Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Cooper]

I only see one God too, which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity states. But God has existed for "eternity past" as three distinct, coequal, consubstantial persons, as God reveals to us in the Bible.

Show me that in the Bible. I rather think it is the writing of man.
.

 

[Cooper]

I have the power and made it happen, just so that we prevent any confusion for someone late to the discussion.

Thank you. Can you extend the 30 minutes to an hour please.
.

 

[Free]

1 John 5:7 isn't saying there are three divine persons.

I actually agree. While there are three divine persons within the one God, the formulation of 1 John 5:7 is much too developed to likely be original, as most scholars seem to believe. It probably started as a later note in the margin that a subsequent copier wrote into the text. I wish it were original, but there is pretty much no reason to believe that it is.

 

[Free]

Show me that in the Bible. I rather think it is the writing of man.
.

I have numerous times, but each time you haven't addressed my actual arguments. I've even shown you the problems with your position more than once, but have yet to address those as well.

 

[Free]

Thank you. Can you extend the 30 minutes to an hour please.
.

That I cannot do. That is up to the owner.

 

[Cooper]

Do you understand that in what I said, it means they have always been eternally distinct persons—there has never been a time when all three did not exist?

The ONE, all powerful, mighty God for whom all things are possible, cannot be separated or divided. God is ONE.
.

 

[Free]

The ONE, all powerful, mighty God for whom all things are possible, cannot be separated or divided. God is ONE.
.

Yet, as I have pointed out, there is not a single verse in the Bible that supports that claim. A lot of verses say that there is one God, but none that says God is only one person, an absolute unity. God himself reveals that there is a plurality within himself. We need to understand God as he reveals himself, and the doctrine of the Trinity best takes it all into account.

 

[jaybo]

I actually agree. While there are three divine persons within the one God, the formulation of 1 John 5:7 is much too developed to likely be original, as most scholars seem to believe. It probably started as a later note in the margin that a subsequent copier wrote into the text. I wish it were original, but there is pretty much no reason to believe that it is.

The NET footnote says "Other ancient authorities read (with variations) There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:" Where do you get the idea that it was a marginal note that was added later? My commentaries state that it is found in only a few of the early manuscripts, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

[Free]

The NET footnote says "Other ancient authorities read (with variations) There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:" Where do you get the idea that it was a marginal note that was added later? My commentaries state that it is found in only a few of the early manuscripts, but that doesn't invalidate it.

"However, it is highly unlikely that the Comma Johanneum was originally a part of 1 John. None of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John contain the comma, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8. The presence of the Comma Johanneum in Greek manuscripts is actually quite rare until the 15th century A.D. It is primarily found in Latin manuscripts. While some of the Latin manuscripts containing the Comma Johanneum are ancient, the Comma Johanneum did not appear in the original Latin Vulgate written by Jerome.

In the 16th century, when Desiderius Erasmus was compiling what became known as the Textus Receptus, he did not include the Comma Johanneum in the 1st or 2nd editions. Due to intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others who wanted it included because of its support for trinitarianism, Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum in later editions of the Textus Receptus. His decision resulted in the Comma Johanneum being included in the King James Version of the Bible and later in the New King James Version. None of the modern Greek texts (UBS 4, Nestle-Aland 27, Majority Text) contain the Comma Johanneum. Of all the modern English translations, only the New King James Version and Modern English Version include the Comma Johanneum."

https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html


Adam Clarke's Commentary states, in part:

'But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.

It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.

The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following: -

“1Jn_5:6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth.

1Jn_5:7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.

1Jn_5:9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc.”'


The Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary:

"Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. . . . It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate."

 

[JLB]

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God.

Amen.

 

[JLB]

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God. 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 Mark 12:29 and others.

This is why I tremble in fear when I see the Almighty God being divided.
.

Do you believe The Son is God?

 

[Cooper]

Do you believe The Son is God?

The One God with us, the invisible, unchanging, united, God made visible. Yes.
.

 

[BPPLEE]

Found it! Post 793. I posted John 5:6-8 instead of 1 John 5:6-8.

I went back to change it, but I was out of time. 30 minutes is not long enough.

I do apologise, I hate anything like that, but I did try. I'm sorry.
.

I thought that was what you meant

 

[BB1956]

The problem with this is context. Looking at what Paul had already written, in Col 1:16-17:

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.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

Straightforward, simple logic tells us that if "all things were created through" and "for" the Son, and if "he is before all things," then the only logical conclusion is that he cannot be a created thing. If he is, if there was a time when the Son did not exist, then Paul is lying. Note Paul is in complete agreement with Jon 1:1-3. Either that or both Paul and John got it wrong and are lying.

There is no escaping this logic.

First of all, at Colossians 1:15 it says that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. Whenever the scriptures use the phrase, "the firstborn of" in regard to living creatures, whether those living creatures are human or animals, it shows they are part of the group that they're firstborn of? What I mean is, when you use the phrase, the firstborn of Egypt, or firstborn of Israel you're speaking about people in Egypt or people in Israel. Those people are a part of the two nations, either Egypt or Israel. The scriptures use this phrase, the firstborn of, upwards of 30 times before Colossians 1:15 and each and everytime consistently when used regarding living creatures, whether animals or humans it means the same thing. So why does the scriptures use the phrase, the firstborn of when that phrase shows Jesus to be a part of creation? Because like I said the scriptures show that whatever is firstborn when speaking about living creatures, animals or human, the scriptures show that what is said to be firstborn, is part of the group. So concerning Colossians 1:16, 17 the Greek word "pas" which is translated, "all" isn't there. The Greek word that is there is "panta" which is an inflected form of the Greek word, "pas." They don't mean exactly the same thing. Panta can mean all other. Even the Greek word translated all (pas) can be seen that, "all other" is meant in the context of some verses of scripture. Luke 13:1-4 is an example also Philippians 2:21. The fact that Colossians 1:15 says Jesus is the firstborn of creation and Revelation 3:14 saying Jesus is the beginning of creation then the scriptures are teaching that the only begotten Son of God is a part of creation. So all other things were crested through the only begotten Son of God

 

[Cooper]

To be the firstborn means the person concerned is the most important. Manasseh was born first, but Ephraim is the “firstborn,” not because he was born first; he was not, but because Ephraim was pre-eminent over Manasseh and the firstborn in status, meaning he was the most important.

King David was the youngest of ten children, but he was the anointed King of Israel, God’s firstborn and pre-eminent.

Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning, and the end. He is the eternal “firstborn”, meaning he is pre-eminent over all creation. Jesus in heaven is the Word, and the Word is God. He came down from heaven in the Old Testament before his birth and is the only God (Emmanuel). On his robe and his thigh are the words “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:16.

In Col 1:15, we read Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, by whom all things were created, in the heavens and on earth. Things visible and things invisible, whether they are thrones, lordships, governments, or authorities. He is the head of the body, the beginning, and the firstborn from the dead, so he shall become first in all things, the wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace promised in Isaiah 9:5–6.
.

 

[Randy]

To be the firstborn means the person concerned is the most important. Manasseh was born first, but Ephraim is the “firstborn,” not because he was born first; he was not, but because Ephraim was pre-eminent over Manasseh and the firstborn in status, meaning he was the most important.

King David was the youngest of ten children, but he was the anointed King of Israel, God’s firstborn and pre-eminent.

Jesus is the alpha and omega, the beginning, and the end. He is the eternal “firstborn”, meaning he is pre-eminent over all creation. Jesus in heaven is the Word, and the Word is God. He came down from heaven in the Old Testament before his birth and is the only God (Emmanuel). On his robe and his thigh are the words “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:16.

In Col 1:15, we read Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, by whom all things were created, in the heavens and on earth. Things visible and things invisible, whether they are thrones, lordships, governments, or authorities. He is the head of the body, the beginning, and the firstborn from the dead, so he shall become first in all things, the wonderful counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace promised in Isaiah 9:5–6.
.

Wow then consider how "great" His God must be.

 

[Cooper]

Wow then consider how "great" His God must be.

Being the firstborn of all creation means Jesus is the most important, and we know that is true because the Bible tells us Jesus is the 'I AM' i.e. God.
.

 

[Randy]

Being the firstborn of all creation means Jesus is the most important, and we know that is true because the Bible tells us Jesus is the 'I AM' i.e. God.
.

From the Father given through the Son. God created through Jesus. So your holding to that doesn't hold as most important. Col 1:19 was also over looked.

And again Jesus (through whom all things came) is the word of the Father( from whom all things came)

Lord I do know this
John 17
“I have revealed you a to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me

Hebrews 1
In these last days "God" has spoken to us by His Son. Through whom "He" made the universe. You know the one Living in Jesus doing His work. They are one.

Jesus stated it was the "Father" living in Him doing His work.

I read the fullness of the Deity "Lives" in Jesus.
I read the fullness was pleased to dwell "in Him."
I read the Father was "living in" Jesus.
I never read Jesus was that Deity.

So it no surprise to me Jesus is the imprint of Gods very being and He and the Father are one.
Nor that Jesus's performs the "Fathers" works which testifies to that truth.

 

[Cooper]

From the Father given through the Son. God created through Jesus. So your holding to that doesn't hold as most important. Col 1:19 was also over looked.

And again Jesus (through whom all things came) is the word of the Father( from whom all things came)

Lord I do know this
John 17
“I have revealed you a to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me

Hebrews 1
In these last days "God" has spoken to us by His Son. Through whom "He" made the universe. You know the one Living in Jesus doing His work. They are one.

Jesus stated it was the "Father" living in Him doing His work.

I read the fullness of the Deity "Lives" in Jesus.
I read the fullness was pleased to dwell "in Him."
I read the Father was "living in" Jesus.
I never read Jesus was that Deity.

So it no surprise to me Jesus is the imprint of Gods very being and He and the Father are one.
Nor that Jesus's performs the "Fathers" works which testifies to that truth.

In the beginning Jesus was the Word, meaning he was God. It was not until he came among us in human flesh, made visible, that Jesus spoke of the Father. Being God in the beginning, he was Father of all things, until that is, he took on human flesh and became like us.
.

 

[Randy]

In the beginning Jesus was the Word, meaning he was God. It was not until he came among us in human flesh, made visible, that Jesus spoke of the Father. Being God in the beginning, he was Father of all things, until that is, he took on human flesh and became like us.
.

He is not the source of all things as Paul defined the Father as that source (from whom all things came).
And as I posted the words of Christ Himself that He gave us the words the Father gave Him. And God spoke to us in these last days by His Son.

Also the testimony given is the Spirit Jesus sent in His name He received from the Father. (Source-proceeds from the Father and sent through the Son in Jesus's name)

Jesus beginning didn't begin in the womb of Mary. He was "with" the Father in the beginning.

But He is not the Father as we read.
For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

Jesus was kept hidden but He was before the world began as God, (The Father) created all things were created through Him.

Isaiah 49
He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.

he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

I agree with you that there is only one true Deity and that Deity can't be divided. It wasn't as we read Col 1:19 for in Him it please all the "fullness" to dwell. The Father living in the Son. In Him means Jesus did exist. A son who is the imprint of God's very being and they are one.

I stated to you before I am not one who denies error. But the Father not being the Son is not that error and you needed to look elsewhere. I suggest the meaning of Firstborn as I assure you the Father is the source of all things. What you should see is that the Father is the one who glorifies His Son.

Jesus sat down "with" the Father on "His" Fathers throne. The one "Jesus" calls His God and the only true God.