The Trinity

[popsthebuilder]

As I said previously, you’re only providing verses that speak to his humanity, which no Trinitarian would deny. The problem is that anti-Trinitarians avoid or reinterpret, without basis, those that speak to his deity.

John 1:1-18 and Phil 2:5-8 are key.

Lol. He didn't find equality with GOD to be a thing to grasp for. Thanks.

 

[Free]

Not as distinct and certainly not as persons or different persona

Very much as distinct, that is why they're always mentioned as distinct persons. It would be pointless, confusing, and deceptive if they were all the same person. If they were not distinct persons, we would have to ignore the plain meaning of language and grammar. In other words, nothing would be communicated to us and it would be pointless.

The Word was GOD, and then became man. As man the Word was not GOD.

Scripture is very clear that GOD is not man,

On the one hand, that is to take a verse out of context:

Num_23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (ESV)

In what way is God not man? "That he should lie" or "That he should change his mind."

On the other hand, God is spirit, but that in no way whatsoever means he cannot come in human flesh. His nature is not that of a man, but that doesn't mean his nature cannot inhabit the nature of man.

and that we aren't to make GOD in the image of man.

Of course.

Scripture is also clear that the Word/ Christ received back HIS power and glory after ascending back up the right hand of GOD.

And where does it say that? Do you think that God can cease to be God?

GOD is one, not three separate anything.

And yet, there is no verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity, that is, ontologically a single person, if that is what you are saying.

The Holy Spirit of GOD is the very Spirit of the FATHER. The Spirit of the Father which is GOD, is also what Jesus was anointed with. Still one Spirit. Still one GOD.

Are you claiming the Spirit of the FATHER isn't the FATHER,

Yes, that is what every Trinitarian believes--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

or are you denying that the Spirit of GOD is the very means my which all GOD'S people have ever cared me to know GOD or hear GOD? Show with scripture, a singular act carried out by GOD, known to man, that was not done by and through the Spirit and Word of GOD please.

I really don't understand what your point is here. Chances are, I'm not saying what you think I might be saying.

The distinction is that Jesus was mortal man and the Spirit that filled Him was and is GOD.

Jesus was both God and man, the Son of God in human flesh.

Power from on high denotes the power/ Spirit of GOD from GOD/ the FATHER.

It is a reference to the Holy Spirit, which is why I quoted the verse.

Again; I think the distinction is between the flesh and Spirit. "Another" can be seen as "one" and "helper" can be understood as "intercessor". How many intercessors are there between man and GOD? One; Christ/ the Spirit of GOD.

"Another" is allos in Greek, and always has the connotation of "another" or "other." The idea is that it is referring to something different. If I am asked I want another piece of cake, I fully expect another piece from the same cake, unless I'm told it's another cake. What I do not expect is a steak or even a piece of pie. So, "another" can also refer to something that is similar but different. What it does not mean is "one," so your explanation simply does not work.

And, yes, "Helper" is also "Comforter" or "Advocate." That means, the Holy Spirit is another helper, comforter, and advocate, just like Jesus. The only way this makes sense is with the Trinity.

A doctrine shouldn't cause that which is contrary to the nature and will of GOD.

No, it shouldn't.

No, it's not. Christ is the Spirit/ Word of GOD. GOD is also the Spirit and Word. Same one Spirit. Same singular GOD. One being.

Well, you said "GOD and Christ in the believer." That's two.

No, GOD doesn't change. And GOD doesn't have different persona. The Spirit of GOD filled HIS Christ. That doesn't make thean Jesus coequal or coeternal with the Spirit which is GOD. Again l; the word became flesh, set aside his glory and became a man in every way. Man is not GOD.

It seems you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course Jesus wasn't made coequal or coeternal with the Father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the eternally pre-existent Word, the Son, in human flesh. He was coequal and coeternal prior to taking on the form of a man. And as a man, he still was also God, since God can never cease to be God.

Again; I Personally do not think that a doctrine that truthfully describes the very nature of GOD would also be a doctrine that has grand potential for misdirecting the masses.

If you can comprehend God, then he isn't God, at least not the God of the Bible. The nature of God should be, and is, the most complicated, fully incomprehensible revelation in Scripture. So, yes, by his very nature there is automatically going to be large potential for people to be led astray, since people are led astray by much simpler things.

Nor do I think that those who devised such a doctrine; if true; would also be those hell bent on the words and deeds that are wholly contrary to the teachings of the Christ of GOD. I try not to compartmentalize things of faith. I believe a concise whole harmonious picture is good sign that the doctrines one holds to are sound. Yet still; we should always check our doctrines.

Yes, we should check our doctrines, but the doctrine of the Trinity came about, or rather was discovered, precisely because the concept is taught in the Bible. It wasn't something that theologians just came up with that has zero biblical support. If it had no support, it would have died out long ago, or at least during the Reformation, since so many beliefs and other things of the Catholic Church were thrown out.

 

[Free]

Lol. He didn't find equality with GOD to be a thing to grasp for. Thanks.

If that's all you get out of that passage or all that you think I'm saying, then you might want to put more thought and study into what it says.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)

Some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. Firstly then, it was he who did the emptying. And, secondly, he emptied himself of something. That is, there is something that he emptied himself of something that was necessary in the taking on of the human form. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

 

[grace2]

As I said previously, you’re only providing verses that speak to his humanity, which no Trinitarian would deny. The problem is that anti-Trinitarians avoid or reinterpret, without basis, those that speak to his deity.

John 1:1-18 and Phil 2:5-8 are key.

Dont you know that Jesus says His Father is greater than He?

Your "Jesus' humanity" is utterly trins' own doctrine.

that's why I dont continue with you since you continually claim what Jesus did not even mention.

what you are claiming is all unbiblical since you deny Jesus' and His own disciples' clear identity of
God and Jesus.

I will not bother any more witnesses of His disciples since you don't care.

I feel so sad for you.

I am done with you in this thread.

As I said already we are continuing meaningless arguments over and over.

It is not mature Christian-like.

We should know when enough is enough.

blessings.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Very much as distinct, that is why they're always mentioned as distinct persons. It would be pointless, confusing, and deceptive if they were all the same person. If they were not distinct persons, we would have to ignore the plain meaning of language and grammar. In other words, nothing would be communicated to us and it would be pointless.




On the one hand, that is to take a verse out of context:

Num_23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (ESV)

In what way is God not man? "That he should lie" or "That he should change his mind."

On the other hand, God is spirit, but that in no way whatsoever means he cannot come in human flesh. His nature is not that of a man, but that doesn't mean his nature cannot inhabit the nature of man.


Of course.


And where does it say that? Do you think that God can cease to be God?


And yet, there is no verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity, that is, ontologically a single person, if that is what you are saying.


Yes, that is what every Trinitarian believes--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


I really don't understand what your point is here. Chances are, I'm not saying what you think I might be saying.


Jesus was both God and man, the Son of God in human flesh.


It is a reference to the Holy Spirit, which is why I quoted the verse.


"Another" is allos in Greek, and always has the connotation of "another" or "other." The idea is that it is referring to something different. If I am asked I want another piece of cake, I fully expect another piece from the same cake, unless I'm told it's another cake. What I do not expect is a steak or even a piece of pie. So, "another" can also refer to something that is similar but different. What it does not mean is "one," so your explanation simply does not work.

And, yes, "Helper" is also "Comforter" or "Advocate." That means, the Holy Spirit is another helper, comforter, and advocate, just like Jesus. The only way this makes sense is with the Trinity.


No, it shouldn't.


Well, you said "GOD and Christ in the believer." That's two.


It seems you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course Jesus wasn't made coequal or coeternal with the Father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the eternally pre-existent Word, the Son, in human flesh. He was coequal and coeternal prior to taking on the form of a man. And as a man, he still was also God, since God can never cease to be God.


If you can comprehend God, then he isn't God, at least not the God of the Bible. The nature of God should be, and is, the most complicated, fully incomprehensible revelation in Scripture. So, yes, by his very nature there is automatically going to be large potential for people to be led astray, since people are led astray by much simpler things.


Yes, we should check our doctrines, but the doctrine of the Trinity came about, or rather was discovered, precisely because the concept is taught in the Bible. It wasn't something that theologians just came up with that has zero biblical support. If it had no support, it would have died out long ago, or at least during the Reformation, since so many beliefs and other things of the Catholic Church were thrown out.

The doctrine came about through the murder and destruction of opposition.

Not very godly

The rest will devolve to pointless back and forth.
There is one Spirit that is GOD. Yet a god of three persona is too a god of three separate spirits.

 

[Free]

Dont you know that Jesus says His Father is greater than He?

Yes, of course I know he said that, but, again, Jesus said a lot of things, including claiming to be God. You're taking verses which speak of his humanity and ignoring all those that speak of his deity. This is very typical of anti-trinitarians. Pretty much everything they give is out of context.

Again, Phil 2:5-8 addresses this.

Your "Jesus' humanity" is utterly trins' own doctrine.

I don't understand what you're saying here. You don't think Jesus was human?

that's why I dont continue with you since you continually claim what Jesus did not even mention.

I have given two verses in which Jesus claims to be the I Am, two verses which you have ignored. And, I'll give you more things Jesus said:

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
…
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
…
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?

Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”
Joh 16:29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!
Joh 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
..
Joh 17:8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

(All ESV.)

what you are claiming is all unbiblical since you deny Jesus' and His own disciples' clear identity of
God and Jesus.

I haven't denied anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is much more that you're leaving out, so what you have given is taken completely out of context.

I will not bother any more witnesses of His disciples since you don't care.

I feel so sad for you.

I am done with you in this thread.

As I said already we are continuing meaningless arguments over and over.

Meaningless? You just said to someone else that "It is clear it is a salvation issue." If it is a salvation issue, how is this meaningless?

It is not mature Christian-like.

It is mature and Christ-like to reason these things out to come to a knowledge of the truth. What isn't Christ-like is to not seek the truth.

We should know when enough is enough.

We have barely even just scratched the surface. This is the most complex biblical revelation there is, and rightly so since God is infinite and fully incomprehensible.

 

[Free]

The doctrine came about through the murder and destruction of opposition.

Not very godly

That is revisionist history. The foundations of the doctrine have been in extant writings since the second century.

Foundation one: There is only one God.
Foundation two: There are three divine persons.
Foundation three (which follows from the first two): The persons are coequal and coeternal.
(From James R. White's, The Forgotten Trinity.)

The rest will devolve to pointless back and forth.

There is one Spirit that is GOD. Yet a god of three persona is too a god of three separate spirits.

There is one substance that is God, who exists as three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons. That is the biblical teaching.

Do you even realize that your God is deficient since he cannot be love as the Bible says he is, which means he can't be God?

 

[justbyfaith]

If Jesus isn’t God, then we have no salvation. Yet, we know he isn’t the Father.

Some of us know that He is the Father (come in flesh).

They made up three gods and calls it triune god.

While Free does in fact believe in three Gods (while he may disagree because he doesn't realize the implications of his doctrine); in that He believes that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate rather than distinct; I show in many of my posts the reality of one God in three Persons; and how they retain their Oneness even in being three.

That seems to be just an excuse for poor theology based on poor study and an unwillingness to search for the truth.

This is the Theology forum, so if you aren’t going to engage in biblical discussion, then maybe you should not post in here.

That was harsh. If you want to win souls to your point of view, being a little bit more gentle might help you in your agenda.

These being one is in the sense of these Three are in agreement on everything. One in unity, Three in beings!

netchaplain! You are normally right on; but here you have it way wrong! God, being one God, is three Persons. Therefore, He is not three beings, but one being.

Uhm. The bible.is clear that there is one GOD, Which is spirit. Not three beings or three persons or three persona, but one Spirit.

One GOD; one deity, not three gods, not three deities.

I'm in agreement, I would suggest reading my posts on the issue; because they show how what you have said above (which I have enlarged) is true while Jesus is also God.

It's ok that we disagree about the Trinity, it is not a salvation issue but for spiritual growth.

That's twice in a row that you are off-base! Sorry, but the Trinity is a salvation issue (John 8:24); more specifically, the Deity of Christ.

Lol. He didn't find equality with GOD to be a thing to grasp for. Thanks.

He was "in the form of God" (and therefore He was God, according to the express meaning of the Greek)

Very much as distinct,

Sorry, Free; but you don't think of them as distinct but as separate.

In that you say that

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost."

Dont you know that Jesus says His Father is greater than He?

That is concerning Jesus' humanity; not His Deity.

As concerning His Deity, the Bible teaches that Jesus and the Father are equal (John 5:18).

(All ESV.)

That may be a problem; as JW's do not accept the authority of the ESV as much as they accept the kjv.

 

[justbyfaith]

There is one substance that is God, who exists as three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons.

Yes, God is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), who became flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7, John 1:1-3,14). And who He is in flesh is a distinct Person from who He is as a Spirit without flesh.

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is revisionist history. The foundations of the doctrine have been in extant writings since the second century.

What? The doctrine was devised and made law at creeds. Opposition was silenced and killed and threatened if all writings werent turned in to be destroyed.
Its history

Foundation one: There is only one God.

True

Foundation two: There are three divine persons.

False

Foundation three (which follows from the first two): The persons are coequal and coeternal.
(From James R. White's, The Forgotten Trinity.)

False as two was false

There is one substance that is God

...and that substance is spirit

, who exists as three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons. That is the biblical teaching.

One substance wouldn't be co- anything
And none of that is in the bible, but was devised from men's partial interpretations of what they read.

Do you even realize that your God is deficient since he cannot be love as the Bible says he is, which means he can't be God?

GOD can't be love unless GOD is three separate beings? Strange

 

[Free]

What? The doctrine was devised and made law at creeds. Opposition was silenced and killed and threatened if all writings werent turned in to be destroyed.
Its history

You said: “The doctrine came about through the murder and destruction of opposition.” But that isn’t true. The doctrine came about without those things. That they happened after the fact is not relevant as to the truth of the matter. Besides, Arians also did the same.

True

False

False as two was false

...and that substance is spirit

One substance wouldn't be co- anything
And none of that is in the bible, but was devised from men's partial interpretations of what they read.

It’s all in the Bible, otherwise the doctrine would never have come about or been debunked long ago. Yet, the vast majority of scholars, theologians, pastors, and Christians find it quite easily in the Bible.

GOD can't be love unless GOD is three separate beings? Strange

I didn’t say it had to be three, but it certainly has to be more than one.

 

[hawkman]

GOD and Christ live in the believer.

The Holy Spirit lives in the born again person .

 

[Free]

While Free does in fact believe in three Gods

Violate the ToS again and you will be removed from this discussion.

 

[justbyfaith]

Violate the ToS again and you will be removed from this discussion.

You're the boss, dude (apparently not Jesus, here)...

I pray that the Lord will give you especially extravagant foods to eat for the rest of your life, that is all I'm going to say about it.

 

[justbyfaith]

Violate the ToS again and you will be removed from this discussion.

What rule of the ToS did I violate?

It is certainly not that I misrepresented your point of view.

 

[justbyfaith]

Free, my question to you would be,

If

"the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost";

How are they one God rather than three Gods?

If you answer by repeating the heretical diagram, at least people will have a frame of reference so that they know what I am talking about when I refer to it.

It is very deceptive to say the least, is all I'm going to say about it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You said: “The doctrine came about through the murder and destruction of opposition.” But that isn’t true. The doctrine came about without those things. That they happened after the fact is not relevant as to the truth of the matter. Besides, Arians also did the same.


It’s all in the Bible, otherwise the doctrine would never have come about or been debunked long ago. Yet, the vast majority of scholars, theologians, pastors, and Christians find it quite easily in the Bible.


I didn’t say it had to be three, but it certainly has to be more than one.

Was not after the fact. It was made law. and the followers of arius did not do the same.

GOD has to be more than one? Scriptural support?

 

[netchaplain]

According to Jesus, "God is one" is the most important commandment. And claims that His Father is His God and our God. So God and Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are multiple Gods. It is against Jesus' word.

Since Jesus claims it is the most important commandment, It is clear it is a salvation issue.

Do you agree?

In my opinion, there is only "one God" (the Father) as Scripture says; and one Lord Jesus Christ (Son of God and the Father).

What Scripture are you referring to concerning "the most important commandment?"

Thanks for your reply and God bless!

 

[justbyfaith]

In my opinion, there is only "one God" (the Father) as Scripture says; and one Lord Jesus Christ (Son of God and the Father).

What Scripture are you referring to concerning "the most important commandment?"

Thanks for your reply and God bless!

Hi netchaplain,

In my view, there is one Spirit who is God the Father (Ephesians 4:4, John 4:23-24) and Jesus is that same Spirit (John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4) come in flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7, John 1:14).

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[netchaplain]

Some of us know that He is the Father (come in flesh).

While Free does in fact believe in three Gods (while he may disagree because he doesn't realize the implications of his doctrine); in that He believes that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate rather than distinct; I show in many of my posts the reality of one God in three Persons; and how they retain their Oneness even in being three.

"These Three" means three separate beings; and "are one" means they are in the same accord on everything (1Jo 5:7). Also notice that this verse is not in the modern translations, because the manuscripts for the modern translations were wrote by Gnostics.