The Truth About The Trinity Doctrine: The Answer to All Questions.

[Free]

It’s easy to employ that slur that if one is ignorant.

Does the Bible teach to repay a slur with a slur? Yes, I plead ignorance, as I am no scholar on the matter, but you believe Gail Riplinger' utterly irrational arguments on the matter, so you are much more ignorant than I. But, again, start a new thread if you want to discuss translation issues.

 

[Free]

First of all I get the impression that none of you have ever heard from Him.
I suggest you start that two way conversation if you want the certainty of what I state or seek that truth.

Then you would be wrong. I've read the Bible.

Obviously Jesus's spirit is not Divine

Obviously it is, as John 1:1 clearly shows.

and the Deity in Him (fullness) is the Fathers.

The Father dwells in him and he in the Father.

So in regard to His spirit the answer is no. In regard to all the fullness of God living in Him and all that entails in that context the answer is yes.

Again, this is a contradiction and not rational to believe.

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being"

One verse out of many, and I agree with it.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Does the Bible teach to repay a slur with a slur? Yes, I plead ignorance, as I am no scholar on the matter, but you believe Gail Riplinger' utterly irrational arguments on the matter, so you are much more ignorant than I. But, again, start a new thread if you want to discuss translation issues.

Ignorant is not a slur. It’s a state of not knowing something. Unless you are educated in all areas of education, you are ignorant in many things. We all are. The history of texts is just one of them.

 

[Randy]

Then you would be wrong. I've read the Bible.


Obviously it is, as John 1:1 clearly shows.


The Father dwells in him and he in the Father.


Again, this is a contradiction and not rational to believe.


One verse out of many, and I agree with it.

You have the reason I won't listen to you.
I not leading a rebellion nor starting a church nor seeking followers. I have zero reason to lie to you.

And in regard to "oneness" ,not what was given, Jesus had clear teaching.

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—

I in them and you in me—

Is the Fathers Deity not Jesus's- Col 1:19

 

[Free]

You have the reason I won't listen to you.
I not leading a rebellion nor starting a church nor seeking followers. I have zero reason to lie to you.

But you could just be simply mistaken. It would be far from the first time someone prayed and thought they were told something that they weren't. The Bible itself tells us what to believe.

And in regard to "oneness" ,not what was given, Jesus had clear teaching.

I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—

I in them and you in me—

Is the Fathers Deity not Jesus's- Col 1:19

No, the Father's deity is not Jesus's. Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. If the Father in him makes him deity, then he being in the Father either makes the Father non-deity or diminishes his deity.

Besides, we already see from verses 16-17 that "all things were created through him and for him," agreeing with John 1:3 that "without him was not anything made that was made," and 1 Cor 8:6, "through whom are all things." These necessarily preclude the Son from ever having not existed, and eternal preexistence is an attribute of God alone.

Again, John 1:1 makes it very clear that Jesus is truly and fully deity in and of himself. A proper understanding of Col 1:16-17 also make this clear.

 

[Cooper]

I agree. But why do you reject Trinitarianism and yet state here that God is triune? To say that God is triune is to say that God is a Trinity. They are one and the same.

I do not deny the One God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the same as we are one person while possibly being father, son, and spirit. What distresses me is the talk of three distinct persons or gods, with number 1 god not being number 2 god, and number three god not being number 1 god, when we know God is One and cannot be divided.

Do you think that gives reasonable cause for concern?

I do not think I am three persons even though I am body, soul, and spirit. In fact, I know I am not, and the Bible tells us we are in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Randy]

But you could just be simply mistaken. It would be far from the first time someone prayed and thought they were told something that they weren't. The Bible itself tells us what to believe.


No, the Father's deity is not Jesus's. Jesus said that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. If the Father in him makes him deity, then he being in the Father either makes the Father non-deity or diminishes his deity.

Besides, we already see from verses 16-17 that "all things were created through him and for him," agreeing with John 1:3 that "without him was not anything made that was made," and 1 Cor 8:6, "through whom are all things." These necessarily preclude the Son from ever having not existed, and eternal preexistence is an attribute of God alone.

Again, John 1:1 makes it very clear that Jesus is truly and fully deity in and of himself. A proper understanding of Col 1:16-17 also make this clear.

I think your mistaken.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name

You believe Jesus is coeternal and coequal to the Father. Perhaps you can ask Him why He is calling the Father His God and stating the Father alone is the only true God.

 

[Free]

I do not deny the One God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the same as we are one person while possibly being father, son, and spirit.

But that is Modalism. That is one person and three different roles/modes.

What distresses me is the talk of three distinct persons or gods, with number 1 god not being number 2 god, and number three god not being number 1 god, when we know God is One and cannot be divided.

Here is there error: "God" is not equal to "person." The doctrine of the Trinity uses specific language to avoid equating the two. The doctrine affirms that there was, is, and ever will be only one God. I have stated this many times. There are not three gods and this is not in any way "dividing God."

Do you think that gives reasonable cause for concern?

Why should it be of any concern if that is how God reveals himself to be?

 

[Cooper]

But that is Modalism. That is one person and three different roles/modes.


Here is there error: "God" is not equal to "person." The doctrine of the Trinity uses specific language to avoid equating the two. The doctrine affirms that there was, is, and ever will be only one God. I have stated this many times. There are not three gods and this is not in any way "dividing God."


Why should it be of any concern if that is how God reveals himself to be?

Look, whatever you want to call it, makes no difference, the name is immaterial. The definition is simply wrong.
.

 

[GodsGrace]

no

Yes. One God. Three Persons. Seven Spirits.

I agree with the very good post by Free regarding the use of the expression: 7 spirits (of God).

 

[Cooper]

I think your mistaken.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name

You believe Jesus is coeternal and coequal to the Father. Perhaps you can ask Him why He is calling the Father His God and stating the Father alone is the only true God.

This is where the confusion comes in. We forget that Jesus is man in the flesh and God in spirit, and this is the man talking.

 

[Free]

I think your mistaken.
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name

You believe Jesus is coeternal and coequal to the Father. Perhaps you can ask Him why He is calling the Father His God and stating the Father alone is the only true God.

There are two understandings of the Trinity: the ontological Trinity, the eternal relationship between each person of the Trinity and their nature as God, and the economic Trinity, the relationships of each person and their role in creation and the plan of salvation. That is, we see a difference in their eternal relationships and nature, and in how they relate to creation. A point James R. White makes is that a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

We must consider how Jesus, as the God-man, should relate to the other persons of the Trinity. When Jesus states that the Father is his God, he is acknowledging the truth of monotheism, which is precisely what he ought to do, but that is not a rejection of his own deity. We should fully expect him to acknowledge that the Father is the only God.

If we are to take such verses as Jesus acknowledging he isn't truly God, then we have three choices: 1) to start supporting polytheism, 2) believe that Jesus is a false god, or 3) accept that the Bible contradicts itself on the nature of God, undermining its authority and inspiration. We simply cannot take such verses in isolation from the rest of what Scripture shows.

 

[Cooper]

There are two understandings of the Trinity: the ontological Trinity, the eternal relationship between each person of the Trinity and their nature as God, and the economic Trinity, the relationships of each person and their role in creation and the plan of salvation. That is, we see a difference in their eternal relationships and nature, and in how they relate to creation. A point James R. White makes is that a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

We must consider how Jesus, as the God-man, should relate to the other persons of the Trinity. When Jesus states that the Father is his God, he is acknowledging the truth of monotheism, which is precisely what he ought to do, but that is not a rejection of his own deity. We should fully expect him to acknowledge that the Father is the only God.

If we are to take such verses as Jesus acknowledging he isn't truly God, then we have three choices: 1) to start supporting polytheism, 2) believe that Jesus is a false god, or 3) accept that the Bible contradicts itself on the nature of God, undermining its authority and inspiration. We simply cannot take such verses in isolation from the rest of what Scripture shows.

The last sentence is correct.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah, every analogy is going to break down at some point. That water exsits in three forms is Modalism since the same water molecules in a cup can't exist as all three at once. However, water can exist as solid, liquid, and gas simultaneously at a specific temperature and pressure, know as the triple-point of water. It is better (I think the best analogy for the Trinity) although still limited.

This is what I've been saying from the beginning...
every example will be incorrect in some way or other.

I've been reading that link you sent and, my goodness, I do sound like a modalist, don't I?

I had asked you your understanding of the difference between modalism and trinitarianism because what you posted did not include my understanding of the difference, which is this:

Modulism states that the 3 "forms" of God did not always exist, but were created out of necessity at some point in time.

Trinitarianism states that the 3 "forms" of God always existed and were never apart from God (Father).

This makes understanding modalism easy for me.
YOU have made it more difficult !

If I may be so bold as to say that the fact that you understand modalism so well is the reason you stick to every word that is said. You're able to spot it a mile off.

Most of us do not understand it so well and so it's a little easier to speak about something that is almost non-speakable.

How is this in your opinion: I think it explains it really well.

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

[GodsGrace]

There are two understandings of the Trinity: the ontological Trinity, the eternal relationship between each person of the Trinity and their nature as God, and the economic Trinity, the relationships of each person and their role in creation and the plan of salvation. That is, we see a difference in their eternal relationships and nature, and in how they relate to creation. A point James R. White makes is that a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

We must consider how Jesus, as the God-man, should relate to the other persons of the Trinity. When Jesus states that the Father is his God, he is acknowledging the truth of monotheism, which is precisely what he ought to do, but that is not a rejection of his own deity. We should fully expect him to acknowledge that the Father is the only God.

If we are to take such verses as Jesus acknowledging he isn't truly God, then we have three choices: 1) to start supporting polytheism, 2) believe that Jesus is a false god, or 3) accept that the Bible contradicts itself on the nature of God, undermining its authority and inspiration. We simply cannot take such verses in isolation from the rest of what Scripture shows.

What Randy believes is being taught in some churches/denominations.

I know an Assembly of God church in No. Italy that experienced a schism due to the wording: Jesus, Son of God, and what it means.

They pretty much believe that Jesus is the SON of God, as the JWs do.
But Jesus is not The Logos, or the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
I guess there is no Trinity with that belief...

 

[Free]

Look, whatever you want to call it, makes no difference, the name is immaterial. The definition is simply wrong.
.

But the definition is based directly on God's revelation of himself to us in Scripture--one God, three distinct persons of the same substance, and each is coequal and coeternal (if they are of the same substance, it cannot be otherwise).

As I have said before, God is not one person in three different roles or modes. We would have to ignore a lot what we know about relationships and language. As I have put to you several times, and which you have yet to address, how can the Father be his own Son and the Son his own Father? The idea is irrational and so conveys absolutely nothing to us. How can Jesus speak of "another" counselor, if it really is just the same person as he? Again, that is irrational. It would also be very deceptive of God, not to mention utterly pointless. Why not just be one person and leave it at that?

 

[GodsGrace]

But the definition is based directly on God's revelation of himself to us in Scripture--one God, three distinct persons of the same substance, and each is coequal and coeternal (if they are of the same substance, it cannot be otherwise).

As I have said before, God is not one person in three different roles or modes. We would have to ignore a lot what we know about relationships and language. As I have put to you several times, and which you have yet to address, how can the Father be his own Son and the Son his own Father? The idea is irrational and so conveys absolutely nothing to us. How can Jesus speak of "another" counselor, if it really is just the same person as he? Again, that is irrational. It would also be very deceptive of God, not to mention utterly pointless. Why not just be one person and leave it at that?

Because it's too difficult to understand.

 

[Randy]

There are two understandings of the Trinity: the ontological Trinity, the eternal relationship between each person of the Trinity and their nature as God, and the economic Trinity, the relationships of each person and their role in creation and the plan of salvation. That is, we see a difference in their eternal relationships and nature, and in how they relate to creation. A point James R. White makes is that a difference in function does not indicate an inferiority of nature.

We must consider how Jesus, as the God-man, should relate to the other persons of the Trinity. When Jesus states that the Father is his God, he is acknowledging the truth of monotheism, which is precisely what he ought to do, but that is not a rejection of his own deity. We should fully expect him to acknowledge that the Father is the only God.

If we are to take such verses as Jesus acknowledging he isn't truly God, then we have three choices: 1) to start supporting polytheism, 2) believe that Jesus is a false god, or 3) accept that the Bible contradicts itself on the nature of God, undermining its authority and inspiration. We simply cannot take such verses in isolation from the rest of what Scripture shows.

I know who Jesus is. I suggest to you for you to ask Him why in heaven and earth He refers to the Father as His God.

Its also not just Jesus who states that.
and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

 

[Free]

This is what I've been saying from the beginning...
every example will be incorrect in some way or other.

I've been reading that link you sent and, my goodness, I do sound like a modalist, don't I?

I had asked you your understanding of the difference between modalism and trinitarianism because what you posted did not include my understanding of the difference, which is this:

Modulism states that the 3 "forms" of God did not always exist, but were created out of necessity at some point in time.

Trinitarianism states that the 3 "forms" of God always existed and were never apart from God (Father).

This makes understanding modalism easy for me.
YOU have made it more difficult !

But I gave definitions which say the very same. The only things I would say here, is to avoid using "forms" in speaking of the Trinity. It works with Modalism--based on the three supposed "modes" of God--because it is like one actor in a play playing three different roles (modes). With the Trinity, however, because God does not appear in different modes, he is actually three distinct persons.

If I may be so bold as to say that the fact that you understand modalism so well is the reason you stick to every word that is said. You're able to spot it a mile off.

I have studied this stuff for a very long time and come to know that the wording very much matters. For example, "persons," although imperfect, is used specifically to avoid any possible misunderstanding that the doctrine teaches three gods. "Person" is a very different concept than "God."

Most of us do not understand it so well and so it's a little easier to speak about something that is almost non-speakable.

How is this in your opinion: I think it explains it really well.

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Yes, that is a good explanation.

 

[Cooper]

This is what I've been saying from the beginning...
every example will be incorrect in some way or other.

I've been reading that link you sent and, my goodness, I do sound like a modalist, don't I?

I had asked you your understanding of the difference between modalism and trinitarianism because what you posted did not include my understanding of the difference, which is this:

Modulism states that the 3 "forms" of God did not always exist, but were created out of necessity at some point in time.

Trinitarianism states that the 3 "forms" of God always existed and were never apart from God (Father).

This makes understanding modalism easy for me.
YOU have made it more difficult !

If I may be so bold as to say that the fact that you understand modalism so well is the reason you stick to every word that is said. You're able to spot it a mile off.

Most of us do not understand it so well and so it's a little easier to speak about something that is almost non-speakable.

How is this in your opinion: I think it explains it really well.

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

It is easy to become word blind. The Athanasian Creed is correct and the first sentence says it all. "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
.