father." Whatever one believes on that matter must take into account Jesus eternal preexistence with the Father.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
....
Joh 1:14 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. (ESV)

1. Notice that the Word both "was with God" and "the Word was God."
2. The use of "was," en in the Greek, means that he was already in existence at the beginning--"In the beginning was the Word."
3. This is supported by verse 3, which leaves no room for the Word having been made. John's very point here is that the Word, which "was God," was not made.
4. Contrast en, referring to absolute existence, with egeneto, used in verse 3 and 14 when speaking of things coming into existence--"And the Word became flesh."

This is eternal preexistence.

There’s nothing in this passage that states the Son always existed, you’re imposing that on the passage. Look at what John said, “in the beginning†and “all things were made by Him.†It should be clear from this passage that he’s talking about the beginning of the creation. The word was with the Father at the beginning of the creation. There is nothing here that says the Son couldn’t have been begotten prior to the creation. In fact this is just what was taught and what the Scriptures say.
Also, it is very important that Jesus said He came out of the Father. This shows that He had a beginning.

If Jesus himself had a beginning, that would have been the beginning of Creation, and the Word would have been made. How can something begin to exist outside of time? If time doesn't exist, anything that exists must have always existed. If something begins to exist, then time has begun to exist.

Or put another way, if the Son came out of the Father and is of the same essence, how can an essence that is eternal produce the same essence that is not eternal? Humans are finite and we produce finite children. How can God the Father then produce a Son who is not also eternal? That is not of the same essence./quote]

No one said the substance of the Son wasn’t eternal, it came out of the Father, the Father has always existed therefore the substance of the Son has always existed. However, that substance didn’t exist apart from the Father until He begat the Son. It’s like the analogy of fire given early on in this thread.

 

[Randy]

In authority yes...in BEING they are the same.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

I agree as I state Yes to Jesus is God in that context. "The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him" However as I also state I see Jesus as always being the Son. It is clear to me the Father defined who Jesus is. (being) Thats (Jesus) not a God who always was and always was God. The Son has a beginning and thats why the Father is His God.

Fullness of deity (Fathers fullness) also includes "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" No man or angel has that. Only the Father and His Firstborn (The One and Only)

Randy

 

[Robert Hern]

1 John 5:7-8

King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

biblegateway.com

this is very interesting

3 bear record in heaven

three that bear witness in earth

verse 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

With this said, the Word was transformed to become flesh leaving his Heavenly dwelling to become a man in the flesh on earth. The Word no longer existed as a heavenly being until He was resurrected.

 

[Eventide]

Re: The One who inhabits eternity...

I don't agree. What was written about Jesus is regard to what God created through Jesus is past tense. Also God rested on the 7th day after all the aspects of creation we read of in Genesis.

Firstborn of all creation. A Son with a beginning. "All beings such as" = Son + angels + mankind (As is the firstborn being of God)



Setting that aside you can't answer my questions in regard to how you hold to one God with the "Jesus always was" premise. As I state I believe Jesus is all that the Father is. Its the "always was" that is incorrect. Its clear to me the Father defined Jesus's being and was pleased to share His fullness with His Firstborn. And in regard to that Jesus is the "One and Only" there will never be another who God the Father gives His fullness to.

As Paul wrote: (One God, One Lord)
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world†and that “There is no God but one.†5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods†and many “lordsâ€), 6 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.

John 17
As Jesus taught:“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Randy, so in summary you believe that Jesus is GOD.. and that He was NOT created, and that He had a beginning.. although you cannot determine from scripture WHEN he began..

IMO the important part of this is that He is GOD manifest in the flesh.. and the Father gave everything that He had to reconcile the world unto Himself.. not something or someone He just whipped up to send into the world..