The truth about the 3 "Persons" of the Trinity

[D4Christ]

We have several explanations:

1) Jesus, who was at least partially human, preferred to portray humility.

Christ was fully divine and God like his Father. The Son of God humbled himself in obedience to the Father from the beginning. He became fully human and continued his obedience to his Father. After he rose and became fully Divine again he is still in subordination to his Father in heaven.

2) Jesus, being partially human, did not consider Himself to be "fully God" (my opinion).

This would mean that the Son did not fully believe the testimony of his own Father, who said to him:

Hebrews 1

8 But to the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.
You rule with a scepter of justice.
9 You love justice and hate evil.
Therefore, O God, your God has anointed you,
pouring out the oil of joy on you more than on anyone else.â€

3) Jesus always desired to place Father God before/above Himself.

I agree. He obeyed God the Father's will and not his own.

4) Jesus always was wanting to demonstrate to us how we should live our lives,
i.e. praying to Father God, trusting the Holy Spirit to perform miracles, being humble, etc.

I agree his life was a template for how we should be obedient to God the Father. The Son did his miracles on the power of his Father's name. I would not attribute this to the HS unless you can cite a scripture that states it was by the power of the HS that he performed his miracles.

5) Last, but not least, is something that many do not seem to understand:
God has chosen to reveal some of His precious spiritual truths only through the Holy Spirit,
and not through black words printed on white paper.
Note: Jesus' explanation for His usual use of parables (Matthew 13:10++).
Re: believers ... perhaps, different revelations at different times for different reasons.
.

2 Tim 3:

15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. 17 God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.

The black and white words on the paper give us wisdom and the HS helps us understand this Wisdom.

If the ink on the paper says the Son is God...he is God.
If the ink on the paper says the Son humbles himself to the Father who is greater than he is...then it must be the truth.
If the ink on the paper says the Son tells us that he is our mediator and the Father is the True God....why argue with it.

As far as using parables goes, the passage you cited says nothing about different revelations at different times. It speaks about those who listen and desire to understand will get more knowledge but those with hardened hearts will have what knowledge they have removed. Christ used parables to teach and explain information hidden since the beginning of creation (verse 35 and Mark 4:2).

Blessings,
Dee

 

[John Zain]

Sister Dee,

I believe Satan would have known if Jesus was indeed "fully God",
and thus he would not have wasted so much time testing Him.

The gospel says Jesus needed the Holy Spirit to help Him in His work.
It just came to me: He is "the Helper" (NKJV) ... for Jesus and for us.

God's anointing is the Holy Spirit UPON (OT & NT) a person for a special purpose.
Luke 4:18 -- Jesus needed this anointing for miracles and for defeating Satan.
Luke 5:17 -- Jesus needed this anointing to heal people.

Note: The Holy Spirit performing miracles, deliverances, etc.
of course does not prove that Jesus was not fully God.
But, does Jesus indicate in any way that what He did was by the Holy Spirit's power?
I believe not. So, perhaps in this case, Jesus was not showing us how to live our lives
... to trust in the moving of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah, I am not going to lie....you are hard to understand. I am not saying you are not informed for you obviously have studied and have a definite pov. But somewhere between what you think and how it comes across in your writing at times has me lost, although I do try to understand you. But since u took the time to respond I will try to see if I am getting the gist of your main point.

Are you stating that Christ is God and has always been eternal (with no beginning) but his role as the Son did not begin until he became fully human?

Blessings,
Dee

;) See you know what the Bible teaches! Yes, Christ being the second Adam was for the purpose of not only saving the ones who would totally believe him, but to ALSO [[PROVE]] that Adam fall was not any fault of the Godheads creation! Christ came as man which could ONLY USE the power that Adam had access to as man, but in moral perfection.

And that was a YES!

--Elijah

 

[Elijah674]

Ok Elijah, I found this statement you posted in an earlier post that seems to claify what you are saying:



However, if the Son only became known as the Son at conception then why this?

Hebrews 1




How could God create the universe thru his Son if the Son wasn't known as the Son until he was conceived and become human?

John 17 also states that God sent his Son into the world...is doesn't state God sent his Christ/God into the world. This also demonstrates the the Son was named as such before conception.

I understand and acknowledge the scriptrures showing the Son has a starting point also. But I will not separate the Son from Christ to make it work. There is a much simpler explanation.

Blessings,
Dee

Hi again. Excellent question! In Eternity there are Jehova God, Christ God, and Holy Spirit called Holy Ghost.. which is also God of the Gohhead. Christ to be the Son of God was the PLAN to be brought forth.

In Rom. 4 in the last part of verse we read what God does & did do! We cannot because we do not know the end from the beginning of eternity!
'.... before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.'

This is also called prophecy as you well know. And this is where Christ/Son is mentioned. (+ other prophets even) See Jer. 1:4-5 & Prov. 8 verse 30-31which has this Truth even before the N.T. time where Christ/man was a lad on earth being seen of the 'Father' 'rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth; and His delights were with the sons of men.' )

--Elijah

 

[D4Christ]

Sister Dee,

I believe Satan would have known if Jesus was indeed "fully God",
and thus he would not have wasted so much time testing Him.

But that would contradict scriptures because Satan and his demons were fully aware of God the Father and his Son.

James 2

19 You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.

Job 1

6 One day the members of the heavenly court came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Accuser, Satan, came with them.

Matthew 8

28 When Jesus arrived on the other side of the lake, in the region of the Gadarenes, two men who were possessed by demons met him. They lived in a cemetery and were so violent that no one could go through that area.

29 They began screaming at him, “Why are you interfering with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torture us before God’s appointed time?”

And my origninal question remains unanswered. Multiple passages identify one God, the True God, as God the Father. If scriptures point to the God the Father as the True God and the Son says God the Father is the True God, why do people deny this by insisting that God is really the Father, Son and HS together?

(I can kind of guess the answer to my own question....it is because many saved people have been told for so long that the trinity belief is necessary to their salvation, thus a denial of the trinity for many is to reject salvation).

Blessings,
Dee

 

[Slider]

Well, I've been yapping alot on this board so I'll do some more. I do believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, but I don't believe they are a trinity. I can get real deep into this, but I have verses that state or imply that the Father is the Holy Spirit, that the Son is the Father, and that all three have one name only.

The Trinity is just a concept and a way to explain God in human terms. It is a way to try to explain the nature of our God and falls short of what our God truly is. And I believe that those who came up with the concept were pretty stupid individuals (sorry).

I don't hate the Trinity concept; I just see it as lacking ultimate truth. Jesus rose from the dead. That is something remarkable and not one Christian would deny it. Yet this concept of the Trinity has been in question for thousands of years. AS IF we could define God!

I don't have all the answers, but I have enough to says that God is not one God in three persons and not three persons in one God.

 

[Elijah674]

This is short, why not copy it for later thoughts?

There is nothing created that Christ/God was not involved in.. [as God!] (even others world's twice stated in Heb.)

The Gospel is Everlasting as with the Covenant. Everlasting in this context means 'Immortal' with no beginning or ending! Rev. 14:6 + Heb. 13:20

Prov.8:30-31 talks about the 'future'! Christ even playing as a lad in the earth! What was brought 'forth' was the 'plan of salvation'. The GodHead had for/ordained that Christ would become the Son. The PLAN CAME FORTH when it was pre/ordained to be brought forth. (Compare Rom. 4:17's last part of the verse)

In heaven itself the rebellion started. Lucifer was the covering cherub over the [MERCY SEAT.] (Everlasting Gospel) Under the Mercy Seat was the Ark of God, where in were the Everlasting Covenant. (10 Commandments)

The GodHead were not in eternity taken by surprise. They knew that their PLAN OF SALVATION would be required to be BROUGHT FORTH and ON TIME!!

Notice in Psalms 2:7 future tense.. '[I will make the decree]: the [Lord hath said unto *me], THOU ART *MY SON; [THIS *DAY HAVE I *BEGOTTEN THEE].' Surely that is clear? But what day in the future is it stated that Christ was begotten??

In Heb. 1:2 we see that .. 'Hath in the last days spoken unto us by His Son, (But notice this!) ... by whom also He [MADE THE WORLDS]: (plural)

and in verse 5?? We see Psalms 2:7 is now past/tense! 'For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son, [THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE?]'

So the GodHead were, & always will be the GODHEAD! God the Son as we know Him became God the Son at conception by the Holy Ghost! See Psalms 139:15-16.

It was the PLAN that had its beginning on 'earth', yet never was 'eternity' with out the known plan. OK??

--Elijah

 

[D4Christ]

Hi again. Excellent question! In Eternity there are Jehova God, Christ God, and Holy Spirit called Holy Ghost.. which is also God of the Godhead.

I have found this link on the word "Godhead" very useful. It defines Godhead, its usage, its application to the Trinity and its true meaning in the context of the author's intention. I will copy a portion of the larger article. It is rather lengthy though.

But basically the article demonstrates very nicely that the meaning of Godhead is all that makes God, God. Godhead does not mean God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God.

... As "the Divinity," "the Deity," so also "the Godhead" is only another way of saying "God," except that when we say "the Divinity," "the Deity," "the Godhead," we are saying "God" more abstractly and more qualitatively, that is with more emphasis, or at least with a more lively consciousness, of the constitutive qualities which make God the kind of being we call "God."


The word "Godhead" occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (Acts 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col 2:9), and oddly enough it translates in these 3 passages, 3 different, though closely related, Greek words, to theion theiotes, theotes.

To theion means "that which is Divine," concretely, or, shortly, "the Deity." Among the Greeks it was in constant use in the sense of "the Divine Being," and particularly as a general term to designate the Deity apart from reference to a particular god. It is used by Paul (Acts 17:29) in an address made to a heathen audience, and is inserted into a context in which it is flanked by the simple term "God" (ho Theos) on both sides. It is obviously deliberately chosen in order to throw up into emphasis the qualitative idea of God;

..."the Godhead" is very fair equivalent for to theion, differing as it does from the simple "God" precisely by its qualitative emphasis.

Neither of these terms, "Divinity," "Deity," occurs anywhere in the King James Version,

..."Dignity" was originally of the broader connotation; in the days of heathendom it was applicable to all grades of Divine beings. "Deity" was introduced by the Christian Fathers for the express purpose of providing a stronger word by means of which the uniqueness of the Christians' God should be emphasized.

...the best English translation of it would probably be "the Deity."...; "the Deity" alone seems fairly to reproduce the apostle's thought.

...The Greek term in Rom 1:20 is theiotes, which again, as a term of quality, is not unfairly rendered by "Godhead." What Paul says here is that "the everlasting power and Godhead" of God "are clearly perceived by means of His works." By "Godhead" he clearly means the whole of that by which God is constituted what we mean by "God." ...we must beware of limiting the connotation of the term--all of God's attributes are glorious.

..."Deity" more accurately renders theotes, therefore "Divinity" is always the best rendering of theiotes.

... All the fullness of supreme Deity dwells in Christ bodily. There is nothing in the God who is over all which is not in Christ.

Benjamin B. Warfield

 

[D4Christ]

Christ to be the Son of God was the PLAN to be brought forth.
--Elijah

Show me a scripture that says plain and clear (not hinted at) that Christ becoming the Son of God was the Plan.

The only plan I read about is the one that Paul talks about that was hidden but is now revealed thru Paul.

Ehpesians 1

9 God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. 10 And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan.

Ephesians 3

As I briefly wrote earlier, God himself revealed his mysterious plan to me. 4 As you read what I have written, you will understand my insight into this plan regarding Christ. 5 God did not reveal it to previous generations, but now by his Spirit he has revealed it to his holy apostles and prophets.
6 And this is God’s plan: Both Gentiles and Jews who believe the Good News share equally in the riches inherited by God’s children. Both are part of the same body, and both enjoy the promise of blessings because they belong to Christ Jesus. 7 By God’s grace and mighty power, I have been given the privilege of serving him by spreading this Good News.

8 Though I am the least deserving of all God’s people, he graciously gave me the privilege of telling the Gentiles about the endless treasures available to them in Christ. 9 I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning.

10 God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.11 This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord.

The plan is clear:

• To bring all things under Christ
• And that all who believe in the good news share equally in God's riches.

I will have to look at the rest of your post tomorrow.

Blessings,
Dee

 

[Stormcrow]

where do "we" come off stating that they are co-equal, when Christ and scirptures state he is not.

When I saw Him [the risen, glorified Christ], I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Revelation 1:17-18 (NASB)

See that phrase, "I am the first and the last, and the living One"? See it anywhere before? I have...

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. Isaiah 44:6 (NASB)

"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. Isaiah 48:12-13 (NASB)

The risen, glorified Christ Himself appropriated the names of God of the Old Testament, thus confirming His divine identity and eternal "oneness" with the Father.

 

[John Zain]

Perhaps 'tis necessary to list ALL 70+ Scripture verses which reveal that
JESUS CHRIST IS all of the following in Scripture ...
God, equal to Father God, the Creator, the Sustainer (now), the Giver of eternal life, etc.
This can be done with the click of a button ... if anyone so desireth to see them.

Please Note #1 ... the operative word "reveal" above.
Please Note #2 ... 'tis the Holy Spirit who reveals spiritual truths.
Please Note #3 ... to "see" the blue doesn't require parents, churches, pastors, etc.

 

[Free]

If there was no difference between LORD and Lord, then why would Psalm 110:1 use both clearly demonstrating that "LORD" was referring to YHWH and "Lord" was referring to his Son.

There is a difference in the OT between 'LORD' and 'Lord' and in the NT we must be careful when 'Lord' is used. But you don't seem to be following the argument I have made and it's importance.

The point is that in the NT, OT quotes speaking of YHWH, or 'LORD,' 'LORD' is always translated as 'Lord,' and in some instances is directly applied to Jesus. This is significant. In the example I gave of Rom 10:9-13, Paul states that one must confess "Jesus is Lord" (vs 9) and then applies a passage from Joel 3:32:

Rom 10:9-13, 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (ESV)

Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls." (ESV)

It seems clear that the confession that "Jesus is Lord" is closely tied to calling "on the name of the LORD," that is to say, the confession in Rom 10:9 should be understood as "Jesus is LORD." That is my point.

Also, I have pointed out the verses from the Bible that tell us what to do in order to be saved. I am not sure why you feel it necessary to add more to that equation. Clearly there are other things we must know after we get saved because we should continue to grow and mature in the Christ.

I have 'added more' because the Bible 'adds more.' I am simply trying to give all that the Bible states regarding belief for salvation. We cannot just take one or two verses "that tell us what to do in order to be saved," since there are clearly more then those and verses that speak of additional things to be believed, as Romans 10:9 clearly points out.

I think I have stated quite clearly that the Son made everything in "creation" from the sky to the people, to the kingdoms, etc. I am not skipping any verses but like I said before I cannot quote the entire bible. I think it is obvious that "creation" as told in Gen 1 was not an everlasting on going event. It had a starting point. And when it started the Son created "all that was made" during creation.

Okay, here we are in agreement.

My point is simply this....just because the Son was used by the Father to create everything that was made during the "creation" does not mean that he had anything to do with anything that may have occured prior to the starting point of creation. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that the Son could not have be created(born, birthed, or made) prior to an event in which he (the Son) is reported to have been the creator. Verse 3 is pointing to the "creation" of the world and everything that was made within it. It could not possibly be in reference to anything that happened prior to that event and it would belittle God to think that he wasn't capable of doing anything prior to ordering the creation of "our" known world.

But here is where it falls apart. Now you are going beyond Scripture and making it say things it does not say. What we have Scripture clearly saying, and indeed it could not be said any clearer, is that the Son was involved in creating everything that has ever been created:

John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.(ESV)

And very importantly:

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

If you want to keep saying that "all things" means everything but Jesus, then logically it follows that Jesus may not have come through the Father, nor anything else that may have been created before 'the Beginning.' This leads to all sorts of serious issues, not the least of which is that it opens the door for the Father having been created.

But, if, we understand that "all things" in reference to the Father means that everything that has ever been created, it follows that this same idea applies to Jesus and, therefore, it is logically impossible that he was ever created, at any point, ever.

The significant problem is that you want to go beyond what Scripture states and introduce some time of creation when the Son was created. But that idea is utterly foreign to Scripture. The creation of all things, of everything that has ever been created, starts at Gen 1:1. Going with what the Bible says, as we should, that is what we have.

My translation is just fine thank you and per the TOS, I have as part of my signature, that all verses I use are NLT.

The NLT. :bigfrown It is much too loose of a translation for any serious study. Regardless, don't rely on just one translation.

Col 1:16 even further proves my point by showing that "all things" were the things created during creation. Logically if Christ existed before the creation started then it would be an error to apply the "all things" logic to a time period that preceeded the event for which he is given credit. Christ pre-dates creation. Col 1:16 is a reference to creation and the creation only.

We agree and disagree. Yes, Col 1:16 applies to all things "created during creation." However, since this is the only creation and Jesus predates it, it logically follows that he is not created. I don't follow the rest of your argument. I have been arguing that the creation in Gen 1:1 is the creation of everything that has ever been created. That is what Scripture says. If Jesus "predates creation," then he is uncreated. It's as simple as that.

We only find life in the Son of God. Do you not think it strange that Wisdom states in verses 34 an 35;

35 For whoever finds me finds life
and receives favor from the Lord.
36 But those who miss me injure themselves.
All who hate me love death.â€

And this is verified in 1 John 5;

11 And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have God’s Son does not have life.

If Wisdom is not referring to the Son of God then this scritpure is pointing to another and different way to "life" thereby contradictiong NT scritpures.


However, God is not a God of confusion. He made sure that the NT readers would understand that the way to life spoken about by Wisdom in Proverbs was directly linked to God's Son in 1 Cor 1;

24 But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
30 God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself.

I don't know how much clearer this could be.

It is an exegetical error to equate the use of a word in one part of Scripture with it's use in another part without a basis for doing so. We cannot simply say that what is meant by 'life' and 'Wisdom' as used in some NT passages is the same as what is meant in Proverbs, some other OT passage, or even some other NT passage. We simply cannot just draw lines linking passages with the same words to make them say something since they very well may not be saying that at all.

I'll have to get back to this when I have more time.

The Trinity does say The Son is co-equal to the Father, a fact that he consistently denies in scriptures but you still believe it. Saying the Son is not co-equal does not imho deny his divinity. He possess the essence and character of God which makes him God. But the Son is in the role of Mediator and High Priest, foresaking any claim to be God. This is why he calls the Father his God and never says that of himself. 'One God, and one Mediater, who is Christ.....'

Jesus implies more than once that he is God. Again, Phil 2 is key to understanding the relationship of the Father and the Son. And, again, difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature. The Son is co-equal with the Father. The Son is God so it is impossible for him to not be co-equal. That is speaking in ontological terms, that is, of the nature of the being of God. As Phil 2 states, the Son "emptied himself" to become human and in doing so, submitted himself to the Father.

I am not divorcing anything. The Son of God straight up tells us the True God is his Father. Why argue that point? How could you possibly say I'm arbitrary when I am quoting what the scritpures say. And they don't just say it here. The Son tells us in Revelation that God is his God and our God. And we are told in Corinthians that the Son is not greater than God who gave him his authority. And the Son will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father.

In fact God the Father is not an arbritrary statement for it is mentioned in scritpures all the time. Were those who were inspired by God to write down his Word confused? If you can find me one verse that says God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, then maybe I wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

But see, you are divorcing such passages from Scripture. We have already seen that the Son is not a created being. This means he has always existed, which is obviously a characteristic of God alone. Therefore, Jesus is God, and can be properly called God the Son. This phrase need not appear in Scripture in order for it to be true.

Again, we must take into account all that Scripture says about God and reconcile it.

1 Cor 8:

6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

You know what's really scary. Scriptures state rather clearly that there is one God, one True God, the Father. The Son also states this as well as the apostles in the greetings in the beginning of scriptures. Yet most Christians state that there is One God made up of the God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

How is that for a contradiction?

And yet you want to ignore what is clearly stated in that very verse and the points that I have made regarding it. I'll post them again:

1. If we understand 1Cor 8:6 to mean that only the Father is God, it logically follows that only the Son is Lord, despite the many other passages that say the Father is Lord.

2. If "all things," meaning everything that has ever been made, were made by the Father, then it logically follows that everything that has ever been made were made through the Son. The only logical conclusion is that the Son cannot have ever been made and that he is also, therefore, God.

We have to be very careful in exegeting such things about the nature of God. I do not think that this passage was written to state anything regarding the nature of God but is Paul's exposition of the Shema.

I'm confused....the scriptures clearly state that the creation the Son was involved in included the heavens and earth and everthing in them. And to my knowledge the only creation story we have, Gen 1, clearly starts with the creation of our world and everything ever created in our world. Are you claiming to know what was going on prior to Gen? How could you possible know what the Son or his Father were doing prior to beginning the creation of our world. It's not like the Son did not exist...we know he existed before he got started creating?

Huh? You have been the one arguing that the Son was created prior to Gen 1. You are the one "claiming to know what was going on prior to Gen," not I. My point was simply that Gen 1 speaks of the entirety of Creation--"the heavens and the earth"--not just "our world".

Now, as to the matter of whether he came into being or always was....Prov 8 clears that up....but of course that is quickly dismissed by those who tie their salvation to a belief in the trinity.

It only clears it up if you ignore the several passages of Scripture which we have already discussed showing that the Son is uncreated.

Wow...that reminds me of those who used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. There was no time before Genesis....how would you know, where you there? It may not be time like we experience but to suggest that the Father and Son had nothing else going on is limiting for such a powerful God and his Son.

How would I know? Because the Bible suggests it. You are intermixing concepts of time with concepts that don't include time. Most importantly the Bible never even implies or suggests that there was a point of creation prior to Gen 1. Never. You are inserting your own ideas into the text to make the Bible say more than it does, for some unknown reason.

 

[jerzy]

In the beginning was the word [Jesus Christ, Son of God], and the word was with God [the Father], and the word was God. (John 1:1)

Hi.

I have just registered & came across Jn 1:1 apparently proving the Trinity God.

Personally I see nothing in this text referring to Jesus at all but rather to Isa 55:11, Ps 33:6+9 with the Greek word “rhema†confirming in Heb 11:3 the OT understanding of the word “dabar†by which the words were created.


John put it beyond despute in Jn 17:3, 20:17 to mention but two.


The apostles followed in opening of practically each of the epistles with Paul making it fool proof in 1Cor 8:6.


Jesus, without doubt, has the same God as we have. Jesus is the way to his and our God.


Besides, logos don’t ever mean Jesus but clearly contrary like in Ac 10:36.

Further, the older translations as well as modern render logos (low “wordâ€) as "it" not he:


[FONT=&quot]Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

God bless.

[/FONT]