What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Three person God identified in the Bible?

Where is the three person God identified in the Bible?

  • A three person God is identified in the Bible

    Votes: 12 41.4%

  • A three person God is not identified in the Bible

    Votes: 13 44.8%

  • A three person God is not identified but is implied

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Total voters
    29
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cooper said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
Who was running the universe while Jesus was in diapers?
 
Cooper said:
In the beginning was Harry Webb, and Harry Webb was with Cliff Richard, and Harry Web was Cliff Richard.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense whatsoever.

Cooper said:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Word was both with God (the Father) and was God in nature; that speaks of the plurality within the one God.
 
Free said:
This makes no sense whatsoever.


Yes, the Word was both with God (the Father) and was God in nature; that speaks of the plurality within the one God.
Click to expand...
In the beginning was Joe Blogs, and Joe Blogs was with Cooper and Joe Blogs was Cooper.
.
 
Cooper said:
The Word aka the ancient of days. One eternal God from the foundation of the earth.
.
Click to expand...

I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Daniel 7:13


The Ancient of Days refers to God the Father.

The Son of Man refers to the Son of God; God the Son.




JLB
 
JLB said:
I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Daniel 7:13


The Ancient of Days refers to God the Father.

The Son of Man refers to the Son of God; God the Son.




JLB
Click to expand...
I need to read up on Daniel 7:13. It says 'like' the Son of Man.
.
 
JLB said:
Could you share with us where scripture says Jesus was in diapers?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say he was breast fed either but he was a baby. He did what babies do. Luk 2:12 - And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
 
Cooper said:
In the beginning was Joe Blogs, and Joe Blogs was with Cooper and Joe Blogs was Cooper.
.
Click to expand...
No. That is still makes no sense at all. You logically cannot be with someone and be that someone. Here is the problem, as I’ve posted earlier in the thread:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

In the Greek, God in the second clause—“the Word was with God”—has the article. So, it actually reads, “the Word was with the God.” That is, the Word was with the Father.

In the third clause, God does not have the article, so it doesn’t change. But what that means is that it is not saying “the Word was the God,” that is, it is not equating the Word with God (or the Father). John’s grammar is specific to avoid equating the Word with God. The understanding then is that it is a qualitative statement, meaning that the Word is in nature God.

To sum then, John is saying that the Word was in intimate relationship with God (the Father) and was in nature God. He never says the Word was the Father.
 
Free said:
No. That is still makes no sense at all. You logically cannot be with someone and be that someone. Here is the problem, as I’ve posted earlier in the thread:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

In the Greek, God in the second clause—“the Word was with God”—has the article. So, it actually reads, “the Word was with the God.” That is, the Word was with the Father.

In the third clause, God does not have the article, so it doesn’t change. But what that means is that it is not saying “the Word was the God,” that is, it is not equating the Word with God (or the Father). John’s grammar is specific to avoid equating the Word with God. The understanding then is that it is a qualitative statement, meaning that the Word is in nature God.

To sum then, John is saying that the Word was in intimate relationship with God (the Father) and was in nature God. He never says the Word was the Father.
Click to expand...
It will all come clear when you meet the One God.
.
 
Cooper said:
It will all come clear when you meet the One God.
.
Click to expand...
And yet, you still haven't addressed these problems with your position:

1. God, as you portray him, is deficient in nature, contradicting what John says, namely, that "God is love."
2. There is not a single verse in the Bible that states God is only one person, an absolute unity, as you are saying he is.
3. It ignores the logic of the grammar of verses such as John 1:1, that the Word was both "with God" and "was God" (in nature).
4. It makes God's revealing of himself as Father and Son completely meaningless; it communicates nothing to us.
5. It makes the continual distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pointless.
 
Free said:
And yet, you still haven't addressed these problems with your position:

1. God, as you portray him, is deficient in nature, contradicting what John says, namely, that "God is love."
2. There is not a single verse in the Bible that states God is only one person, an absolute unity, as you are saying he is.
3. It ignores the logic of the grammar of verses such as John 1:1, that the Word was both "with God" and "was God" (in nature).
4. It makes God's revealing of himself as Father and Son completely meaningless; it communicates nothing to us.
5. It makes the continual distinctions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pointless.
Click to expand...
If you look to the cross, you will see God's boundless love for all nations and all people.

Look to Jesus, the saviour of the world. Believe in him, accept him into your heart and life, and be saved.
.
 
BPPLEE said:
It doesn’t say he was breast fed either but he was a baby. He did what babies do. Luk 2:12 - And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
Click to expand...

You are mixing together His role as the Lord God of Israel, the creator of the heavens and earth, with Him becoming flesh; a Man, a little lower than the angels.

You must rightly divide these roles He operated in.



JLB
 
Free said:
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,
...


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.
Click to expand...
The Highest of the Kings of the earth is the Christ. Jesus was appointed to the line of David by Gods authority. He is not the Son of David rather He is the Son of God. Hence God fulfills His Promise to David, "I will establish your line forever"
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

I would state, "God didn't make David the firstborn but appointed the Firstborn to the line of David"


Why the need? I know.'
Hebrews 1:6
When God brings the Firstborn into the world, He commands all His Angels to Bow to Him.
 
Highway54 said:
Well now I am puzzled Randy, why did you mention the trinity?
Click to expand...
Jesus calls the Father the only true God. If He always was and always was God, how does this believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit my spirit"

I have believed in and loved Jesus as far back as my memory goes. Despite what some might state the foundation of the trinity as written is "mystery". I know Jesus and He knows me. I asked what I asked for understanding only on that doctrine and it was many years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top