The Trinity

[Asyncritus]

...

Is Jesus God?

Yes, He is all that the Father is.

I find this an incomprehensible statement.

The Father is He who created all things. If Jesus is ALL that the Father is, then why is there any need for the Father?

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Carefully note the prepositions. They are always difficult and subtle things, but do have the benefit of clarifying matters nicely

from is the word EK, meaning usually OUT OF.

If ALL THINGS are OUT OF the Father, then that includes Jesus.

Therefore any question of equality, and more significantly, of
ETERNITY, does not arise.

We know this is true, because Jesus said so:

Jn 8.42 for I proceeded forth and came from [EK]<1537> God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Yes, He is all that the Father is.

So if He is ALL that the Father is, He is the SOURCE of everything, including both Himself and the Father. Which is logical confusion and worse.

Jesus is the true vine and the Father is the gardener.

Very true. And remember, it is the gardener who plants the vine.

 

[teddy trueblood]

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Carefully note the prepositions. They are always difficult and subtle things, but do have the benefit of clarifying matters nicely

from is the word EK, meaning usually OUT OF.

If ALL THINGS are OUT OF the Father, then that includes Jesus.

Therefore any question of equality, and more significantly, of
ETERNITY, does not arise.

We know this is true, because Jesus said so:

Jn 8.42 for I proceeded forth and came from [EK]<1537> God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Not only is the Son not the source, but he is actually the intermediary (the one THROUGH whom God created all things). This is shown by the use of the NT Greek word dia (or di') which means 'through.' So 1 Cor. 8:6 should read:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from [ex, 'out of'] whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH [di'] whom are all things, and we exist through [di'] Him."

 

[Asyncritus]

BTW

I saw someone questioning my statement that when the definite article is absent, a quality rather than a person is indicated.

Here's a Greek grammar speaking:

The purpose of the definite article is to identify, to limit, and, as the name suggests, to make definite.

Therefore, when the article is present it emphasizes identity and when it is absent, the emphasis can be quality and not specificity, as such.

This grammatical rule is sometimes illustrated with the expression o theon (the God) and theon (God).

When the divine person is intended, a writer will use o theon and when the divine character or essence of God is intended, theon (no definite article) is used.

This is the case, as I pointed out, with 1 Tim 3.16 (God was manifest in the flesh - NO definite article is present) and also with Jn 1.1 ..(and the word was God - no definite article is present, and therefore a quality is being described. 'Divine' is Moffatt's translation because of the absence of the definite article).

I hope that clears the matter up.

 

[JLB]

I find this an incomprehensible statement.

The Father is He who created all things. If Jesus is ALL that the Father is, then why is there any need for the Father?

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Carefully note the prepositions. They are always difficult and subtle things, but do have the benefit of clarifying matters nicely

from is the word EK, meaning usually OUT OF.

If ALL THINGS are OUT OF the Father, then that includes Jesus.

Therefore any question of equality, and more significantly, of
ETERNITY, does not arise.

We know this is true, because Jesus said so:

Jn 8.42 for I proceeded forth and came from [EK]<1537> God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.



So if He is ALL that the Father is, He is the SOURCE of everything, including both Himself and the Father. Which is logical confusion and worse.



Very true. And remember, it is the gardener who plants the vine.

The Father is He who created all things. If Jesus is ALL that the Father is, then why is there any need for the Father?

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, Colossians 1:16


JLB

 

[teddy trueblood]

BTW

I saw someone questioning my statement that when the definite
article is absent, a quality rather than a person is indicated.

Here's a
Greek grammar speaking:




The purpose of
the definite article is to identify, to limit, and, as the name suggests, to
make definite.

Therefore, when the article is present it emphasizes
identity and
when it is absent, the emphasis can be quality and not specificity, as such.


This grammatical rule is sometimes illustrated with the
expression o theon (the God) and
theon (God).

When the divine person is intended, a writer will
use o
theon and when
the divine character or essence of God is intended,
theon (no definite article) is used.


This is the case, as I pointed out, with 1 Tim
3.16 (God was manifest in
the flesh - NO definite article is present) and also with
Jn
1.1 ..(and the word was
God - no definite article is present, and therefore a quality is being
described. 'Divine' is Moffatt's translation because of the absence of the
definite article).

I hope that clears the matter up.

………………………..

As my post (#606 above) shows 1 Tim. 3:16 is properly rendered with the late addition theos (‘God’) of the Received Text being corrected back to the earlier manuscripts’ “Who” or “He who.”

Also, when “the divine person” is intended, John and the other Gospel writers always use (with a few grammatically understood exceptions) ho theos or ὁ θεὸς (ton theon or τὸν θεόν is also usually used for God, but there are a few exceptions).

“and when the divine character or essence
of God is intended, theon (no
definite article) is used.”

No, when a nominative count noun (‘man,’ ‘house,’ ‘father,’ ‘god,’ etc.) does not have the definite article with it in NT Greek), as theos used in John 1:1, for example, it is simply an indefinite noun: ‘a man,’ ‘a house,’ ‘a father,’ ‘a god,’ etc. Try looking up all the uses of anthropos without the article in John’s writings, for example. You will seldom, if ever, find it translated as a quality (‘human?’), but, instead, it is translated as “a man” (indefinite).

 

[farouk]

Sinaiticus has the THEOS abbreciated to two Greek letters, the bar of the 'th' being absent or faded. It makes no sense to accept the reading 'He' in preference to THEOS, on the basis of the faded abbreviation.

 

[rrowell]

BTW

I saw someone questioning my statement that when the definite article is absent, a quality rather than a person is indicated.

Here's a Greek grammar speaking:

The purpose of the definite article is to identify, to limit, and, as the name suggests, to make definite.

Therefore, when the article is present it emphasizes identity and when it is absent, the emphasis can be quality and not specificity, as such.

This grammatical rule is sometimes illustrated with the expression o theon (the God) and theon (God).

When the divine person is intended, a writer will use o theon and when the divine character or essence of God is intended, theon (no definite article) is used.

This is the case, as I pointed out, with 1 Tim 3.16 (God was manifest in the flesh - NO definite article is present) and also with Jn 1.1 ..(and the word was God - no definite article is present, and therefore a quality is being described. 'Divine' is Moffatt's translation because of the absence of the definite article).

I hope that clears the matter up.

That would be me,

Where is the citation, and what Greek? The Bible is not modern Greek, your twisting Greek classes.

 

[Free]

Not only is the Son not the source, but he is actually the intermediary (the one THROUGH whom God created all things). This is shown by the use of the NT Greek word dia (or di') which means 'through.' So 1 Cor. 8:6 should read:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from [ex, 'out of'] whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH [di'] whom are all things, and we exist through [di'] Him."

And yet this doesn't change what the passage is saying. If all things were created through the Son, then it logically follows that the Son himself could not have been created. This is in agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, among others.

 

[Free]

Jesus is the First Born of All Creation. The beginning of the Creation of God the Father. Before all things invisible and visible.

If he is before all things invisible and visible, as you say, then how can he be "the beginning of the Creation of God the Father"? I have dealt with what "firstborn" means numerous times and it does not necessarily mean "born" or "created" or that one even had a beginning.

 

[teddy trueblood]

If all things were created through the Son, then it logically follows that the
Son himself could not have been created. This is in agreement with John 1:1-3
and Col 1:16-17, among others.

　

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term “all,” “all things,” and “every.” This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: “Everyone in this room is under arrest!” Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says “everyone”!

Or “the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems.” There are numerous places in the NT where “all” or “all things” is understood to mean “all other…” or “all other things.” Various trinitarian translations actually use “other” or its equivalent at these places even though it is not actually in the Greek text.

At Heb. 2:8 we read: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” But in spite of such a seemingly clear statement, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the use of “all” in scripture and the teaching of the rest of the Bible (esp. 1 Cor. 15:27) to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., “Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection.…” - see 1 Cor. 15:27 below.

(KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

(NASB)
1 Corinthians 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He [the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him [the Son].

(NIV)
…. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.

(CEB)
…. When it says that everything has been brought under his control, this clearly means everything except for the one who placed everything under his control.



Similarly, we find Paul saying at Phil. 2:9 that God exalted Jesus and “bestowed on him the name above all names.” - NEB.

But, obviously, his name is not above the name of the God who exalted him. Nor can it be above his [Jesus’] own name. Therefore, it is not wrong to add “other” and render this as “God ... gave him the name which is above all other names” as did the translators of JB; NJB; NAB (1970); AT; GNB/TEV; LB; CBW; Beck (NT); ETRV; and NLV.

It is possible, if not probable, from other examples of "all" in the NT, that "all things" in 1 Cor. 8:6 should be understood as "all other things." After all, The Son did not create the Father nor himself.

 

[Asyncritus]

That would be me,

Where is the citation, and what Greek? The Bible is not modern Greek, your twisting Greek classes.

Sorry I omitted this. Here is the citation source:

The Bible Truths Online Greek Course
http://www.bibletruths.net/greek course/Lesson Seven of Greek Course.htm

Do check before insulting. Saves a lot of embarrassment.

 

[Asyncritus]

And yet this doesn't change what the passage is saying. If all things were created through the Son, then it logically follows that the Son himself could not have been created. This is in agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, among others.

Your logic is curious to say the least.

A channel must be created: it cannot exist without a creator.

Jesus of course, agrees with that statement:

Jn 8.42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

He names and identifies His source, His Creator, His Father, His Lord - and denies any self-existence.

I don't know how you can avoid this conclusion.

BTW Free, if I missed this, do forgive me. What is your position on Jesus being temptable? Could He be tempted, or mot?

 

[Asyncritus]

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:3

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, Colossians 1:16

οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα

oti ev autw ektisee ta panta

You notice that by in the verse above is the translation of EV.

It's very odd, and I can only explain it in terms of trinitarian bias in the translators' minds, tat they should translate EN with BY.

The expression IN CHRIST is a completely recognisable NT phrase, and is of great significance in this context.

That doubt exists in the translators' mind is clearly shown by the fact that some very reputable versions do translate EN as IN here in Col 1. 16

16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. RSV

16 For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers — ll were created, and exist through and for Him. WEYMOUTH

16 because in him were the all things created, YLT

So if this is correct, it introduces a very strict limitation on the meaning of ALL THINGS. I really means ALL THINGS IN CHRIST. Meaning, of course, His disciples, not planet earth and all that is in it.

17 And He is before all things, and in Him (EN AUTO) all things consist.

BEFORE opens another question. Does it mean in time? Or in rank order?

In Him, of course, makes it very likely that this describes the disciples because in point of time, and in rank order, Christ was the firstborn from the dead: and is therefore BEFORE all His disciples.

I think we really need to discuss what 'all things' means.

Some translators translate ta pantaas THE all things.

Is this a technical expression in the NT?That's not a silly question, because technical expressions use everyday words with quite different meaningsto the ones normally associated with them. And very often, the user doesn't bother to point out that the technicality exists, simply because he is so familiar with the usage.

 

[Free]

Your logic is curious to say the least.

A channel must be created: it cannot exist without a creator.

Jesus of course, agrees with that statement:

Jn 8.42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

He names and identifies His source, His Creator, His Father, His Lord - and denies any self-existence.

I don't know how you can avoid this conclusion.

My logic is very sound, and that based on a very plain reading of the text, but you are avoiding it's conclusion by reading what you want into the above text.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. (ESV)

You are presuming that "proceeded forth from God" means he was created or not self-existent. However, that he contrasts his "coming from God" with "I am here," would indicate he is likely speaking of his point of origin--he had been with God and now he was there. As for "came from God," it simply means that he was sent by God to earth to do the works he is doing. And that would agree with why he stated his point of origin.

And then one must consider what he says just a handful of verses later in verse 58:

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (ESV)

As has been discussed, this is a clear reference to Jesus referring to himself as YHWH and means absolute existence. So clearly there is absolutely no denial of self-existence in that text. And it must be noted that this is based on a plain reading of the text.

BTW Free, if I missed this, do forgive me. What is your position on Jesus being temptable? Could He be tempted, or mot?

I'm not going there because it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was God. I know where you are going but that argument and others like it have been dealt with ad nauseum on this forum, and have been shown to be based on poor logic and misunderstanding of Scripture.

 

[Free]

　

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject (and others) when using the term “all,†“all things,†and “every.†This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: “Everyone in this room is under arrest!†Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his captain who is with him) even though he says “everyoneâ€!

Or “the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems.†There are numerous places in the NT where “all†or “all things†is understood to mean “all other…†or “all other things.†Various trinitarian translations actually use “other†or its equivalent at these places even though it is not actually in the Greek text.

At Heb. 2:8 we read: “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.†But in spite of such a seemingly clear statement, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the use of “all†in scripture and the teaching of the rest of the Bible (esp. 1 Cor. 15:27) to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., “Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection.…†- see 1 Cor. 15:27 below.

(KJV) 1 Corinthians 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him.

(NASB)
1 Corinthians 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He [the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him [the Son].

(NIV)
…. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.

(CEB)
…. When it says that everything has been brought under his control, this clearly means everything except for the one who placed everything under his control.



Similarly, we find Paul saying at Phil. 2:9 that God exalted Jesus and “bestowed on him the name above all names.†- NEB.

But, obviously, his name is not above the name of the God who exalted him. Nor can it be above his [Jesus’] own name. Therefore, it is not wrong to add “other†and render this as “God ... gave him the name which is above all other names†as did the translators of JB; NJB; NAB (1970); AT; GNB/TEV; LB; CBW; Beck (NT); ETRV; and NLV.

It is possible, if not probable, from other examples of "all" in the NT, that "all things" in 1 Cor. 8:6 should be understood as "all other things." After all, The Son did not create the Father nor himself.

Well of course, that is all common sense and it does nothing to change what is said in the text. There is absolutely no need to understand the verse as saying "all other things," or even to insert "[other]" into the text.

This verse is a clear indication that Jesus has always existed and is in agreement with John 1:1-3, John 8:58 and Col 1:16-17.

 

[joep222]

No, we will never completely understand the trinity. Nonetheless it is true.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

Three persons (not three gods) in one being. The Son submits to the Father in role and relationship. The Holy Spirit submits to the Father and Son in role in relationship. All three persons of the God head are equal in substance and being. Each person of the trinity is fully God. The co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Any analogy we use (e.g. egg: shell, white, yolk; phase of water: solid, liquid, gas) fall very short in truly explaining the trinity.

 

[Asyncritus]

Well of course, that is all common sense and it does nothing to change what is said in the text. There is absolutely no need to understand the verse as saying "all other things," or even to insert "[other]" into the text.

Well you're out on a limb here Free.

Both common sense, English usage, and those 3 texts (like 1 Cor 15.27) demand that somehow 'other' is implied.

This verse is a clear indication that Jesus has always existed and is in agreement with John 1:1-3, John 8:58 and Col 1:16-17.

You are abandoning logic, and taking refuge in pre-conception here.

If Jesus proceeded out of (Gk. EK) the Father, then it must be obvious to any unbiassed person that the Father must have preceded Jesus.

If I came out of (EK) the swimming pool, then it's pretty obvious that the swimming pool was in existence ALREADY. Isn't it?

 

[Free]

Well you're out on a limb here Free.

Both common sense, English usage, and those 3 texts (like 1 Cor 15.27) demand that somehow 'other' is implied.

It doesn't seem like you're understanding what I've said. My logic is very sound and 1 Cor 8:6, despite being continually used by anti-trinitarians, very much supports trinitarian doctrine. It simply cannot be otherwise.

You are abandoning logic, and taking refuge in pre-conception here.

If Jesus proceeded out of (Gk. EK) the Father, then it must be obvious to any unbiassed person that the Father must have preceded Jesus.

If I came out of (EK) the swimming pool, then it's pretty obvious that the swimming pool was in existence ALREADY. Isn't it?

You're not even addressing the points I made. Please do so instead of simply, and erroneously, saying that I am abandoning logic.

 

[Asyncritus]

No, we will never completely understand the trinity.

You're not kidding!

Nonetheless it is true.

Hmmm...

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

[...]
Three persons (not three gods) in one being.

You assume that the HSp is a person?

The Son submits to the Father in role and relationship.

So He is like No. 2 then?

The Holy Spirit submits to the Father and Son in role in relationship.

In my opinion, the HSp is the power of God - sometimes personified, sometimes not.

All three persons of the God head are equal in substance and being. Each person of the trinity is fully God. The co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Well. you've lost me there! That's for sure. But Isaiah has something to say about this:

Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Do you agree with him, or not?

 

[Free]

All three persons of the God head are equal in substance and being. Each person of the trinity is fully God. The co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.

Well. you've lost me there! That's for sure. But Isaiah has something to say about this:

Isaiah 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
Isaiah 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Do you agree with him, or not?

There is nothing there in Isaiah that is in disagreement.