There are many mysteries about God.

[Carry_Your_Name]

Prior to Genesis 1:1, there was no creation--yet God was. He was not lacking, incomplete, or undefined before He created. So to root His “core identity” in something that began in time is to tether His essence to something non-eternal, which violates His very aseity and unchangeability (Malachi 3:6; Psalm 90:2).

Yes, God is self-exsistent, He indeed predates His creation, yet how do you know that? Does the bible predates His creation? As a historic fact, KJV did not exist until the early 1600s during the reign of king James I, that's why it's called King James Version. Does the trinity predates His creation? This doctrine was not established until the Nicene Council. Does the incarnation of the Word - not the Word - predates His creation? No, that took place at God's appointed time and place, right? Put it another way, the Word was with God at the beginning, but the Word obviously didn't become flesh - which was created on Day Six, and that flesh was "Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come," right? These are all means to know Him, it's like your avatar "Johann!@#" is a way to know you, but it's not your core identity. If you root His core identity in the Holy Trinity, you root his core identity in all these things that came much later, you fail to recognize his ORIGINAL identity beyond all of these.

And yes, God's "essence" and his works are distinct, you can speculate and theorize God's "essence" in any way you want, folks had done that for centuries, even fought bloody wars, but at the end of the day, only can you truly know him and experience him through his works as long as you live in this world, any attempt to figure our God's "essence" while bypassing his works is a futile attempt of putting God in a box. "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (Jn. 4:24) God's spirit directs you to Jesus, God's truth reveals him through his works, as Lord Jesus defended himself with his works. "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (Jn. 10:37-38)

 

[Free]

It's based on human doctrine, not Scripture.

No, it's thoroughly based on Scripture.

You're putting God in the box of trinitarian theology.

It isn't a box--it's fundamental to who he is.

Mine on the other hand is based on Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, anything else, including his triune nature, derives from there.

You've put God in a box that is required to exist before he can be his core identity.

You do realize I've never said "eternal creation", don't you? How can creator NOT be at the core of his identity when He created time and space out of nothing, ex nihilo?

You completely missed the argument. What I was clearly saying is that while God is eternal, creation is not, therefore, he cannot be an "eternal Creator." You have God's (supposed) core identity relying on the existence of creation, rather than who he is ontologically.

You're essentially saying that God needed to create in order to become his core identity. That means he couldn't have been himself until he created. But, what the Bible shows is that God created out of his core identity; it was an expression of who he is.

I cling to his identity revealed by himself in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14 instead of speculating with my own intellect.

Except that you don't realize that being the Creator isn't at the core of his identity.

If there's a pre-existing nature of His being, that's the mystery OP talks about,

"If there's a pre-existing nature of His being"!? This is one of the most stunning statements by someone who professes to be a believer. Have you actually read and understood the Bible? Of course you think you have, but your statement is really calling into question whether or not God actually exists or is a figment of our imagination. If God didn't pre-exist, then we would not exist. If he pre-existed, then yes, there absolutely is a pre-existent nature of his being.

it's not for you or I to speculate.

We don't have to. Everything I have said is based on the Bible, which is precisely why Christians have believed it since the beginning.

No surprise, typical tactics, accusing your opponent of your own guilt.

So you say while you appear to teach heresy.

The Trinity is a mechanism to know his identity, in and of itself it's NOT his core identity.

Then you have not understood the Bible, nor the nature of Jesus, nor the doctrine of the Trinity.
I see no need for further discussion with someone who calls into question the pre-existence of God and denies the nature of the Trinity.

 

[Free]

Yes, God is self-exsistent, He indeed predates His creation, yet how do you know that? Does the bible predates His creation? As a historic fact, KJV did not exist until the early 1600s during the reign of king James I, that's why it's called King James Version. Does the trinity predates His creation? This doctrine was not established until the Nicene Council. Does the incarnation of the Word - not the Word - predates His creation? No, that took place at God's appointed time and place, right? Put it another way, the Word was with God at the beginning, but the Word obviously didn't become flesh - which was created on Day Six, and that flesh was "Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come," right? These are all means to know Him, it's like your avatar "Johann!@#" is a way to know you, but it's not your core identity. If you root His core identity in the Holy Trinity, you root his core identity in all these things that came much later, you fail to recognize his ORIGINAL identity beyond all of these.

And yes, God's "essence" and his works are distinct, you can speculate and theorize God's "essence" in any way you want, folks had done that for centuries, even fought bloody wars, but at the end of the day, only can you truly know him and experience him through his works as long as you live in this world, any attempt to figure our God's "essence" while bypassing his works is a futile attempt of putting God in a box. "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (Jn. 4:24) God's spirit directs you to Jesus, God's truth reveals him through his works, as Lord Jesus defended himself with his works. "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” (Jn. 10:37-38)

This is all based on very poor reasoning. You're literally calling the inspiration of the Bible into question and essentially denying that God has revealed himself to us in it. Wow.

 

[Free]

God, as revealed in the Bible, is mysterious:
--THREE Persons as Father, Jesus, and Spirit but only ONE God.
--Jesus as all-God and all-human to be able BOTH to die and then rise permanently from the dead.
--invisible but revealed in his actions of creation and salvation.

There are many ways people have devised to sidestep these truths that the Bible reveals. In those ways, humans often want their reason to win out instead of accepting the Bible's witness that God is mysterious. Why? What do you think?

I think it is the Western mindset—the need for everything to be rational and fully comprehensible. Mystery could be seen as irrational or as a problem to be solved, maybe even childish.

 

[Free]

In eastern orthodox, God the Father has always been mysterious, and that's because He as the creator of the universe is OUTSIDE the universe he created, he's beyond time and space.

The Orthodox also include the Son and the Holy Spirit as coequal and coeternal with the Father, having existed prior to and been involved in creation.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it's thoroughly based on Scripture.

I ask you again, which scripture came first, Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, or Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 28:19? Your statement is technically false, because "Scripture" in the bible is limited to the OT.

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3)

It isn't a box--it's fundamental to who he is.

No, it's fundamentally how we get to know him.

You've put God in a box that is required to exist before he can be his core identity.

His "core identity" must be evidence based, and that evidence is his general and special relevation, which are his creation and the bible. These are but means, a "box" that guides you to trace back to his core identity, God is not contained in this box. You however are containing God in this box, in your trinitarian doctrine, therefore you're the one who puts God in a box, not me. I fully concur with the OP's notion that God is mysterious.

You completely missed the argument. What I was clearly saying is that while God is eternal, creation is not, therefore, he cannot be an "eternal Creator." You have God's (supposed) core identity relying on the existence of creation, rather than who he is ontologically.

You're essentially saying that God needed to create in order to become his core identity. That means he couldn't have been himself until he created. But, what the Bible shows is that God created out of his core identity; it was an expression of who he is.

There's no way to know who God is without his manifestation. God was the Word, and as the Word He became flesh and dwelt among us, he was born in the flesh, dead in the flesh, resurrected in the flesh and alive forevermore in the flesh, and the biblical standard that separates true spirit of God from the false ones is this: "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God." By preaching to me a "core identity" of God without His created flesh, you are essentially bypassing the one and only legitimate access to God.

Except that you don't realize that being the Creator isn't at the core of his identity.

Yet that's who he is, king of the universe. Yes, his creation, as his expression, may not be all who he is, but that expression is all we get to know, everything else he is beyond that expression is not for us to know, and I won't speculate through a man made doctrine and condescendingly lecture my fellow believers in Christ with that doctrine like you do.

"If there's a pre-existing nature of His being"!? This is one of the most stunning statements by someone who professes to be a believer. Have you actually read and understood the Bible? Of course you think you have, but your statement is really calling into question whether or not God actually exists or is a figment of our imagination. If God didn't pre-exist, then we would not exist. If he pre-existed, then yes, there absolutely is a pre-existent nature of his being.

Did you pre-exist, sir? Were you with God before the creation? You're making a strawman argument by twisting my statement into "if there's a pre-existing God", while I was actually challenging your stance of idolizing and weaponizing the trinity doctrine which didn't exist until the Nicene council. If you had actually made anything with your hands, not just speculating in your head, you'd be able to relate to God's core identity of the creator by tracing that creativity to God.

We don't have to. Everything I have said is based on the Bible, which is precisely why Christians have believed it since the beginning.

So is everything I have said. The difference is, I let the evidence lead me to a conclusion, you let your preconceived conclusion lead you to evidence.

So you say while you appear to teach heresy.

Hmm, do I? Who's preaching a "core identity" of God while diminishing the significance of the flesh?

"Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God." (1 Jn. 4:2-3)

Then you have not understood the Bible, nor the nature of Jesus, nor the doctrine of the Trinity.
I see no need for further discussion with someone who calls into question the pre-existence of God and denies the nature of the Trinity.

I've clarified that I believe in the doctrine of triniry as much as you do, I just don't evelate that as God's core identity. You're the one who's put this cart before the horse by putting the trinitarian doctrine before the torah, not me.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is all based on very poor reasoning. You're literally calling the inspiration of the Bible into question and essentially denying that God has revealed himself to us in it. Wow.

I'm calling YOUR idolatry and weaponization of the trinitarian doctrine into question. You're the one who's essentially denied God's revelation through his creation by reasoning his core identity beyond his creation, even though all you can know about him is through his creation.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Orthodox also include the Son and the Holy Spirit as coequal and coeternal with the Father, having existed prior to and been involved in creation.

But this doctrine itself did NOT exist prior to his creation, nor was it involved in. I woship God through Christ, the trinity doctrine is but a tool that helps me understand God, it's not a God by and of itself which I base not only my core identity but also God's core identity upon.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is all based on very poor reasoning. You're literally calling the inspiration of the Bible into question and essentially denying that God has revealed himself to us in it. Wow.

In case you still don't get it, just because the bible and the trinity doctrine are divinely inspired doesn't mean these are idols to worship. The trinity doctrine might be your sacred cow, but not mine.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Orthodox also include the Son and the Holy Spirit as coequal and coeternal with the Father, having existed prior to and been involved in creation.

Orthodox takes an evidence based approach, it traces the attributes of the Father, Son and Spirit to the trinity, trace the trinity to God, then reach the conclusion of this triune nature. Therefore the triniry doctrine is an intermediate mechanism and expression, through which God has revealed himself to his people, who God really is beyond this mechanism is a mystery, which Orthodox humbly acknowledges. What you did however is the polar opposite, you start with that conclusion, extrapolate to the trinity, then to the attributes, this is like locking down on a suspect first then looking for evidence to convict him. Despite all these, you accuse me of poor reasoning? Pfft, have a good day - or good night, God bless.

 

[Free]

I ask you again, which scripture came first, Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, or Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 28:19?

How is that at all relevant? What matters is what the chronological order is of what is stated in those passages; of what "period of time" they speak of.

Your statement is technically false, because "Scripture" in the bible is limited to the OT.

This is simply not true.

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15:3)

You left out some very important verses:

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (ESV)

In the first quote, Paul is quoting Deut 25:4. In the second, he is quoting Luke 10:7 (cf. Matt 10:10), saying that it is Scripture. Paul is explicitly saying that Luke's gospel is Scripture, on par with the OT Scriptures.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

First Peter says that Paul wrote "according to the wisdom given him," which means what he wrote was based on wisdom from God (inspired). Then Peter equates Paul's letters with "the other Scriptures," being the OT. Peter is very strongly implying that he thinks Paul's writings are Scripture in the same way the OT books are Scripture.

Putting that together then, Paul's writings were seen as Scripture, so it stands to reason that all the Apostles' writings are Scripture. It also stands to reason that since Luke's gospel was seen as Scripture, that all the writings of close associates of the Apostles were seen as Scripture. That is the entire NT.

No, it's fundamentally how we get to know him.

It is who he is.

His "core identity" must be evidence based, and that evidence is his general and special relevation, which are his creation and the bible.

You're confusing God with his Creation, which is an act of God. Creation tells us things about God, but it is not, and cannot be, the core of his identity. Again, you're making an act of God the core of who he is while ignoring the fact that he necessarily pre-existed for all "eternity past." Who he was in that eternal pre-existence is at the core of who he is.

To make Creation the core of God's identity means that God had to create in order to have identity. That doesn't make sense, at all.

These are but means, a "box" that guides you to trace back to his core identity, God is not contained in this box. You however are containing God in this box, in your trinitarian doctrine, therefore you're the one who puts God in a box, not me.

God either is who he is or he is not. In the Bible he reveals himself to be three divine, coequal, coeternal persons. That is who he is. I'm not sure how believing what God says about himself is putting him in a box. The box is limiting God's core identity to being the Creator, as there are things creation doesn't reveal about God.

I fully concur with the OP's notion that God is mysterious.

The Trinity shows just how mysterious he is.

There's no way to know who God is without his manifestation.

Sure, if one was to ignore the Bible.

God was the Word, and as the Word He became flesh and dwelt among us, he was born in the flesh, dead in the flesh, resurrected in the flesh and alive forevermore in the flesh,

Yes, but "God" and "Word" are not interchangeable; "God was the Word" means that the Word was God in nature. Also, the Word is not all of God--"the Word was with God." That is, there is an eternal distinctness between the person who is the Word and person of the Father (and the Spirit).

and the biblical standard that separates true spirit of God from the false ones is this: "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God."

You're really confusing different aspects of theology. I don't see what this out-of-context proof-texting has to do with this discussion.

By preaching to me a "core identity" of God without His created flesh, you are essentially bypassing the one and only legitimate access to God.

No, I'm not; your conclusion doesn't follow.

Yet that's who he is, king of the universe. Yes, his creation, as his expression, may not be all who he is, but that expression is all we get to know, everything else he is beyond that expression is not for us to know,

"That expression is all we get to know, everything else he is beyond that expression is not for us to know" is not at all biblical. That is an excessively narrow view and omits large portions of Scripture, such as 1 John 4:8, 16; that God is love.

I won't speculate through a man made doctrine and condescendingly lecture my fellow believers in Christ with that doctrine like you do.

Right. And you just speak condescendingly regardless. Is the doctrine man-made or did man discover what God has revealed about himself?

Did you pre-exist, sir? Were you with God before the creation?

What kinds of questions are these?

You're making a strawman argument by twisting my statement into "if there's a pre-existing God",

That isn't quite what I said. You stated: "If there's a pre-existing nature of His being." But, if he is a being, and he is, then he necessarily has a pre-existing nature. To call into question the existence of his nature, is to call into question the existence of his being.

And, we are told a fair bit about his nature in the Bible, some of which comes from the fact that he is the creator.

while I was actually challenging your stance of idolizing and weaponizing the trinity doctrine which didn't exist until the Nicene council. If you had actually made anything with your hands, not just speculating in your head, you'd be able to relate to God's core identity of the creator by tracing that creativity to God.

I haven't weaponized anything. The doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation of all that God has revealed about himself, about the nature of his being, in the Bible. It is who he is from all eternity, prior to any creation.

So is everything I have said. The difference is, I let the evidence lead me to a conclusion, you let your preconceived conclusion lead you to evidence.

You've said some things based on the Bible, while ignoring many other things the Bible says.

Hmm, do I? Who's preaching a "core identity" of God while diminishing the significance of the flesh?

Not I; not once. You're once again reading far too much into what others say by making assumptions that go beyond what is stated.

I've clarified that I believe in the doctrine of triniry as much as you do, I just don't evelate that as God's core identity.

Then you may not actually believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, since it describes God has he self-existed for all "eternity past."

You're the one who's put this cart before the horse by putting the trinitarian doctrine before the torah, not me.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the core of who God is, along with his attributes; it describes the very nature of his being as he has revealed in the Bible.

 

[Free]

I'm calling YOUR idolatry and weaponization of the trinitarian doctrine into question. You're the one who's essentially denied God's revelation through his creation by reasoning his core identity beyond his creation, even though all you can know about him is through his creation.

Be careful in saying someone is guilty of idolatry when it could actually be you, especially when you argue here to natural revelation and exclude special revelation. And, again, I have weaponized nothing, nor have I denied anything. It would be helpful if you read the entire Bible with a view to understanding just what it reveals about God that is not revealed through his creation.

https://biblehub.com/topical/u/understanding_god's_identity.htm

In case you still don't get it, just because the bible and the trinity doctrine are divinely inspired doesn't mean these are idols to worship.

Of course. It's possible that someone out there worships them.

The trinity doctrine might be your sacred cow, but not mine.

It isn't a sacred cow, but it is at the heart of who God is, so we should rightly understand it and how everything else relates to it.

Orthodox takes an evidence based approach, it traces the attributes of the Father, Son and Spirit to the trinity, trace the trinity to God, then reach the conclusion of this triune nature. Therefore the triniry doctrine is an intermediate mechanism and expression, through which God has revealed himself to his people, who God really is beyond this mechanism is a mystery, which Orthodox humbly acknowledges. What you did however is the polar opposite, you start with that conclusion, extrapolate to the trinity, then to the attributes, this is like locking down on a suspect first then looking for evidence to convict him. Despite all these, you accuse me of poor reasoning? Pfft, have a good day - or good night, God bless.

My point is that you were arguing to the Orthodox believing only the Father was eternal. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should be much more careful in how you word things. To say that the "Trinity doctrine is an intermediate mechanism and expression" is actually Modalism, especially since you made the argument to only the Father being eternal. So, unless you have a source that supports that that is what the Orthodox believe, it would seem that you have misunderstood their theology.

 

[RandyK]

God, as revealed in the Bible, is mysterious:
--THREE Persons as Father, Jesus, and Spirit but only ONE God.
--Jesus as all-God and all-human to be able BOTH to die and then rise permanently from the dead.
--invisible but revealed in his actions of creation and salvation.

There are many ways people have devised to sidestep these truths that the Bible reveals. In those ways, humans often want their reason to win out instead of accepting the Bible's witness that God is mysterious. Why? What do you think?

Why do people want their "Reason" to win out over "Revelation?" I think it is in the very nature of Sin to want independent control over things. In the matter of Revelation from God, sinners want to see things the way they wish reality to be, as opposed to how God reveals them to actually be.

It is enough, I think, to experience the same God in each Person of the Trinity. I personally experience God when I pray to the Father. I see and experience the witness of God's Person when I read about the Son in the Bible. And when the Holy Spirit moves in a church service, I sense the very same God that I experience with the Father and the Son. Same Divine experience, but three distinct Persons.

I submit to this reality not just because I love God and want to believe in Him, but also because my mind rationally accepts it as reality, as conforming to all that I experience in my life. And I know, as a repentant sinner, that it is the right thing to do, to accept the Lord as our one God--the Lord over my life and my Creator, who has the right to treat me any way He wishes. I have to humble my pride and accept this, whereas many others will not do so.

 

[RandyK]

Yes, but "God" and "Word" are not interchangeable; "God was the Word" means that the Word was God in nature. Also, the Word is not all of God--"the Word was with God." That is, there is an eternal distinctness between the person who is the Word and person of the Father (and the Spirit).

Just dealing with this one thought, which I find fascinating! How true it is that God and His Word are not "interchangeable," as you suggest. They are related, but also distinct.

I think that distinction is related to Divine movement. You might ask how the Holy Spirit "moved" over the face of the deep (Gen 1)? If God is everywhere at once, how can He move at all?

But God does move via His Holy Spirit by operating in the acts of Creation. And God reveals in the acts of Creation via His Word, as well.

So God is the source of His revelation. And the Word is the actual revelation issuing out of God, the source.

This reflects a necessary relationship, but also a necessary distinction--a movement from God outwards to produce something from Himself, expressing HIs own Personality.

How could God, an infinite Being reveal Himself in time, in the form of a finite man? Well, He did so by means of His Spirit and His Word, in the acts of Creation. It showed the revelation of these Divine Persons within space and time, just as He created space and time themselves.

Fascinating!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How is that at all relevant? What matters is what the chronological order is of what is stated in those passages; of what "period of time" they speak of.

Is the OT revelant? Is the NT standalone on itself, or built upon the foundation of the OT, especially the Torah?

You left out some very important verses:

1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (ESV)

In the first quote, Paul is quoting Deut 25:4. In the second, he is quoting Luke 10:7 (cf. Matt 10:10), saying that it is Scripture. Paul is explicitly saying that Luke's gospel is Scripture, on par with the OT Scriptures.

The second originated from the Torah as well, Jesus didn't make it up:

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. (Lev. 19:13)
Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it (Deut. 24:15)

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (ESV)

First Peter says that Paul wrote "according to the wisdom given him," which means what he wrote was based on wisdom from God (inspired). Then Peter equates Paul's letters with "the other Scriptures," being the OT. Peter is very strongly implying that he thinks Paul's writings are Scripture in the same way the OT books are Scripture.

Putting that together then, Paul's writings were seen as Scripture, so it stands to reason that all the Apostles' writings are Scripture. It also stands to reason that since Luke's gospel was seen as Scripture, that all the writings of close associates of the Apostles were seen as Scripture. That is the entire NT.

Being equally authoratative as other Scriptures doesn't make it identical to the other Scriptures, otherwise why didn't Peter just order that Paul's writing is new Scriptures? What Peter did was a comparison in terms of theological difficulty, that Paul's letters are as hard to understand as other Scriptures, there's still a distinction. You and I can refer to the whole bible as Scriptures in our modern context, but WITHIN the historical context of the NT, "Scriptures" is exclusively referring to the OT.

It is who he is.

Or who you think he is.

You're confusing God with his Creation, which is an act of God. Creation tells us things about God, but it is not, and cannot be, the core of his identity. Again, you're making an act of God the core of who he is while ignoring the fact that he necessarily pre-existed for all "eternity past." Who he was in that eternal pre-existence is at the core of who he is.

Then I ask you again - did you pre-exist at the beginning with God? What do you know beyond his creation?

To make Creation the core of God's identity means that God had to create in order to have identity. That doesn't make sense, at all.

What doesn't make sense at all is to ignore God's revealed identity in his own words and speculate His "core identity" beyond that.

God either is who he is or he is not. In the Bible he reveals himself to be three divine, coequal, coeternal persons. That is who he is. I'm not sure how believing what God says about himself is putting him in a box. The box is limiting God's core identity to being the Creator, as there are things creation doesn't reveal about God.

Show me where "three divine, coequal, coeternal persons" is in the bible verbatim. Don't throw Jn. 1:1, Matt. 28:19 or 1 Jn. 5:7 at me, because none of these is addressing God's nature or identity. The verses that do reveal his identity are Gen. 1:1, Ex. 3:14 and Rev. 1:18, those are what I cling to, not man made doctrines.

The Trinity shows just how mysterious he is.

Or a concerted effort to complicate an otherwise simple mechanism.

Sure, if one was to ignore the Bible.

Says you who ignore God's own revelation of his core identity for a man made doctrine.

Yes, but "God" and "Word" are not interchangeable; "God was the Word" means that the Word was God in nature. Also, the Word is not all of God--"the Word was with God." That is, there is an eternal distinctness between the person who is the Word and person of the Father (and the Spirit).

Where did I state or imply they're interchangeable? The Word, logos, for the Jews is the Torah, for the Greeks is the internal order of the universe, in the bible itself is God's name. In none of these is the Word "trinity". Trinity doctrine was not God or with God in the beginning, it was a doctrine established by the Nicene Council.

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

You're really confusing different aspects of theology. I don't see what this out-of-context proof-texting has to do with this discussion.

It has everything to do, because my spirit confesses God manifested in material felsh according to the (OT) scripture, your spirit confesses God manifested in an abstract doctrine according to the consensus of Nicene council.

No, I'm not; your conclusion doesn't follow.

Then why do you diminish God's fleshly manifestation?

"That expression is all we get to know, everything else he is beyond that expression is not for us to know" is not at all biblical. That is an excessively narrow view and omits large portions of Scripture, such as 1 John 4:8, 16; that God is love.

But WHO loves WHO? Does God love himself? The concept of love? Or the world (Jn. 3:16)? Just because some romantic or a narcissist reads their own identity in 1 Jn. 4:8 doesn't mean that's God's core identity.

Right. And you just speak condescendingly regardless. Is the doctrine man-made or did man discover what God has revealed about himself?

Neither, it is man's perception of what God has revealed about himself, a tool to help understand who God is. Nonetheless, it's a means to an end, not the end by and of itself.

What kinds of questions are these?

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who repeatedly lecture on me about God's core nature before the creation, tell me some personal firsthand experience about that. Prove the eternality of trinity doctrine.

That isn't quite what I said. You stated: "If there's a pre-existing nature of His being." But, if he is a being, and he is, then he necessarily has a pre-existing nature. To call into question the existence of his nature, is to call into question the existence of his being.

I've never denied His pre-existing nature, but "pre" what? "Existing" of what? You do realize that the term "pre-existing" is relative to the creation, you can't really explain or perceive his nature without the aspect of his creation, don't you?

I haven't weaponized anything. The doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation of all that God has revealed about himself, about the nature of his being, in the Bible. It is who he is from all eternity, prior to any creation.

No it's not, the doctrine of the Trinity was originated from the Nicene Council, the best explanation about the nature of His being is in Gen. 1:1, Ex. 3:14 and Rev. 1:18.

You've said some things based on the Bible, while ignoring many other things the Bible says.

Those "some things" were written first, other things were written later.

Not I; not once. You're once again reading far too much into what others say by making assumptions that go beyond what is stated.

Says you who dismissed that as "out-of-context proof-texting".

Then you may not actually believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, since it describes God has he self-existed for all "eternity past."

Then you're indeed worshiping that doctrine.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the core of who God is, along with his attributes; it describes the very nature of his being as he has revealed in the Bible.

The Torah is the core of who God is, along with his attributes; it describes the very nature of his being as he has revealed in the Bible.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Be careful in saying someone is guilty of idolatry when it could actually be you, especially when you argue here to natural revelation and exclude special revelation. And, again, I have weaponized nothing, nor have I denied anything. It would be helpful if you read the entire Bible with a view to understanding just what it reveals about God that is not revealed through his creation.

https://biblehub.com/topical/u/understanding_god's_identity.htm

The entire bible has a coherent narrative: Creation, Salvation, Glorification. These three are not three separate and independent concepts, but rather in a linear relationship - God created the world, the world is restored through salvation, which eventually leads to glorification. What God didn't revealed through his creation is not perceptible to us as long as we're his creation, living in his creation, and everything our five senses can reach is in the scope of his creation. The legitimacy of the trinity comes not from Matt. 28:19, Jn. 1:1:, 1 Jn. 5:7 or any man made doctrines, but ironically, from the protrayal of the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet in Revelation, which is the counterfeit of the Holy Trinity.

In Rev. 13, the Beast is given authority by the Dragon, and the False Prophet exercises that authority through the image of the Beast, that's exactly how the trinity works - the Son is given authority by the Father, and the Holy Spirit exercises that authority through the church, which is the body of Christ. That's an operating mechanism on earth which says nothing about God's "core nature" in heaven. The subject of "proof text" from Matt. 28:19 is about AUTHORITY and legitimacy of baptism, that a legitimate baptism must be performed under legitimate authority, that's a polemic against baptism under illegitimate authoriy, Paul pointed this out, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name." (1 Cor. 1:13-15) That is not about God's nature. Using that to preach the trinity doctrine is taking the verse out of context.

Of course. It's possible that someone out there worships them.

Your choice, not mine.

It isn't a sacred cow, but it is at the heart of who God is, so we should rightly understand it and how everything else relates to it.

Everything relates to that aforementioned core narrative of the whole bible, which begins with creation, not trinity doctrine.

My point is that you were arguing to the Orthodox believing only the Father was eternal. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should be much more careful in how you word things. To say that the "Trinity doctrine is an intermediate mechanism and expression" is actually Modalism, especially since you made the argument to only the Father being eternal. So, unless you have a source that supports that that is what the Orthodox believe, it would seem that you have misunderstood their theology.

Nothing could be further from the truth, you who repeatedly accuse me of misrepresenting you is doing exactly that. How about you go read Rev. 1:18 and 22:13, then tell me who said that, the Father? The Spirit? Or the Son? Neither have I ever made the statement that "only the father" is eternal.

 

[Free]

Is the OT revelant? Is the NT standalone on itself, or built upon the foundation of the OT, especially the Torah?

Hey, look, gaslighting. Those questions have nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

You had stated: "I ask you again, which scripture came first, Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, or Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 28:19?"

My response was: "How is that at all relevant? What matters is what the chronological order is of what is stated in those passages; of what "period of time" they speak of."

It's like you're intent on misunderstanding, misconstruing, or misrepresenting everything I say.

The second originated from the Torah as well, Jesus didn't make it up:

Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. (Lev. 19:13)
Each day you shall give him his wages, and not let the sun go down on it, for he is poor and has set his heart on it (Deut. 24:15)

That "Jesus didn't make it up," it completely, utterly irrelevant. You're purposely ignoring the fact that Paul quoted Jesus's words as given in Luke in order to make it look like you didn't know what you were talking about.

Being equally authoratative as other Scriptures doesn't make it identical to the other Scriptures,

What do you mean by "doesn't make it identical to the other Scriptures"? If they're equally authoritative, what else is there?

otherwise why didn't Peter just order that Paul's writing is new Scriptures?

What does your question have to do with anything?

What Peter did was a comparison in terms of theological difficulty, that Paul's letters are as hard to understand as other Scriptures, there's still a distinction. You and I can refer to the whole bible as Scriptures in our modern context, but WITHIN the historical context of the NT, "Scriptures" is exclusively referring to the OT.

No, as I have clearly shown, "Scriptures" in at least one instance in the NT refers to other NT writings, implicating the rest of the NT as a result.

Or who you think he is.

It's who Christians have always believed him to be.

Then I ask you again - did you pre-exist at the beginning with God? What do you know beyond his creation?

This is completely, utterly irrelevant and so absurd that it deserves no more response than this. Just stop.

What doesn't make sense at all is to ignore God's revealed identity in his own words and speculate His "core identity" beyond that.

Then stop doing it.

Show me where "three divine, coequal, coeternal persons" is in the bible verbatim.

Completely, utterly irrelevant as to whether or not those ideas are taught in Scripture.

Don't throw Jn. 1:1, Matt. 28:19 or 1 Jn. 5:7 at me, because none of these is addressing God's nature or identity.

That says everything. They are at the core of God's nature and identity.

The verses that do reveal his identity are Gen. 1:1, Ex. 3:14 and Rev. 1:18, those are what I cling to, not man made doctrines.

If by identity you mean his name and that he is our creator and the only God, then yes. However, apart from teaching us about a few of his attributes, they reveal nothing about his

Or a concerted effort to complicate an otherwise simple mechanism.

Not a "mechanism;" that is Modalism.

"The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith. It is crucial for properly understanding what God is like, how he relates to us, and how we should relate to him."

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

"The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith and to Christian living, since knowing God is at the heart of biblical religion and God is fully revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the unfolding of the divine mystery. The one true and living God eternally exists in three distinct yet inseparable persons. "

https://learn.ligonier.org/guides/the-trinity

"The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the central and most profound tenets of Christian theology, shaping the faith's understanding of God, the cosmos, and humanity's relationship with the divine. At its core, the Trinity describes the belief in one God who exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. This concept is crucial not only in defining the nature of God but also in explaining how Christians experience and relate to Him."

https://thecrosstalk.com/knowledgeb.../why-doctrine-trinity-important-christianity/

Says you who ignore God's own revelation of his core identity for a man made doctrine.

I have ignored nothing. That God is triune is at the core of who he is; it is revealed by God himself in inspired Scripture and we discover it as we read and study prayerfully. Saying it is a "man-made doctrine" is just a way to sidestep dealing

You're not Trinitarian at all if you think it is merely a "man-made doctrine" and "mechanism."

 

[Free]

Where did I state or imply they're interchangeable?

Your wording implies it, just as it does below.

The Word, logos, for the Jews is the Torah,

Evidence please.

for the Greeks is the internal order of the universe,

Evidence please.

in the bible itself is God's name.

"God's name" is the Word? That is to conflate all of God with all of the Word; the terms are not interchangeable. The Word is the name of the Son only (John 1:1, 10, 14; Rev. 19:13). God's main name is Yahweh.

In none of these is the Word "trinity".

Irrelevant.

Trinity doctrine was not God or with God in the beginning,

But, and this is the point you are intent to ignore or purposely misunderstand, God is triune--always has been and always will be. That the doctrine came later is irrelevant.

it was a doctrine established by the Nicene Council.

No, not then. It only made official the nature of Jesus, that is, his deity and his humanity, in response to Arius. But, even in that regard, it simply affirmed what the Church already believed.

He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Rev. 19:13)

Yes, and who was that? God or Jesus?

It has everything to do, because my spirit confesses God manifested in material felsh according to the (OT) scripture, your spirit confesses God manifested in an abstract doctrine according to the consensus of Nicene council.

Nope, still has nothing to do with this discussion.

Then why do you diminish God's fleshly manifestation?

I haven't at any point in this discussion. My point still stands: your conclusion didn't follow.

But WHO loves WHO? Does God love himself? The concept of love? Or the world (Jn. 3:16)? Just because some romantic or a narcissist reads their own identity in 1 Jn. 4:8 doesn't mean that's God's core identity.

Wow. You really don't understand, do you? For John to say that God is love, is to say that love is an attribute of God, which is something that defines who he is. Love, like holiness, is intrinsic to his nature. So, since that is the case, and since love in its fullest expression is an act done by, or disposition of, one person towards another, it follows that God is necessarily at least two divine persons. In a sense God loves himself, but that self consists of three distinct persons who coexist in an ever eternal, loving, interpersonal relationship.

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one who repeatedly lecture on me about God's core nature before the creation, tell me some personal firsthand experience about that. Prove the eternality of trinity doctrine.

There are many threads on the Trinity where I, and others, have shown that the clear teaching of Scripture is that God has always existed, and that he has always existed as three coequal, coeternal persons. If the Trinity isn't eternal, then all there is is Modalism. If you don't believe that God has always existed in three coequal, coeternal persons, then you're not a Trinitarian, as you claim.

I've never denied His pre-existing nature, but "pre" what? "Existing" of what? You do realize that the term "pre-existing" is relative to the creation, you can't really explain or perceive his nature without the aspect of his creation, don't you?

Why do you insist on making things more complicated than they are?

No it's not, the doctrine of the Trinity was originated from the Nicene Council,

Please, go and learn what was believed by the early Church long before Nicaea, as well as what the first council in Nicaea was addressing.

Those "some things" were written first, other things were written later.

Which, as I've pointed out, is completely and utterly irrelevant. That's a reverse chronological snobbery and ignores the fact that the Bible uses progressive revelation, where things written later can shed additional understanding on those written earlier.

Says you who dismissed that as "out-of-context proof-texting".

What I dismissed as out-of-context proof-texting was this:

'and the biblical standard that separates true spirit of God from the false ones is this: "Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God."'

This has zero bearing on this discussion. That is the point. Your response doesn't address the fact that you're making all sorts of false assumptions, both about what Scripture says and what I am saying.

Then you're indeed worshiping that doctrine.

How so? How does that address what I stated in your quote?

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

God the Father's core identity is the Eternal Creator of the universe - YHWH, I am who I am, everything else derives from there. Jesus the Son is the Father's incarnate on earth, born of God's spirit, and acting as the gateway through which we can have access to God. The holy trinity is a mechanism for communication, not God's core identity. It's like your avatar on this forum, a mechanism to communicate with others on the same forum. Of course, Jesus the Son was there at the beginning as well, but he didn't become flesh and dwell among men at the beginning, right? He was the Prophet like Moses, shrouded in mystery until his incarnation at God's appointed time and place, which was in first century Nazareth, that's what I meant.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen. 1:1)
God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. (Acts 17:24)
And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’ (Ex. 3:15-16)
The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me (Moses) from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear ... I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. (Deut. 18:15-18)

Where did you get the idea that God has to have a "core identity" at all, Carry_Your_Name? His identity is in all of Scripture, not just in two verses. The New Testament reveals more of God, by the way, because of the God-man Jesus, who is all-God (the Word) and all-human at the same time. You aren't a Mormon, are you, because they believe that God the Father has a physical body (as one of your posts seems to imply)?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hey, look, gaslighting. Those questions have nothing to do with what I actually wrote.

You had stated: "I ask you again, which scripture came first, Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, or Jn. 1:1 and Matt. 28:19?"

My response was: "How is that at all relevant? What matters is what the chronological order is of what is stated in those passages; of what "period of time" they speak of."

It's like you're intent on misunderstanding, misconstruing, or misrepresenting everything I say.

Then answer my question, which came first? It is highly relevant because you won't know what "the Word is God and with God" means without knowing who God originally is before his manifestation.

That "Jesus didn't make it up," it completely, utterly irrelevant. You're purposely ignoring the fact that Paul quoted Jesus's words as given in Luke in order to make it look like you didn't know what you were talking about.

You're purposely ignoring the fact that "a laborer is worthy of his wages" originated from the Torah.

What do you mean by "doesn't make it identical to the other Scriptures"? If they're equally authoritative, what else is there?

What else is that OT is the Scriptures, NT is the fulfilment thereof. NT proves OT Scriptures were indeed all inspired by God, otherwise they won't have come to pass.

What does your question have to do with anything?

If it's irrelevant to you, why wasting your time to reply?

No, as I have clearly shown, "Scriptures" in at least one instance in the NT refers to other NT writings, implicating the rest of the NT as a result.

No, that instance in the NT refers to Lev. 19:13 and Deut. 24:15, those are the origin. "Scripture" means written documents, the rest of the NT was still in the writing process. Is there any historical evidence that the book of Luke was already written, circulated and canonized at the time Paul wrote his letters? Did Paul preach to the Corinthians that "Christ died for our sins according to my letters?"

It's who Christians have always believed him to be.

If you don't trace his identity back to Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, what you believe is just circular reasoning. Who is God? God is of triune nature, the Father, Son and Spirit in one. Who are the Father, Son and Spirit? The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, all three are of godly nature.

This is completely, utterly irrelevant and so absurd that it deserves no more response than this. Just stop.

Why irrelevant? You claimed you know who God is before his creation with absolute certainty, while you're his creation, you've been living in his creation, and everything you know about him is through his creation, how is that not absurd and irrelevant?

Then stop doing it.

How about you stop accusing me of your own guilt?

Completely, utterly irrelevant as to whether or not those ideas are taught in Scripture.

Alright, how about this - as a matter of fact, who Christians have always believed God to be is laid out in the Apostle's Creed, do you believe that? If so, tell me what the first line says, and is the phrase "three co-equal, co-eternal persons" in there.

The Full Text of the Apostles' Creed - Bibles.net

Read the full text of the Apostles' Creed from the 1988 translation. The Apostles' Creed summarizes what Christians believe.

www.bibles.net

That says everything. They are at the core of God's nature and identity.

No they aren't, one is about authority, the other about testimony, you're taking them out of context.

If by identity you mean his name and that he is our creator and the only God, then yes. However, apart from teaching us about a few of his attributes, they reveal nothing about his

If the Revelation of Jesus Christ reveals nothnig about him, then the problem is your own blindness.

Not a "mechanism;" that is Modalism.

Yes it is. Your own defense mechanism for your closed mind, being activated when you're being challenged.

"The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith. It is crucial for properly understanding what God is like, how he relates to us, and how we should relate to him."

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

"The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith and to Christian living, since knowing God is at the heart of biblical religion and God is fully revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the unfolding of the divine mystery. The one true and living God eternally exists in three distinct yet inseparable persons. "

https://learn.ligonier.org/guides/the-trinity

"The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the central and most profound tenets of Christian theology, shaping the faith's understanding of God, the cosmos, and humanity's relationship with the divine. At its core, the Trinity describes the belief in one God who exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. This concept is crucial not only in defining the nature of God but also in explaining how Christians experience and relate to Him."

https://thecrosstalk.com/knowledgeb.../why-doctrine-trinity-important-christianity/

Please explain the part "how he relates to us, and how we should relate to him". Where is "us" your "three co-equal, co-eternal persons" doctrine? Believe it or not, I've repeatedly clarified that I believe in the holy trinity as much as you do, but mine is not that classical triangular loop with the three persons at the three points and God in the center. Mine is an illustration of two cliffs with a chasm of sin, God the Father on one side, God the Son in the middle, we on the other side, God the Spirit also on the other side pointing us to the Son. If you still insist that your doctrine accurately explains our relationship with Him, despite the fact that "us" is not mentioned at all, well, suit yourself.

I have ignored nothing. That God is triune is at the core of who he is; it is revealed by God himself in inspired Scripture and we discover it as we read and study prayerfully. Saying it is a "man-made doctrine" is just a way to sidestep dealing

You have ignored everything, including the fallacy of circular reasoning - "God is three in one in nature, all three are God in nature." That's the result when you persistently ignore God's true nature in Gen. 1:1 and Ex. 3:14, when you're the one who has put the cart before the horse the whole time and accuse me of your own doing.

You're not Trinitarian at all if you think it is merely a "man-made doctrine" and "mechanism."

I'm a child of God before a trinitarian or a messianic. I don't pin my identity on a doctrine. If you think the statement "three co-equal, co-eternal persons”, which doesn't exist in any book of the bible or the Apostle's Creed, is more than a doctrine and a mechanism that help understand who God is, then you're indeed worshipping and weaponizing the trinity doctrine, despite your denial.