Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Highway54]

Many years ago I asked Jesus as one who believes in Him, "Can anyone explain the trinity?". He was pleased to give me understanding. I still counsel others He still lives and answers prayers. He loves all His children who the Father has given Him.

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.

Well now I am puzzled Randy, why did you mention the trinity?

 

[Deidr]

personage

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

[Cooper]

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

May I ask who Father God is in the beginning?

I am thinking of John chapter 1.

Is it the Word or the Holy Ghost?

 

[Deidr]

May I ask who Father God is in the beginning?

I am thinking of John chapter 1.

Is it the Word or the Holy Ghost?

Word

In my studies I believe the Holy Ghost is the power of the resurrected body or life of Christ.

So maybe they go hand in hand if indeed you could name some characteristics of the word.

 

[Cooper]

Word

In my studies I believe the Holy Ghost is the power of the resurrected body or life of Christ.

So maybe they go hand in hand if indeed you could name some characteristics of the word.

I think like you, and indeed the scripture you posted confirms that the Father, Word and Holy Spirit are indeed one.

Next question if I may, also from John chapter 1, may I ask by what earthly name we know the Word? The angel said it to Mary.
.

 

[Deidr]

I think like you, and indeed the scripture you posted confirms that the Father, Word and Holy Spirit are indeed one.

Next question if I may, also from John chapter 1, may I ask by what earthly name we know the Word? The angel said it to Mary.
.

Jesus

 

[BB1956]

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.
.

In the scriptures themselves, when this phrase, the firstborn of, is used regarding living creatures whether those living creatures are animals or humans "the firstborn of" is shown consistently to be a part of the group they're firstborn of. What I mean is, the firstborn of Egypt are people in the nation of Egypt, the firstborn of Israel are people in that nation Israel. Firstborn of sheep are themselves sheep that belong to a flock of sheep.
So why use the phrase, the firstborn of creation concerning Jesus Christ when scripture itself when using the phrase, the firstborn of, show they are part of the group they're firstborn of? Using the phrase ,the firstborn of creation to Jesus Christ makes him a part of that group creation that the scriptures say he's firstborn of. Why would the scriptures make Jesus a part of the group creation by saying he's the firstborn of creation?

Too many people want us to ignore how God uses the phrase, the firstborn of, in the scriptures toward living creatures whether those living creatures are animals or humans.

 

[Free]

BB1956

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.

Not at all. Firstly, "firstborn" is used 140 times in the Bible, 134 times prior to Col 1:15. The phrase "the firstborn of" occurs 50 times, 48 of those prior to Col 1:15, not that that really matters. Secondly, there are different nuances in meaning of "firstborn":

Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)

In both cases, neither are the firstborn but are elevated to that position, meaning having the rights and privileges that come with being the firstborn. This is especially seen in David's case where being the firstborn means he will be "the highest of the kings of the earth."

The idea then in Col 1:15, is that Jesus is in the place of preeminence, not his physical birth. This is further supported by verses 16 and 17, which preclude any idea that Jesus is a mere creature, a part of creation.

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

The context determines the meaning. Luke 13:2,4 could read "all" and it makes sense in both cases. On the one hand, it can mean "all others," but on the other, it still makes sense to mean "all" and be including those specific ones it is talking about. Rev 3:14 is understood as the "beginner" or "author" of creation. If it were to mean that he was the first thing created, that would contradict John 1:1 and 2, which mean that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, in intimate relationship and communion with God (the Father). This ia supported by John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17.

Again, the only logical conclusion of 1 Cor 16-17 and John 1:1-3 is that the Son cannot be a part of creation.

 

[Cooper]

Jesus

Jesus, it is. Thank you, it is a pleasure to meet you.
.

 

[Free]

May I ask who Father God is in the beginning?

I am thinking of John chapter 1.

Is it the Word or the Holy Ghost?

Neither. It simply cannot be either of them. You are very fond of quoting John 1:1c, "and the Word was God," but ignore what immediately precedes it, "and the Word was with God." Clearly, to be "with" someone, that person cannot be that someone. That makes no sense. You are not "with" yourself; you are yourself, you are with other people who are not you.

You must at least try and make sense of the Word being both with God and being God. And, as I've said several times before, a Father is never his own Son nor a Son his own Father. Sons and Fathers are with each other, they are never one and the same person.

 

[jaybo]

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.
.

This is not scriptural. Jesus was not "the Father of all things". John 1:2 says that Jesus was with God in the beginning.

 

[Cooper]

In the scriptures themselves, when this phrase, the firstborn of, is used regarding living creatures whether those living creatures are animals or humans "the firstborn of" is shown consistently to be a part of the group they're firstborn of. What I mean is, the firstborn of Egypt are people in the nation of Egypt, the firstborn of Israel are people in that nation Israel. Firstborn of sheep are themselves sheep that belong to a flock of sheep.
So why use the phrase, the firstborn of creation concerning Jesus Christ when scripture itself when using the phrase, the firstborn of, show they are part of the group they're firstborn of? Using the phrase ,the firstborn of creation to Jesus Christ makes him a part of that group creation that the scriptures say he's firstborn of. Why would the scriptures make Jesus a part of the group creation by saying he's the firstborn of creation?

Too many people want us to ignore how God uses the phrase, the firstborn of, in the scriptures toward living creatures whether those living creatures are animals or humans.

 

[Cooper]

Neither. It simply cannot be either of them. You are very fond of quoting John 1:1c, "and the Word was God," but ignore what immediately precedes it, "and the Word was with God." Clearly, to be "with" someone, that person cannot be that someone. That makes no sense. You are not "with" yourself; you are yourself, you are with other people who are not you.

You must at least try and make sense of the Word being both with God and being God. And, as I've said several times before, a Father is never his own Son nor a Son his own Father. Sons and Fathers are with each other, they are never one and the same person.

Get it right.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Cooper]

This is not scriptural. Jesus was not "the Father of all things". John 1:2 says that Jesus was with God in the beginning.

I bow to your greater knowledge, and it answers the age-old question who was God speaking to when he said in Genesis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” It was the Father speaking to the Son.

David Guzik comments:
And the Word was with God, and the Word was God: With this brilliant statement, Joh_1:1 sets forth one of the most basic foundations of our faith – the Trinity. We can follow John’s logic:

• There is a Being known as the Word.
• This Being is God, because He is eternal (In the beginning).
• This Being is God, because He is plainly called God (the Word was God).
• At the same time, this Being does not encompass all that God is. God the Father is a distinct Person from the Word (the Word was with God).

i. So, the Father and the Son (the Son is known here as the Word) are equally God, yet distinct in their Person. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. Yet they are equally God, with God the Holy Spirit making one God in three Persons.

ii. The Word was with God: “This preposition implies intercourse and therefore separate personality. As Chrysostom says: ‘Not in God but with God, as person with person, eternally.’” (Dods)

iii. And the Word was God: “This is the true form of the sentence; not ‘God was the Word.’ This is absolutely required by the usage of the Greek language.” (Alford)

iv. “Luther says ‘the Word was God’ is against Arius: "the Word was with God’ against Sabellius.” (Dods)

v. And the Word was God: “Everything that can be said about God the Father can be said about God the Son. In Jesus dwells all the wisdom, glory, power, love, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth of the Father. In Him, God the Father is known.” (Boice)
.

 

[Free]

Get it right.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Again, you are divorcing the last statement from the one that immediately precedes it: "and the Word was with God." You have continually ignored that clause, perhaps because you know your position cannot account for it. You cannot expect to have a proper understanding of God, the Word, and "the Word was God" when you fail to take into account "the Word was with God."

 

[BB1956]

BB1956

Not at all. Firstly, "firstborn" is used 140 times in the Bible, 134 times prior to Col 1:15. The phrase "the firstborn of" occurs 50 times, 48 of those prior to Col 1:15, not that that really matters. Secondly, there are different nuances in meaning of "firstborn":

Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)

In both cases, neither are the firstborn but are elevated to that position, meaning having the rights and privileges that come with being the firstborn. This is especially seen in David's case where being the firstborn means he will be "the highest of the kings of the earth."

The idea then in Col 1:15, is that Jesus is in the place of preeminence, not his physical birth. This is further supported by verses 16 and 17, which preclude any idea that Jesus is a mere creature, a part of creation.


The context determines the meaning. Luke 13:2,4 could read "all" and it makes sense in both cases. On the one hand, it can mean "all others," but on the other, it still makes sense to mean "all" and be including those specific ones it is talking about. Rev 3:14 is understood as the "beginner" or "author" of creation. If it were to mean that he was the first thing created, that would contradict John 1:1 and 2, which mean that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, in intimate relationship and communion with God (the Father). This ia supported by John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17.

Again, the only logical conclusion of 1 Cor 16-17 and John 1:1-3 is that the Son cannot be a part of creation.

No the only logical conclusion I see is that you don't want me to go by how the scriptures themselves use the phrase, "the firstborn of," when it's used regarding living creatures, whether those living creatures be animals or humans. I can read just like everyone else and I can see myself that when the scriptures say something like the firstborn of Egypt, it's talking about people in that nation Egypt. Just because someone says those that are firstborn in Egypt are the most important or superior in Egypt doesn't stop them from belonging to that nation Egypt. Likewise when the scriptures say something like, the firstborn of Israel, it's talking about people in that nation Israel. What is said to be the firstborn is shown to be part of that group that the scripture says is the firstborn of. The scriptures uses the phrase, "the firstborn of" this way about thirty times in the scriptures, and consistently the scriptures never deviating when the phrase is used in regard to living creatures, animals or human what is said to be firstborn is part of the group it's firstborn of. So since the scriptures consistently show when the phrase, the firstborn of is used regarding living creatures is shown to be part of the group they're said to be firstborn of, that's what I'm going to agree with. Someone trying to reason with me it doesn't matter how the scriptures themselves use the phrase the firstborn of, isn't going to win any points with me.

Concerning those scriptures at Psalm 89:20, 27 I disagree they're talking about that human king David but instead are talking about the greater David, Jesus Christ.
Jesus was anointed with Holy Spirit(holy oil) and God made him the highest king of that line of kings from David.
But that doesn't stop Jesus from being part of that group he's firstborn of, meaning creation.

 

[Deidr]

Dallas Willard

Trinity and Predestination and the Sweet Society of Love

I’m enjoying new perspective on some challenging Christian doctrines and how they interrelate, I’m nowhere near comprehension or definition, but I think I’m less likely to be argumentative about th…

davidmgross.wordpress.com

 

[Cooper]

Again, you are divorcing the last statement from the one that immediately precedes it: "and the Word was with God." You have continually ignored that clause, perhaps because you know your position cannot account for it. You cannot expect to have a proper understanding of God, the Word, and "the Word was God" when you fail to take into account "the Word was with God."

In the beginning was Harry Webb, and Harry Webb was with Cliff Richard, and Harry Web was Cliff Richard.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.

 

[BPPLEE]

In the beginning was Harry Webb, and Harry Webb was with Cliffe Richard, and Harry Web was Cliffe Richard.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.

It doesn’t work with anyone but God.

 

[Cooper]

It doesn’t work with anyone but God.

As long as it works.

Did you know Cliff Richard began life as Harry Webb?

Call him Cliff or call him Harry, it is the same person.

Cliff Richard is his name on stage, Jesus is God's name on earth.

The angel told Mary to call his name Jesus.

People don't know Jesus existed from the foundation of the earth as the Word.
.