The Trinity

[GodsGrace]

Wonder

Part 2

The Jews did the same thing in the first century and modern Judaism continues the practice to the present day. Jesus refers to the first century Jewish Tradition they followed as the Traditions of men:

Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Matthew 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Christianity has chosen to follow the Jews. Not only in having a backwards Bible, not only by following a man-made Tradition, but also by agreeing with the Jews that Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews of the first century remarkably continued to believe in the God of the Old Testament as part of their Tradition, that which God originally revealed to them, that God is a person. With which Jesus agreed. If he had not, then by the Law he rightfully died for not following the God-breathed Old Testament nor the true God. He could not have been the Messiah, he could not be a source of salvation. But the reality is that Jesus never claimed to be God the Son, but rather the Son of God in whom is salvation.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

This is so clear that Trinitarians have no choice but to resort to interpretation to conform it to their Trinitarian presupposition.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in[to] him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

1Corinthians 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

The Bible must be clearly understandable to be a revelation. An unclear Bible is not a revelation of any thing. If the Bible is unclear, it is because one is trying to understand it through the human mind alone. As if it is the same as any other humanly written book. In such a case, one must resort to the practice of interpretation to give the Bible a semblance of meaning. The interpretation then replaces the Bible as objective truth, as the revelation.

A supernatural book requires a supernatural connection in order to be properly understood. The human mind is fallen and prone to seeing imaginary realities. Without a supernatural connection the practice of either interpretation or the negation of the Bible is necessary. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are involved in the living education of the true believer. God as the source, in the Son who teaches, through the Holy Spirit. This is the living author that is present for those who are in Christ, if they walk by the Spirit – and – retain an open seeking mind that is not closed by the acceptance as objective truth of a denominational Tradition of Christianity.

Colossians 1:12-13 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.

Ephesians 4:20-21 But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The difference between this form of education and the secular form common in Christianity is that in this form of education, the author is present. Hence, personal interpretation is unnecessary.

1John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

The Greek word translated as “unction” is the same Greek word translated “anointing” in 1John 2:27. “Holy one” refers to Jesus Christ (cf., Luke 4:34; Acts 2:27, 3:14, 13:35).

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The experience of the anointing is not the special gift of a teaching Elder, nor of the one who speaks in tongues, nor the specially educated leader that teaches the interpretation of a denominational Tradition. It is for anyone who is led by the Spirit. Without which only the human mind is available to understand a Spiritual writing. A human mind that is fallen and too limited to understand much of anything on its own (cf., Evolutionism). A mind that has no choice but to either interpret the Bible to give it meaning or regard it as merely an out of date collection of ancient writings by long dead humans that is of little or no value to someone living in the modern world of the twenty first century.

Hi Board
Can't reply right now, but...

I just saw your Sept 3 post to me.
And the above.

If you don't tag me in, I'll never see your posts!

To tag :
Use the @ sign and write the name immediately after.
OR

Use the REPLY button at the lower right corner of your screen.

Later.

 

[Board]

Free

Free said:
[[there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is unitarian. In fact, the OT leaves open the door for a triune God. ]]

Plural pronouns:

Ps 33:13 The LORD looks down from heaven, they see all the sons of men;
Ps 34:4 I sought the LORD, and they answered me, and delivered me from all my fears.
Ps 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good! Happy is the man who takes refuge in them!
Ps 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, and their ears toward their cry.
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (they are God!), who formed the earth and made it (they established it; they did not create it a chaos, they formed it to be inhabited!): "We are the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 45:19 We did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; We did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek us in chaos.’ We the LORD speak the truth, We declare what is right.

Singular pronouns (KJV; cf., ESV, NASB, RSV). Note the difference. God claimed and the Old Testament people of God believed that He is a singular person. Did God deceive His people? Did God lie? Is the Bible so convoluted that it proves that it is not Scripture as it claims for itself and claimed by others?

Ps 33:13 The LORD looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men;
Ps 34:4 I sought the LORD, and he answered me, and delivered me from all my fears.
Ps 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good! Happy is the man who takes refuge in him!
Ps 34:15 The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, and his ears toward their cry.
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it a chaos, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isa 45:19 I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me in chaos.’ I the LORD speak the truth, I declare what is right.

Clear and direct? The following passage taken in its context clearly and directly says that the Father is the only true God. Implying that no one else is God. Not even Jesus Christ the son of God whom he sent. But to Trinitarians, a Tradition that states that God is a Trinitarian being trumps what is clear and direct in what they themselves claim to be Scripture or the written word of God. A word they also claim is without error if they are conservative. A clear and direct sentence said by Jesus Christ himself according to said Scripture. A word denied when they see fit to interpret it to mean something it does not. A Tradition that according to this verse denies those who follow it eternal life because it claims to know a different God and a different Jesus Christ.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

How much more clear and direct do you need it to be? How would you state that the Father is the only true God so that it means that clearly and directly without question?

Free said:
[[A person can't read the Bible or anything else without interpreting it. Interpretation is something done automatically by the mind as what is read is filtered through every experience, prior reading, etc. It's why we see "as in a mirror dimly." We can't not interpret. ]]

What gives you the impression that the Bible is like “anything else”? What gives you the impression that you are qualified to interpret the Bible? Indeed, what gives you the impression that you, a fallen person (Romans 5:12-21), is capable of adequately interpreting the Bible no matter how much you are educated?

Does the products of interpretation: the 30,000+ denominations of Protestantism, the doctrinal and practical fiasco since Vatican II (1962-65) in the Catholic Church, the differences of the many religions of man, the political differences of the nations - reveal anything to you?

Free said
[[The NT is a continuation of the OT and also brings further revelation of the nature of God. This is why the writer of Hebrews writes: Heb 1:8-12; a quote of Psa 102:25-27 ]]

Why do you think different revelation means further revelation?

The quote of Heb 1:8 comes from Psa 44:6. Do you think the Psalmist was calling the king to whom he wrote God?

Free said:
[[I don't think a case can be made that Luther "seemed to understand that Christianity as he knew it was a false religion." He saw that there were problems with certain aspects of it and wanted only to reform it, to get back to biblical Christianity. He was interested in reformation; the Radical Reformation followed but that was by different people.]]

Luther chose to espouse personally chosen Creeds that agreed with his interpretations. He thereby created his own Tradition, followed to the present day by the conservative denominations of Lutheranism. The moment Luther espoused a Creed he made a choice to not reform the Western Church. He chose instead to rebel against it. In his revolution, the Trinity was retained and Sola Scriptura was not (as evidenced by his acceptance of an authoritative Creed and his calling the writing of James “an epistle of straw”). The real reformation didn’t occur until the Council of Trent (1545-63). Since the Protestants had already usurped the term “reformation” to denote themselves, the real reformation is called the Counter-Reformation.

Free said:
[[Because it's progressive revelation, so it would make no sense to put it in reverse order. ]]

Progressive Revelation implies a reverse order of revelatory authority. Tradition, New Testament, Old Testament. The authoritative order of the real Bible is Old Testament , New Testament. Assuming that Tradition is not a part of the God-breathed Bible, rather something other than said Bible, it has no authority whatsoever being man-made and interpretive.

Free said:
[[There are a number of passages that translators, scholars, and theologians struggle with precisely because they are not clear for one reason or another. Some of it has to do with the difficulties in translating and others with ambiguous meaning, where there could be several possible meanings. ]]

The nature of revelation implies total clarity. Without it “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2Tim 3:15-17) is meaningless. An unclear Bible reveals that it is man-made, revealing nothing except questions that must be answered by interpretations limited only by a Tradition that itself is an interpretation.

Free said:
[[However, I would argue that the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are clear. How to put it altogether isn't very clear and we cannot fully comprehend it with our finite minds, but that doesn't mean that the foundations aren't clear. ]]

Is it clear or is it incomprehensible? The theologians you look to often refer to the Trinity as a mystery. Especially as a last resort when arguing in favor of the Trinity. Trinity as mystery is the ludicrous notion that an accepted doctrine continues to be, after 1500 years of attempting to make sense of it, still incomprehensible. Long acceptance does not insure that the truth accepted is objective truth.

 

[Free]

Free said:
[[there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or directly states that God is unitarian. In fact, the OT leaves open the door for a triune God. ]]

Plural pronouns:

...

Singular pronouns (KJV; cf., ESV, NASB, RSV). Note the difference. God claimed and the Old Testament people of God believed that He is a singular person. Did God deceive His people? Did God lie? Is the Bible so convoluted that it proves that it is not Scripture as it claims for itself and claimed by others?

...

This is begging the question. There is only one God; that is one of the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity. So we should fully expect God to use singular personal pronouns. Most translations also have God using plural personal pronouns:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

Gen 11:7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech.”

Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”

(All ESV.)

What we cannot say from the use of singular personal pronouns, is that God is only one person; they say nothing of the nature of God. They only tell us that there is only one true God, which is monotheism.

Clear and direct? The following passage taken in its context clearly and directly says that the Father is the only true God. Implying that no one else is God. Not even Jesus Christ the son of God whom he sent. But to Trinitarians, a Tradition that states that God is a Trinitarian being trumps what is clear and direct in what they themselves claim to be Scripture or the written word of God. A word they also claim is without error if they are conservative. A clear and direct sentence said by Jesus Christ himself according to said Scripture. A word denied when they see fit to interpret it to mean something it does not. A Tradition that according to this verse denies those who follow it eternal life because it claims to know a different God and a different Jesus Christ.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

How much more clear and direct do you need it to be? How would you state that the Father is the only true God so that it means that clearly and directly without question?

But it isn't clear. In John 17:3, first notice that eternal life is based on knowing both the Father and the Son. In other words, there is no salvation by knowing the Father only. Second, one has to presume unitarianism and disregard the idea that "God" can refer to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, or the godhead as a whole, in order to use this verse to claim that Jesus isn't God. That assertion is circular. We see Jesus, the God-man who is living in submission to the Father (difference in function, not nature), praying to another divine person. We should fully expect that he would refer to the Father as "the only true God," to agree with the truth of monotheism; but that doesn't preclude himself from also being God. Third, we come again to the immediate context of verse 5, in which Jesus claims to have possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation.

Free said:
[[A person can't read the Bible or anything else without interpreting it. Interpretation is something done automatically by the mind as what is read is filtered through every experience, prior reading, etc. It's why we see "as in a mirror dimly." We can't not interpret. ]]

What gives you the impression that the Bible is like “anything else”? What gives you the impression that you are qualified to interpret the Bible? Indeed, what gives you the impression that you, a fallen person (Romans 5:12-21), is capable of adequately interpreting the Bible no matter how much you are educated?

Does the products of interpretation: the 30,000+ denominations of Protestantism, the doctrinal and practical fiasco since Vatican II (1962-65) in the Catholic Church, the differences of the many religions of man, the political differences of the nations - reveal anything to you?

It reveals the difficulty of the endeavor and why prayer and humility are essential. Every believer is to interpret the Bible and try to come to a correct understanding; we are even to see if what is being taught is found in the Scriptures. However, we are never to do it without asking for the Holy Spirit's help, nor are we to do it in complete isolation from every other believer throughout Church history.

But my point was that to read something is to interpret it. The Bible isn't like anything else, but our minds are always the same, or at least very slow to change as they are being renewed.

Free said
[[The NT is a continuation of the OT and also brings further revelation of the nature of God. This is why the writer of Hebrews writes: Heb 1:8-12; a quote of Psa 102:25-27 ]]

Why do you think different revelation means further revelation?

It's not different in the sense that something else entirely gets revealed; it's further detail and clarification that gets added onto what has already been revealed. God revealed himself in stages, or baby steps, which makes sense since that is even how we educate. You just can't dump everything at once, especially in matters so important and complex.

The quote of Heb 1:8 comes from Psa 44:6. Do you think the Psalmist was calling the king to whom he wrote God?

It's from Psa 45:6, but why would you ask that question?

Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)

The Psalmist was clearly writing that verse about God, giving him praise in the middle of the Psalm. And you didn't address the whole point of why I posted Heb 1:8. It is showing that the Father is clearly speaking of the Son, which continues into verses 10-12. There, we have the Father attributing to the Son, a passage from Psalm 102 which is attributed to Yahweh, calling the Son the creator.

If Jesus isn't also God, then that passage in Heb 1 is blasphemous.

 

[Free]

Free said:
[[Because it's progressive revelation, so it would make no sense to put it in reverse order. ]]

Progressive Revelation implies a reverse order of revelatory authority. Tradition, New Testament, Old Testament. The authoritative order of the real Bible is Old Testament , New Testament. Assuming that Tradition is not a part of the God-breathed Bible, rather something other than said Bible, it has no authority whatsoever being man-made and interpretive.

Here is the NT shedding additional light on the teachings of the OT:

Mat 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
...
Mat 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
Mat 5:41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Mat 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Mat 13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Mat 13:17 For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith—

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

Hence, progressive revelation. There are other examples, but that should suffice.

(All ESV.)

Free said:
[[There are a number of passages that translators, scholars, and theologians struggle with precisely because they are not clear for one reason or another. Some of it has to do with the difficulties in translating and others with ambiguous meaning, where there could be several possible meanings. ]]

The nature of revelation implies total clarity. Without it “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2Tim 3:15-17) is meaningless. An unclear Bible reveals that it is man-made, revealing nothing except questions that must be answered by interpretations limited only by a Tradition that itself is an interpretation.

Not at all. We're almost 2000 years removed from the Greek, never mind the Hebrew. Even apart from that there are going to be things lost in translation; that's the nature of it. What you say applies to the autographs and those who knew the languages well enough to understand. Scholars have come a long way and know most of it, but not all.

Free said:
[[However, I would argue that the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are clear. How to put it altogether isn't very clear and we cannot fully comprehend it with our finite minds, but that doesn't mean that the foundations aren't clear. ]]

Is it clear or is it incomprehensible? The theologians you look to often refer to the Trinity as a mystery. Especially as a last resort when arguing in favor of the Trinity. Trinity as mystery is the ludicrous notion that an accepted doctrine continues to be, after 1500 years of attempting to make sense of it, still incomprehensible.

As I said, it's both clear and ultimately incomprehensible. The three foundations are clear:

1. Monotheism.
2. There are three divine persons.
3. The three persons are coequal and coeternal.
(James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 28)

How three persons can eternally coexist within the one being that is God, is incomprehensible, yet the Bible tells us it is the case. It's no different than the incarnation--it is ultimately incomprehensible, yet we can understand what is clearly stated: that the Son became man, without ceasing to be God.

Long acceptance does not insure that the truth accepted is objective truth.

It doesn't, but it adds to the likelihood that it is. Anyone who thinks that their finite mind, or anyone's finite mind, can fully comprehend the infinite God, then that God can only be a god of their own making. Yet, we are given some clear things about God

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

As I said, it's both clear and ultimately incomprehensible. The three foundations are clear:
1. Monotheism.
2. There are three divine persons.
3. The three persons are coequal and coeternal.
(James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p. 28)
How three persons can eternally coexist within the one being that is God, is incomprehensible, yet the Bible tells us it is the case. It's no different than the incarnation--it is ultimately incomprehensible, yet we can understand what is clearly stated: that the Son became man, without ceasing to be God.

I will let you hold on to your incomprehensible mystery, but I will hold on to the Bible teaching that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is a human, now exalted to sit at the right hand of God, in God the Father's Throne, and Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

To match your quotation, I thought the following was applicable:
History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I will let you hold on to your incomprehensible mystery, but I will hold on to the Bible teaching that there is One God,

That is in agreement with Trinitarianism.

Yahweh, God the Father

Can you provide just one verse that shows that Yahweh is only God the Father?

and our Lord Jesus Christ is a human,

I agree.

now exalted to sit at the right hand of God, in God the Father's Throne, and Jesus is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

I agree with this also. None of that proves the Trinity false. Do you think a son is ever different in nature from his father?

To match your quotation, I thought the following was applicable:
History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905)
Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.

Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

Kind regards
Trevor

That just begs the question of whether or not there are contradictions, and just what these so-called contradictions might be.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

That is in agreement with Trinitarianism.

The usual claim, but in reality Trinitarianism believes in three gods.

Can you provide just one verse that shows that Yahweh is only God the Father?

The following should be sufficient if you also include the various numerous NT quotations and expositions of this verse:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

I agree.
I agree with this also. None of that proves the Trinity false. Do you think a son is ever different in nature from his father?

Most Trinitarians claim that Jesus was a God-man with two natures. I believe that Jesus had only human nature Hebrews 2:14, Romans 8:3. God the Father did not create another Deity, he conceived a human, Jesus, the Son of God because the One God, Yahweh, God the Father was his father and Mary his mother.

That just begs the question of whether or not there are contradictions, and just what these so-called contradictions might be.

I will hold on to the simple clear testimony of the Scriptures on this subject.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

The usual claim, but in reality Trinitarianism believes in three gods.

If you’re going to argue against the Trinity, then argue against the Trinity as it has always been given, not a straw man. Besides, that essentially violates ToS 1.4. The doctrine of the Trinity, from the beginning, has been stated to avoid tritheism as a possible conclusion. It is monotheistic at the core.

The following should be sufficient if you also include the various numerous NT quotations and expositions of this verse:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Where, exactly, does that verse mention “Father”?

Most Trinitarians claim that Jesus was a God-man with two natures. I believe that Jesus had only human nature Hebrews 2:14, Romans 8:3.

How does Heb 2:14 support your assertion that Jesus only had one nature? Keep in mind that Heb 1:10-12 has already stated that Father says Psalm 102:25-27 are about the Son, and that Heb 2:10 repeats the exact same argument made in John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17. All of these passages preclude the Son from ever coming into existence, never mind at the birth of Jesus.

And, as I’ve given before, more than once Jesus claims to have preexisted with God. It’s all one very consistent Christology from beginning to end.

God the Father did not create another Deity,

Of course he didn’t. No Trinitarian would ever make that claim.

he conceived a human, Jesus, the Son of God because the One God, Yahweh, God the Father was his father and Mary his mother.

Again, please provide just one verse that shows Yahweh is only the Father. Keep in mind that in Heb 1:10-12, the Father applies a passage about Yahweh to the Son.

I will hold on to the simple clear testimony of the Scriptures on this subject.

You have yet to prove some of your claims or prove anything false about the Trinity.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

If you’re going to argue against the Trinity, then argue against the Trinity as it has always been given, not a straw man. Besides, that essentially violates ToS 1.4. The doctrine of the Trinity, from the beginning, has been stated to avoid tritheism as a possible conclusion. It is monotheistic at the core.

Then I will not repeat my present assessment.

Where, exactly, does that verse mention “Father”?

The following exposition by Jesus claims that it is the "Father's" Throne.
Revelation 3:21–22 (KJV): 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

How does Heb 2:14 support your assertion that Jesus only had one nature? Keep in mind that Heb 1:10-12 has already stated that Father says Psalm 102:25-27 are about the Son, and that Heb 2:10 repeats the exact same argument made in John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17. All of these passages preclude the Son from ever coming into existence, never mind at the birth of Jesus.

The larger context states that Jesus was "made" a little lower than the Angels. If he was a God-man he would not be lower than the Angels:
Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 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 now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Free]

The following exposition by Jesus claims that it is the "Father's" Throne.
Revelation 3:21–22 (KJV): 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Where is Yahweh mentioned in this verse? Remember, I am asking for just one verse where Yahweh is said to be God the Father only.

The larger context states that Jesus was "made" a little lower than the Angels. If he was a God-man he would not be lower than the Angels:
Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 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 now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Whatever you think this passage is saying, it cannot contradict what was stated in Heb 1:2-3, 8-12, and 2:10, nor any other NT passage. But you are pitting them against each other and arbitrarily choosing the above verses to trump the very clear meaning of the others. A proper understanding must take it all into account without any verse or passage contradicting the others.

Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
...
Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Heb 2:10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (ESV)

Those are clear. They align perfectly with many other passages about the Son and the only logical conclusion is that the Son has always existed. If he has not, then those verses and many others I have given are false.

So, when we read Heb 2:5-9, what is being said that doesn't contradict the verses I have given? Heb 2:6-8 quotes Psalm 8:4-6, speaking of humans, "made a little lower than the angels" or "heavenly beings," as it is given in the ESV in Psalm 8:5. Humans are created in the image of God but aren't supernatural beings who live in the immediate presence of God and can see him in his glory. More than that, we are born under the law; we are fallen and in every respect, are lower than the angels.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)

Notice the language--the Father sent forth his Son; that means the Son was already in existence, which agrees with what Jesus said about himself. It also agrees with all the above verses I have given and those I have given previously, including Phil 2:6-8. The Son eternally preexisted as God but was sent forth by the Father "when the fullness of time had come," to be born in the form of a servant, in the likeness of man, for the redemption of creation and salvation of humans. In humble submission and obedience to the Father, he died for our sins, and on that basis was exalted in the sight of men, so that men would bow the knee before him (Phil 2:9-10; Heb 2:9).

Heb 1:2-3, 8-12, and 2:10 speak of the deity and, therefore, the eternal preexistence of the Son. Heb 2:5-9 then, are only speaking of the humanity of Jesus and cannot preclude him from also being truly God.

You never did directly answer the question: Do you think a son is ever different in nature from his father? So, I will provide the obvious answer: a son is always of the same nature as his father; it simply cannot be otherwise. So, if Jesus doesn't also have the nature of God, then he cannot be said to be the Son of God, or the language of Father and Son is meaningless to us; it tells us nothing.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Where is Yahweh mentioned in this verse? Remember, I am asking for just one verse where Yahweh is said to be God the Father only.

I would like to answer only a few aspects. Jesus' quotation of Psalm 110:1 in Revelation 3:21 identifies the "Yahweh" of Psalm 110:1 as God his Father.

Heb 2:6-8 quotes Psalm 8:4-6, speaking of humans, "made a little lower than the angels" or "heavenly beings," as it is given in the ESV in Psalm 8:5. Humans are created in the image of God but aren't supernatural beings who live in the immediate presence of God and can see him in his glory.

Psalm 8:5 is speaking about Jesus who was made a little lower than the Angels. As such he is a human, not a God-man.

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, (ESV)
Notice the language--the Father sent forth his Son; that means the Son was already in existence, which agrees with what Jesus said about himself.

All the prophets were sent by God, including John the Baptist.
John 1:6 (KJV): There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

You never did directly answer the question: Do you think a son is ever different in nature from his father? So, I will provide the obvious answer: a son is always of the same nature as his father; it simply cannot be otherwise. So, if Jesus doesn't also have the nature of God, then he cannot be said to be the Son of God, or the language of Father and Son is meaningless to us; it tells us nothing.

The reason Jesus is called "The Son of God" in the following is because God is the father of Jesus in the conception and birth of Jesus. There is no hint in the following that this demands that Jesus is thus a God-man.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 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.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Consecrated Life]

The "Glory Of God" is God's alone, and God says He will share His Glory with no one.
Thus my Lord Jesus Christ the Son who has no beginning and no end has claimed the Glory of God co-equally with God the Father before the world began.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Based upon God's claim that He shares His Glory with no other, If you assert that Jesus Christ is not co-equal with the Father then based upon Jesus's specific claim of sharing God's Glory " before the world began" then one of them is a liar .
So who is the liar , God or Jesus Christ ?

 

[Free]

Greetings again Free,

I would like to answer only a few aspects. Jesus' quotation of Psalm 110:1 in Revelation 3:21 identifies the "Yahweh" of Psalm 110:1 as God his Father.

But Jesus doesn't quote Psalm 110:1 in Rev 3:21.

Rev 3:21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (ESV)

Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (ESV)

Besides, if Jesus "conquered and sat down with [his] Father on his throne," doesn't that mean that when he "will grant [the one who conquers] . . . to sit with" him on his throne, he is speaking of the Father's throne?

Psalm 8:5 is speaking about Jesus who was made a little lower than the Angels. As such he is a human, not a God-man.

Jesus is truly human, on that we fully agree. But, you're begging the question by assuming that Jesus being "made lower than the angels" means that Jesus is not or cannot also be God.

All the prophets were sent by God, including John the Baptist.
John 1:6 (KJV): There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Except that John didn't claim what Jesus did:

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? (ESV)

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

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.” (ESV)

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

Jesus literally says that he came "down from heaven," that he "came from the Father and have come into the world", that he possessed the glory of the Father "before the world existed," and that he is the I Am of Exo 3:14. What I cannot understand is why you claim Jesus is only a man and had no preexistence, when Jesus's own words say otherwise; never mind the numerous other passages by NT writers that also claim otherwise.

The reason Jesus is called "The Son of God" in the following is because God is the father of Jesus in the conception and birth of Jesus. There is no hint in the following that this demands that Jesus is thus a God-man.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 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.

Be careful to not beg the question; just because he "shall be called the Son of God," doesn't mean that that is when he became the Son of God. That was simply how he was supposed to be known. And, again, there is John 1:1-18, 1 Cor 8:6, Phil 2:6-7, Col 1:16-17, and Heb 1:2, 8-12, and 2:10, which all show that it is logically impossible for the Son to have been created. Paul even uses Jesus Christ in 1 Cor 8:6 and Christ Jesus in Phil 2:5, rather than Son.

The title Son of God is a claim to deity, to be God and equal to the Father. Why? Because a son is always of the same nature as his Father. The Jews understood that very well:

Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (ESV)

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (ESV)

It is important to note that in none of these instances does Jesus deny that he is God or equal to God, which would have been blasphemous if he wasn't actually also truly God.

The sum total of the evidence is that, yes, Jesus was truly a man, but that he was much more than just a man. He claimed to be God, both explicitly and implicitly, which is exactly why the Jews wanted to kill him and why the rest of the NT writers also claim he was God in human flesh. In taking on human flesh and being "born in the likeness of men," he "humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." He submitted himself to the Father for the purposes of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation, but at no point did he cease to also be God, since God can never cease to be God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Free,

Again I would like to state that I will not respond to every reference that you introduce. My upbringing was in Sunday School where we were clearly taught that there is One God, the Father and that Jesus is a human, the Son of God. In my youth I considered the subject of the Trinity was some obscure doctrine held by many churches, but not understood by most. At the age of 19 I was introduced to aspects of the Yahweh Name, and that was now over 60 years ago. I have added a thread "The Yahweh Name" and this also gives an additional perspective, and again this is a different perspective to the teaching of the Trinity. I consider that from my point of view some of the "difficult passages" can be better understood once some aspects of the Yahweh Name are understood. The simplest form of the Yahweh Name is that the One God is the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is a human, the Son of God.

But Jesus doesn't quote Psalm 110:1 in Rev 3:21.
Rev 3:21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. (ESV)
Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (ESV)
Besides, if Jesus "conquered and sat down with [his] Father on his throne," doesn't that mean that when he "will grant [the one who conquers] . . . to sit with" him on his throne, he is speaking of the Father's throne?

Psalm 110:1 has been to me a clear picture of the One God the Father before the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, David's Lord, the Son of God, and then God's invitation for Jesus to sit down at God's right hand in the Father's Throne. Jesus' Throne is the future Temple/Throne of David in Jerusalem which Jesus will sit upon when he returns to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth for the 1000 years. There are many verses that I could quote, but the following may be sufficient:
Isaiah 2:1–4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Luke 1:30–33 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Matthew 19:28 (KJV): And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus is truly human, on that we fully agree. But, you're begging the question by assuming that Jesus being "made lower than the angels" means that Jesus is not or cannot also be God.

To me, although the Trinity necessitates that Jesus is a God-man, it is pretty obvious that such a concept is both impossible and contradictory.

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

I consider John 8:58 should be translated "I am he", the same as John 8:24 and John 8:28. I have also explained in my thread "The Yahweh Name" that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as "I Will Be".

Why? Because a son is always of the same nature as his Father.

Jesus does not fit your erroneous syllogism.

Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.” Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (ESV)

You have omitted Jesus' answer to their false accusation. Jesus also states in reply that he is the Son of God John 10:36.

The sum total of the evidence is that, yes, Jesus was truly a man, but that he was much more than just a man.

Yes, Jesus was a very unique and special man, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, and he was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[GodsGrace]

Greetings again Free,

Again I would like to state that I will not respond to every reference that you introduce. My upbringing was in Sunday School where we were clearly taught that there is One God, the Father and that Jesus is a human, the Son of God. In my youth I considered the subject of the Trinity was some obscure doctrine held by many churches, but not understood by most. At the age of 19 I was introduced to aspects of the Yahweh Name, and that was now over 60 years ago. I have added a thread "The Yahweh Name" and this also gives an additional perspective, and again this is a different perspective to the teaching of the Trinity. I consider that from my point of view some of the "difficult passages" can be better understood once some aspects of the Yahweh Name are understood. The simplest form of the Yahweh Name is that the One God is the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is a human, the Son of God.

Psalm 110:1 has been to me a clear picture of the One God the Father before the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, David's Lord, the Son of God, and then God's invitation for Jesus to sit down at God's right hand in the Father's Throne. Jesus' Throne is the future Temple/Throne of David in Jerusalem which Jesus will sit upon when he returns to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth for the 1000 years. There are many verses that I could quote, but the following may be sufficient:
Isaiah 2:1–4 (KJV): 1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. 2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Luke 1:30–33 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Matthew 19:28 (KJV): And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

To me, although the Trinity necessitates that Jesus is a God-man, it is pretty obvious that such a concept is both impossible and contradictory.

I consider John 8:58 should be translated "I am he", the same as John 8:24 and John 8:28. I have also explained in my thread "The Yahweh Name" that Exodus 3:14 should be translated as "I Will Be".

Jesus does not fit your erroneous syllogism.

You have omitted Jesus' answer to their false accusation. Jesus also states in reply that he is the Son of God John 10:36.

Yes, Jesus was a very unique and special man, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, and he was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation.

Kind regards
Trevor

How could Jesus be a man if He's the Son of God?

If YOU have a son, what is he?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings wondering,

How could Jesus be a man if He's the Son of God?

You are using the same ill-informed logic as Free. How do you read the following which speak of the conception/birth of Jesus?
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 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.

John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[7thMoon]

If you’re going to argue against the Trinity, then argue against the Trinity as it has always been given, not a straw man. Besides, that essentially violates ToS 1.4. The doctrine of the Trinity, from the beginning, has been stated to avoid tritheism as a possible conclusion. It is monotheistic at the core.

The trinitarian doctrine is only monotheistic when recognizes the uniqueness of God. Mangod implications are not monotheism.

 

[7thMoon]

How could Jesus be a man if He's the Son of God?

If YOU have a son, what is he?

Adam is the son of god. Your science is questionable.

 

[7thMoon]

The "Glory Of God" is God's alone, and God says He will share His Glory with no one.
Thus my Lord Jesus Christ the Son who has no beginning and no end has claimed the Glory of God co-equally with God the Father before the world began.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Based upon God's claim that He shares His Glory with no other, If you assert that Jesus Christ is not co-equal with the Father then based upon Jesus's specific claim of sharing God's Glory " before the world began" then one of them is a liar .
So who is the liar , God or Jesus Christ ?

Dude, you need a better old testament quote. I would say neither have lied.

 

[Free]

The trinitarian doctrine is only monotheistic when recognizes the uniqueness of God. Mangod implications are not monotheism.

It still is definitely monotheism. Again, if people want to argue against the Trinity, they need to argue against the actual doctrine of the Trinity and not a straw man version. Monotheism has always been a foundation of Trinitarianism.