The Trinity

[Tri Unity]

The Bible shows that Jesus is in nature God. He has always existed. He is not, however, the Father, and yet there is only one God. This truly is a mystery.

God is 'one' does not mean "numerically one". This is the problem that modern trinitarian models fall into. This is not taught in scripture, and it was not taught by the earliest fathers. The confusion developed by using the term "of one essence", which can be construed to mean numerically one, when the intention was unity, not singularity. Efforts to distinguish the ontological and economic trinity are misguided attempts to make God numerically one (instead of plural). The ontological and economic are two horns of the same dilemma... they create two essential trinities - hence polytheism. This has developed from misunderstanding the principal of unity. "And they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24); "that they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us" (John 17:21). Neither of these examples are considered to be "numerically one", yet those who preach the trinity created by the Catholic Church try to force this understanding on the Godhead. Quite silly really.

 

[Osgiliath]

Jesus Christ is the "FIRSTBORN of ALL creation" (Colossians, chapter 1). These Scriptures verify He was created, and He was THE VERY FIRST THING CREATED. He is appointed BY GOD to be God's VISIBLE IMAGE


Allow the Son of God to speak for Himself:

• "The living Father commissions Me, I, also, am living because of the Father" (John 6:57).
  
  
• "I have given them the glory which Thou hast given Me" (John 17:22).
  
  
• "He who is not honoring the Son is not honoring the Father Who sends Him" (John 5:23).
  
  
• "I cannot do anything of Myself ... I am not seeking My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me" (John 5:30).
  
  
• "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

Absolute Deity cannot have a Deity!



Jesus Christ is commissioned by God to finish the work given Him by His Father (John 17:3-4). If Jesus Christ is the Father Himself, then He can't be commissioned. If Absolute Deity (Jesus) is commissioned, then what Absolute Deity above Him is commissioning Him? That's the God I want to know.



The Apostle Paul continually uses the phrase, "The God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ." Absolute Deity cannot have a God, nor a Father. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not Absolute Deity. It is that simple.

Jesus Christ is God's Son. It does not get any simpler than this. Do you have a son? Very well then; this is the illustration God has graciously placed in our midst to help us understand the relationship between Himself and His Son.


Also, unbeknownst to most Christians, the orthodox doctrine of the trinity denies the death of Christ. Here is something to seriously think about. The word "antichrist" appears only four times in the entire Word of God. None of these occurrences are in Daniel, Revelation, or any other prophetical book. The only places "antichrist" is found are in the first two epistles of John. The disciple John 1,900 years ago said that there were, even at that time, "many antichrists". The doctrine of antichrist was already spotted in John's day. What exactly IS this doctrine that classifies someone as being "antichrist?"

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits (test them) whether they are of God: because many false prophets (serpents) are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)

And,

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:7-11)

John is talking about "Jesus" coming in the flesh (not Yahweh coming in the flesh). "Come in the flesh" is a phrase means exactly what it says; "in the flesh" - a flesh-and-blood man who was 100% mortal. It does not mean a flesh body "encasing" an immortal "spirit." The trinity doctrine portrays a christ that didn't actually die. It claims He was an eternal spirit being occupying "a flesh container," and then escaped the flesh when he died on the cross. In other words, He didn't really "come in the flesh." Therefore, He didn't really die...... and any christ that did not die on the cross is ANOTHER CHRIST – not our Savior.

This is precisely what John is warning us against. Christians who promote the doctrine of the trinity are actually promoting precisely what John describes as the "doctrine of antichrist;" as it is written in the epistles of John. It is a message of a christ that did not really "die." They are denying the death of Jesus; and denying Jesus came in the flesh, and they are therefore, according to John, ANTICHRIST.

In one stroke of diabolical genius, Satan invented a teaching whereby millions of well-meaning people think they believe in Jesus Christ's death, while at the same time vehemently denying it.

 

[Tri Unity]

Absolute Deity cannot have a Deity!

So it is impossible for God's only begotten Son to share the same attributes, even of Deity, with His Father? This is silly. Of course Jesus shares in the same Godhead with the father. "For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). If the scriptures teach us that the Godhead (Deity) dwells in Jesus, then who are you to deny it?

In one stroke of diabolical genius, Satan invented a teaching whereby millions of well-meaning people think they believe in Jesus Christ's death, while at the same time vehemently denying it.

Nonsense. People have diabolically argued over the meaning of the Godhead. Their arguments have been diabolical and satanic, not what they are discussing. The Godhead is not Satanic - it is how we approach the subject which allows Satan dominion. Satan comes through our unruly behavior which leads to blasphemy. Your demonstrated narrow-mindedness and belligerent comments is what started the antagonism in the first place, giving rise to Satan among us.

You would do well to learn about the doctrine in a historical context before you develop hyper-arian hatred for your brothers. This does not assist in a Godly discussion. It only allows Satan to enter among us.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Tri Unity,

You would do well to learn about the doctrine in a historical context before you develop hyper-arian hatred for your brothers.

What are you talking about Tri? The only one causing problems with anyone is you, and your self-righteous accusations toward everyone. Did you read my last sentence? Well-meaning people? I'm here in an attempt to shed some light on traditions that keep well-meaning people in bondage. I have nothing but love for my brethren. I'm not here to try and convert anyone. I am just sharing what God has shared with me over the course of 45 years. Some will glean things that perhaps may help, and some won't. You would do well to learn how to separate the exposure and rebuke of false doctrine from the people many of us are trying to help in their walk. Why don't you try adding something useful and Biblical to a conversation for once, rather than attacking everyone's posts....you know, the rest of us whose intellects are obviously far inferior to your own. I usually do not respond to superficial prattle such as yours, but enough is enough already. I'm tired of you insinuating things that are only true within your own mind. Hyper-arian hatred ....give me a break!!!!

 

[Tri Unity]

This is precisely what John is warning us against. Christians who promote the doctrine of the trinity are actually promoting precisely what John describes as the "doctrine of antichrist;" as it is written in the epistles of John. It is a message of a christ that did not really "die." They are denying the death of Jesus; and denying Jesus came in the flesh, and they are therefore, according to John, ANTICHRIST.

In one stroke of diabolical genius, Satan invented a teaching whereby millions of well-meaning people think they believe in Jesus Christ's death, while at the same time vehemently denying it.

What are you talking about Tri? The only one causing problems with anyone is you, and your self-righteous accusations toward everyone. Did you read my last sentence? Well-meaning people? I'm here in an attempt to shed some light on traditions that keep well-meaning people in bondage. I have nothing but love for my brethren. Hyper-arian hatred ....give me a break!!!!

You have aligned everyone who believes in the trinity with the antichrist and satan. Who is belittling with self-righteous accusations?

Yes, I happen to know for a fact that the earliest christians believed in the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Our current definition of the trinity is different to the earliest model; but they did believe in the trinity all the same. You have made me and everyone else who believes in the trinity - as well as the earliest churches - to be followers of the antichrist. Are you for real? How could you think that you would not stir up trouble with such nonsense? This is hyper-Arianism that Arius himself never suggested. This disguises your contempt for everyone. Yes, hatred. Only you have the truth of course; everyone else are well-meaning followers of Satan!

 

[Randy]

Yet there's not an indication that's what the word means. The word doesn't indicate what time, but what status the "firstborn" has.

The Apostle states in a similitude between Melchizedek and Jesus, "He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever." Heb 7:3

Perhaps you should also consider:
Melchizedek had no mother or father? Or perhaps a priesthood not based on genealogy but by God's appointment and the length of term of the appointment for Jesus is forever. (Jesus is not a son of Levi) Jesus is a faithful High Priest in His Fathers house forever.

Psalm 110

Jesus has a Father and a God from what I read.

Randy

 

[Free]

God is 'one' does not mean "numerically one".

Sure it does. 'One' always means one. The difference is that of absolute unity or compound unity. It is that latter that the Bible uses for God. But a compound 'one' is still numerically one.

This is the problem that modern trinitarian models fall into. This is not taught in scripture, and it was not taught by the earliest fathers. The confusion developed by using the term "of one essence", which can be construed to mean numerically one, when the intention was unity, not singularity. Efforts to distinguish the ontological and economic trinity are misguided attempts to make God numerically one (instead of plural). The ontological and economic are two horns of the same dilemma... they create two essential trinities - hence polytheism.

We've been through this before. It is your position that is polytheistic (I can go find those old posts if need be), or at least appears so close to it that I cannot distinguish the two. Properly understood the ontological and economic ideas of the Trinity do not in any way create two trinities. Simply put, they are two ways of describing their nature and relationship to each other (ontological) and their relationship with respect to creation (economic).

This has developed from misunderstanding the principal of unity. "And they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24); "that they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us" (John 17:21). Neither of these examples are considered to be "numerically one", yet those who preach the trinity created by the Catholic Church try to force this understanding on the Godhead. Quite silly really.

Again, this is a matter of compound unity. There is only one God (numerically), always has been and ever will be, but within the one Being that is God, there co-exists the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (compound unity). That is made abundantly clear in Scripture.

 

[Free]

Jesus Christ is the "FIRSTBORN of ALL creation" (Colossians, chapter 1). These Scriptures verify He was created, and He was THE VERY FIRST THING CREATED. He is appointed BY GOD to be God's VISIBLE IMAGE

Please read the arguments already made that address this issue. The use of "firstborn" in no way whatsoever means that Jesus was created.

Allow the Son of God to speak for Himself:

• "The living Father commissions Me, I, also, am living because of the Father" (John 6:57).
• "I have given them the glory which Thou hast given Me" (John 17:22).
• "He who is not honoring the Son is not honoring the Father Who sends Him" (John 5:23).
• "I cannot do anything of Myself ... I am not seeking My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me" (John 5:30).
• "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).

And? Simply quoting passages doesn't mean much. Put these together with the ones I have given and make sense of all of them. Why do you want to ignore those passages that show Jesus could not have been created, that show he is God, in favor of these? On what basis do these overrule the others? None of these are in disagreement with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Absolute Deity cannot have a Deity!



Jesus Christ is commissioned by God to finish the work given Him by His Father (John 17:3-4). If Jesus Christ is the Father Himself, then He can't be commissioned. If Absolute Deity (Jesus) is commissioned, then what Absolute Deity above Him is commissioning Him? That's the God I want to know.

This thread is about the Trinity, not oneness theology.

The Apostle Paul continually uses the phrase, "The God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ." Absolute Deity cannot have a God, nor a Father. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not Absolute Deity. It is that simple.

Again, go back and read the arguments already made regarding such statements and respond to them.

Jesus Christ is God's Son. It does not get any simpler than this. Do you have a son? Very well then; this is the illustration God has graciously placed in our midst to help us understand the relationship between Himself and His Son.

And what is a son? Is a son not of the same nature as his father and mother?

Also, unbeknownst to most Christians, the orthodox doctrine of the trinity denies the death of Christ. Here is something to seriously think about. The word "antichrist" appears only four times in the entire Word of God. None of these occurrences are in Daniel, Revelation, or any other prophetical book. The only places "antichrist" is found are in the first two epistles of John. The disciple John 1,900 years ago said that there were, even at that time, "many antichrists". The doctrine of antichrist was already spotted in John's day. What exactly IS this doctrine that classifies someone as being "antichrist?"

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits (test them) whether they are of God: because many false prophets (serpents) are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already it is in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)

And,

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:7-11)

John is talking about "Jesus" coming in the flesh (not Yahweh coming in the flesh). "Come in the flesh" is a phrase means exactly what it says; "in the flesh" - a flesh-and-blood man who was 100% mortal. It does not mean a flesh body "encasing" an immortal "spirit." The trinity doctrine portrays a christ that didn't actually die. It claims He was an eternal spirit being occupying "a flesh container," and then escaped the flesh when he died on the cross. In other words, He didn't really "come in the flesh." Therefore, He didn't really die...... and any christ that did not die on the cross is ANOTHER CHRIST – not our Savior.

Please do more study before making such claims. It is likely that John was dealing with Gnostics who were denying Jesus had come in the flesh since they considered flesh evil. And no, the Trinity does not portray Christ as being "an eternal spirit being occupying 'a flesh container.'" It really seems to me that you do not understand the Trinity at least in part because you deny the Incarnation.

This is precisely what John is warning us against. Christians who promote the doctrine of the trinity are actually promoting precisely what John describes as the "doctrine of antichrist;" as it is written in the epistles of John. It is a message of a christ that did not really "die." They are denying the death of Jesus; and denying Jesus came in the flesh, and they are therefore, according to John, ANTICHRIST.

In one stroke of diabolical genius, Satan invented a teaching whereby millions of well-meaning people think they believe in Jesus Christ's death, while at the same time vehemently denying it.

So, no, that was not at all what John was warning Christians against. It's what you want to believe but it is not the case.

And this is the point at where you will not make any further statements regarding Trinitarinism being of Satan. It is a core tenet of the faith and part of the Statement of Faith of these forums. Any further such statements will be regarded as an attack on Christianity, as per TOS 2.1, and will be dealt with accordingly. http://www.christianforums.net/announcement.php?f=64&a=6

 

[Tri Unity]

'One' always means one.

So Adam and Eve were not two people - they were one person numerically with "compound unity"? If 'one' always means 'one'; then there cannot be any exceptions; for 'one' always means 'one'. If there are exceptions, then the argument is false. Which is it?

We've been through this before. It is your position that is polytheistic (I can go find those old posts if need be), or at least appears so close to it that I cannot distinguish the two.

You have made this same redundant claim in older posts. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Properly understood the ontological and economic ideas of the Trinity do not in any way create two trinities. Simply put, they are two ways of describing their nature and relationship to each other (ontological) and their relationship with respect to creation (economic).

That's the key isn't it - it depends on it being understood through your eyes. Through my eyes the ontological deity that you believe in is different in power, glory and majesty to the economic trinity you believe in. These are two seperate trinities. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!" (Hebrews 13:8). According to you this is not true. You claim that Jesus was different yesterday; for yesterday he was equal in every way to the Father. Today, however, He is not equal to the Father, for He is subject to the Father; but He will be different again after the ecomomy of grace is complete. There is no consistency in this model of the Trinity. This model is not found is scripture, and it was not supported by the earliest christians. Simply put, this is a man-made fabrication.

 

[Free]

So Adam and Eve were not two people - they were one person numerically with "compound unity"? If 'one' always means 'one'; then there cannot be any exceptions; for 'one' always means 'one'. If there are exceptions, then the argument is false. Which is it?

One always means one. How can it mean two or more? What is the point of assigning meaning to words if they don't mean what they are supposed to mean?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that somehow, according to what I have said, that Adam and Eve were not two people. You would need to define some things first before making such an argument.

You have made this same redundant claim in older posts. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

I can show where you said the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three separate Gods. By definition, that is polytheism.

That's the key isn't it - it depends on it being understood through your eyes. Through my eyes the ontological deity that you believe in is different in power, glory and majesty to the economic trinity you believe in. These are two seperate trinities. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!" (Hebrews 13:8). According to you this is not true. You claim that Jesus was different yesterday; for yesterday he was equal in every way to the Father. Today, however, He is not equal to the Father, for He is subject to the Father; but He will be different again after the ecomomy of grace is complete. There is no consistency in this model of the Trinity. This model is not found is scripture, and it was not supported by the earliest christians. Simply put, this is a man-made fabrication.

No, there is only one Trinity. It is your unwillingness to understand that makes you see two trinities. Jesus has always been equal to the Father, so any perceived difference on your part is your error. Difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature. Read Phil 2:5-8.

 

[Tri Unity]

One always means one. How can it mean two or more? What is the point of assigning meaning to words if they don't mean what they are supposed to mean?

According to your logic, assigning the word "universe" to the word "heaven" in genesis must be wrong if the word also means the spirit creatures; and Paul assigns 3 separate meanings to the same word (2 Corinthians 12:2). This must really confuse you.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that somehow, according to what I have said, that Adam and Eve were not two people. You would need to define some things first before making such an argument.

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)​

​

​

According to your logic Adam and Eve must be one person... "What is the point of assigning meaning to words if they don't mean what they are supposed to mean?"
​

I can show where you said the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three separate Gods. By definition, that is polytheism.

I don't believe I used that same language. You are misrepresenting me to bolster your own theory on the trinity.

No, there is only one Trinity.

I know there is only one trinity. You have invented two different models in order to allow for Jesus being deity and also be in submission to the Father. Your flaw is not grasping the oldest and scriptural understanding of the trinity. You have adopted the Catholic model which needed to invent new words and descriptions that are not found in scripture. My understanding pre-dates the Catholic model that you follow.

 

[icee]

I have to side with tri unity on this debate. All three are 100% God the same way all of us are 100% human. I think we get confused on how we use the word God. The word God as in deity there are three. The word God as in priority (for lack of a better word) there is one...the Father. Money can be a person's god...but it is not a deity. In Hebrews the Father calls Jesus God..but then says the Father is Jesus' God. Jesus puts the will of the Father before His own.

I hope I didn't muddy this any further.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Randy]

I have to side with tri unity on this debate. All three are 100% God the same way all of us are 100% human. I think we get confused on how we use the word God. The word God as in deity there are three. The word God as in priority (for lack of a better word) there is one...the Father. Money can be a person's god...but it is not a deity. In Hebrews the Father calls Jesus God..but then says the Father is Jesus' God. Jesus puts the will of the Father before His own.

I hope I didn't muddy this any further.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Jesus calls the Father the One true God. If Jesus always was and always was God how do you believe in one God for on the cross Jesus stated "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"

If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become a Son?

Wouldn't Jesus already be that fullness? (The fullness was pleased to dwell in Him)

One God, One Spirit

Whose Spirit is the Holy Spirit?

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me....

or

I shall put MY Spirit on Him (Jesus) and He shall proclaim Justice to the nations...

I have no doubts Jesus has always been the Son. One in whom God was pleased to have HIS (Father -One true God) fullness dwell. As I stated I presume at the point Jesus was that fullness was given. And such a beginning was before creation, before the angels of God. And a Jesus apart from that fullness has never existed. So I don't need to consider the quality of the Him apart from that fullness. Jesus clearly taught the Father is in Him and in that manner they are one. Hey I have been praying to Jesus as long as I can remember even though Jesus would have started with "Holy Father" in His prayers. I do that too but truthfully I am usually more focused on my Lord in prayer. Those that love the Son are loved by the Father.


Randy

 

[Free]

According to your logic, assigning the word "universe" to the word "heaven" in genesis must be wrong if the word also means the spirit creatures; and Paul assigns 3 separate meanings to the same word (2 Corinthians 12:2). This must really confuse you.

Apples and oranges. Many words have different nuances in meaning based on their context, as is the case with 'heaven'. Numbers however are numbers. At no time does 'one' mean 'two' or 'three' mean 'five.'

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)​

According to your logic Adam and Eve must be one person... "What is the point of assigning meaning to words if they don't mean what they are supposed to mean?"​

But this is precisely what I meant by "You would need to define some things first before making such an argument." You are presuming what is meant by 'flesh,' that it is the equivalent of 'person'.

I can show where you said the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all three separate Gods. By definition, that is polytheism.

I don't believe I used that same language. You are misrepresenting me to bolster your own theory on the trinity.

You did use that language, in this very thread, page 4, post #49:

God the Father is one being, God the son is another being. They are not the same "Being".

As I said, I do not doubt the implied doctrine that Jesus is God along with His Father; and that there is only one Godhead; yet they are both equally God. Think of the word God in the same way you think of King. There is only one Kingdom, but there are three kings (Gods) who rule that Kingdom; and all three are one in will and purpose. God is, therefore, one.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44475&p=678626&viewfull=1#post678626

You clearly believe they are separate beings, three separate Gods, and are only one in the sense of being "one in will and purpose."

I know there is only one trinity. You have invented two different models in order to allow for Jesus being deity and also be in submission to the Father. Your flaw is not grasping the oldest and scriptural understanding of the trinity. You have adopted the Catholic model which needed to invent new words and descriptions that are not found in scripture. My understanding pre-dates the Catholic model that you follow.

It is the best explanation of what Scripture shows--one Being (compound unity) that is God. That is monotheism.

 

[Drew]

God is 'one' does not mean "numerically one". This is the problem that modern trinitarian models fall into. This is not taught in scripture, and it was not taught by the earliest fathers.

I have only scanned a couple of posts, but I think I disagree with you.

I am prepared to argue in great detail that the account of Jesus journeying into Jerusalem in Luke constitutes the promised return of YHWH to His people. In other words, through His actions and words, Jesus is very intentionally telling us "The promised returned of YHWH is being fulfilled in my actions."

This is as close you can get to establishing at least some sense of 'singularity' between Himself and the Father.

 

[Tri Unity]

I am prepared to argue in great detail that the account of Jesus journeying into Jerusalem in Luke constitutes the promised return of YHWH to His people. In other words, through His actions and words, Jesus is very intentionally telling us "The promised returned of YHWH is being fulfilled in my actions."

This is as close you can get to establishing at least some sense of 'singularity' between Himself and the Father.

Is this it? Wow, you would base your evidence for Modalism on this verse:

"This is as close you can get to establishing at least some sense of 'singularity' between Himself and the Father."

Well, you're really reaching!

Jesus said in John 5:43

"I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me."

The singularity is now gone. I am embarrassed for you that you have tried to reach so ambitiously with complete failure.

 

[Tri Unity]

You clearly believe they are separate beings, three separate Gods, and are only one in the sense of being "one in will and purpose."

And you believe in Modalism - that Jesus is basically a phantom of the emanated "being". That you do not acknowledge Jesus as a separate person to the father - this view has always been considered as Modalism. Jesus and the Father are not numerically 'one' - they are numerically 'two' - they are separate and distinct persons.

The Trinity is a unity of 3 separate and distinct persons. They are not numerically 'one'; they are 'one' in will and purpose. You are disputing this by saying that Jesus and the father are numerically 'one', not two. This is Modalism.

"That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us.
And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.
I in them, and you in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have loved me."
(John 17:21-22)

According to the definition you have given on 'one'; these MUST all be numerically 'one'.

One always means one. How can it mean two or more? What is the point of assigning meaning to words if they don't mean what they are supposed to mean?

Your views on the trinity (and many other things) are very discordant.

 

[heymikey80]

Perhaps you should also consider:
Melchizedek had no mother or father? Or perhaps a priesthood not based on genealogy but by God's appointment and the length of term of the appointment for Jesus is forever. (Jesus is not a son of Levi) Jesus is a faithful High Priest in His Fathers house forever.

Psalm 110

Jesus has a Father and a God from what I read.

Randy

One would think that conventionally speaking, Jesus didn't have a father or a mother as to fleshly generation. He was incarnated by God, carried and raised by Mary.

So perhaps there's a very important point the Apostle is making, and rejecting what an Apostle is actually stating would be tantamount to rejecting his Apostleship -- or the One Who made him an Apostle, one.

 

[Randy]

One would think that conventionally speaking, Jesus didn't have a father or a mother as to fleshly generation. He was incarnated by God, carried and raised by Mary.

So perhaps there's a very important point the Apostle is making, and rejecting what an Apostle is actually stating would be tantamount to rejecting his Apostleship -- or the One Who made him an Apostle, one.

No I believe the point was in the order of.... not that Jesus always was.
As far as Apostles "Firstborn of all creation" . We shall certainly see after the life of the body who is correct. I know my Lord and He knows me. Have you ever considered asking Him if He has always been the Son?


The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.â€

 

[Drew]

The singularity is now gone. I am embarrassed for you that you have tried to reach so ambitiously with complete failure.

Your response to my post was:

1. Part strawman. I never said anything that would justify this:

Wow, you would base your evidence for Modalism on this verse:

"This is as close you can get to establishing at least some sense of 'singularity' between Himself and the Father."

2. Question-begging;

3. Patronizing.

I will now make my actual argument and we will see if you actually engage it.

If you do, you will be the first. When, in the past, I have presented this argument, people who would deny the essential unity of Jesus and God the Father have, despite multiple reminders, never actually engaged it.

I wonder why?

Note: All I am presently doing is reponding to my perception that you hold that there is not some kind of unity of essence between Jesus and the Father. To say this does not, on my understanding anyway, deny that Jesus and the Father are separate persons. You may disagree. OK, we'll have that discussion if necessary. I do not even know what "Modalism" means but others tell me I am not a modalist. Again, all I am presently arguing for is that Jesus sees Himself as being so "united" with the Father that He can say "God promised to return to you: He is doing so through me. Therefore, I am, in some sense at least, saying "I and the Father are indeed one"

Stand by please.