Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Randy]

The Father has no outward physical image but Jesus.

That's the point.

The Father indwelled Jesus' flesh from birth.

That's the point.

The position that Christ could not be God is beyond untenable. It is an entirely different book than the Bible.

It is a wholely separate belief system from Christianity. It takes into account none of the major underlying themes of the gospel and tells a story that is completely innert and without any need for faith whatsoever.

The position that Jesus is the Father is untenable.

There is scripture that supports a figure like that of a man on the throne. And since its stated in the beginning let us make man in "our" image thats speaks of more than one with the same image.

I read this as the Son who was not the Son of Man and I believe ALL of it. vs 19 is shown from the will of another.
vs 20 speaks to that other. Created through Him and for Him speaks of another.
Col 1
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

I believe all of this and it speaks of more than one. Father and Son and I believe all of it.
Hebrews 1
In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

 

[Free]

Philippians 2:3, 4 says, "Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you, as you look out not only for your own interests, but also for the interests of others."
So here in these two verses Paul is telling the members in the Philippians congregation to think other members in the congregation as superior to them thus having a humble attitude among the members in the congregation.

Then Paul says at Philippians 2:5, "Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus." In other words Paul here at verse 5 is telling the Philippians members in the congregation the example to follow as regards humility that example is Jesus Christ.

Yes, that is what I have said.

So Philippians 2:6 is telling the Philippians congegation members the mental attitude they are to have which was also Jesus mental attitude, "who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God."
So just as Jesus had the humble attitude that God who was his Father was superior to him, that he meaning Jesus didn't snatch at the idea he was equal to God his Father the Philippian congregation members are to follow this example of humility.

Firstly, clearly and unequivocally, no one is equal to God. So, if the argument is that since Jesus "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God," that therefore "the Philippian congregation members are to follow this example" and not try to be equal to God, it makes no sense since everyone would have thought that already. Secondly, Paul's point is that all the Philippians are equal to each other. The issue is that people were thinking of themselves as better than one another. Thirdly, it completely ignores all the points I made, which really need to be addressed.

The whole point, then, is this: Jesus was in the form of God, that is, God in nature, and equal to the Father, but he didn't consider that something to hold on to, and so submitted himself to the will of the Father for the purpose of redeeming creation. Those in the Philippian church were to think likewise--that although they were equal to each other, they were to "count others more significant than" themselves and look "also to the interests of others." Of course, no one can truly do that if they aren't first truly submitted to God.

Again, there is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than of the eternal Son of God taking on the form and likeness of one of his creatures, in submission to the Father.

 

[Free]

This is what caught my attention.

John 1:18 Greek Text Analysis

I'm not sure what in there caught your attention, as I can't see anything that address what I said.

 

[BB1956]

It says He did not consider it robbery to be equal to God.

You can't twist, cram, smash, beat or distort that into meaning what you want it to.

You're the one doing the twisting. This scripture in no way says Jesus thought himself equal with God.
When you translate a scripture like, "he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, you're saying that Jesus didn't think it wrong to believe he was equal with God.

The context of the surrounding verses (Php 2:3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how Php 2 verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”

 

[BB1956]

Yes, that is what I have said.


Firstly, clearly and unequivocally, no one is equal to God. So, if the argument is that since Jesus "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God," that therefore "the Philippian congregation members are to follow this example" and not try to be equal to God, it makes no sense since everyone would have thought that already. Secondly, Paul's point is that all the Philippians are equal to each other. The issue is that people were thinking of themselves as better than one another. Thirdly, it completely ignores all the points I made, which really need to be addressed.

The whole point, then, is this: Jesus was in the form of God, that is, God in nature, and equal to the Father, but he didn't consider that something to hold on to, and so submitted himself to the will of the Father for the purpose of redeeming creation. Those in the Philippian church were to think likewise--that although they were equal to each other, they were to "count others more significant than" themselves and look "also to the interests of others." Of course, no one can truly do that if they aren't first truly submitted to God.

Again, there is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than of the eternal Son of God taking on the form and likeness of one of his creatures, in submission to the Father.

Then you continue to twist scripture as you're doing. Like I said trinitarians don't care what God inspired men to write down.
The context that you ignore is very clear.
That context of the surrounding verses (Php 2:3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how Php 2 verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: “In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves.” Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” What “mind”? To ‘think it not robbery to be equal with God’? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who ‘esteemed God as better than himself,’ would never ‘grasp for equality with God,’ but instead he “humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death.”
That example of humility of Jesus the Philippians were to follow.

 

[Randy]

I'm not sure what in there caught your attention, as I can't see anything that address what I said.

The only begotten God

 

[theWind]

There is scripture that supports a figure like that of a man on the throne. And since its stated in the beginning let us make man in "our" image thats speaks of more than one with the same image.

The very next verse states that He made man in His own image. Also Job proves there were angels present and angels are referred to as men throughout the Bible so they have a similar image.

Nothing there proves any trinity.

I read this as the Son who was not the Son of Man and I believe ALL of it. vs 19 is shown from the will of another.
vs 20 speaks to that other. Created through Him and for Him speaks of another.
Col 1
He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

I believe all of this and it speaks of more than one. Father and Son and I believe all of it.
Hebrews 1
In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.

The Father is pure spirit, the Son is the Father in the flesh. Due to God's omnipresence,(Jer. 23:24) they were as two, but they are the same individual person.
=
Picking this verse, and that verse, to prove an obscure point, at the dismissal of all the Bible has to say on the topic, is not the way to construct a sound doctrine.

When the Bible is taken as a whole, God is clearly seen to be one individual person. And that person is Jesus Christ.

 

[theWind]

When you translate a scripture like, "he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, you're saying that Jesus didn't think it wrong to believe he was equal with God.

Exactly correct.

 

[BB1956]

Exactly correct.

That's not correct though, because you're saying that Paul was telling the Philippian christians to consider it not robbery for them to be equal to God. See Paul is telling the Philippian christians to have the same mind Jesus has in verse six. So you know Paul isn't telling the Philippian christians to think it not wrong for them to think they're equal to God

 

[journeymanisnothing]

That's not correct though, because you're saying that Paul was telling the Philippian christians to consider it not robbery for them to be equal to God. See Paul is telling the Philippian christians to have the same mind Jesus has in verse six. So you know Paul isn't telling the Philippian christians to think it not wrong for them to think they're equal to God

Gotta tell ya BB1956,
This is a good example of reading a text and completely missing the point.
Paul doesn't mean, "Jesus thought of himself as God, so you should to."

Paul meams, "Jesus made himself of no reputation, so we should too."

The real message is, Jesus is God, so who do we think we are?

 

[BB1956]

Gotta tell ya BB1956,
This is a good example of reading a text and completely missing the point.
Paul doesn't mean, "Jesus thought of himself as God, so you should to."

Paul meams, "Jesus made himself of no reputation, so we should too."

The real message is, Jesus is God, so who do we think we are?

Then you go ahead and take these scriptures out of context and twist them to mean what you want then. You're the one missing the point.

 

[Randy]

The very next verse states that He made man in His own image. Also Job proves there were angels present and angels are referred to as men throughout the Bible so they have a similar image.

Nothing there proves any trinity.

The Father is pure spirit, the Son is the Father in the flesh. Due to God's omnipresence,(Jer. 23:24) they were as two, but they are the same individual person.
=
Picking this verse, and that verse, to prove an obscure point, at the dismissal of all the Bible has to say on the topic, is not the way to construct a sound doctrine.

When the Bible is taken as a whole, God is clearly seen to be one individual person. And that person is Jesus Christ.

I'm not here to prove the trinity. I stated the Father is not His Son. If God created through the Son how is that the same "person"? If Jesus sat down "with" His Father on "His" Fathers throne how is that the same person?
If Jesus is one witness who testifies about Himself and the Father is the other witness that testifies about Him how is that the same person? If "God" exalted Jesus to "His" right hand how is that the same person?

If the Father states He is Jesus's God and Jesus states the Father is His God how is that the same person?

 

[justbyfaith]

and Jesus isn't the Father.

Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 14:7-11).

 

[justbyfaith]

The position that Jesus is the Father is untenable.

Support your presupposition.

 

[Free]

Jesus is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 14:7-11).

He absolutely is not. The Son and the Father are continually and consistently spoken of as distinct throughout the NT. And they should be, if the relationship of Father and Son is to actually mean something and communicate something to us about God. A father is never his own son nor is a son his own father.

Be careful in appealing to anything in John, as his prologue sets up everything that he records or says of Jesus. If one gets the prologue wrong, or ignores it, they will most likely misunderstand everything else about Jesus. John is very specific in his wording in 1:1-18 for a reason.

 

[Free]

The only begotten God

Right, which I haven't denied, as it is probably the best rendering. My point was the definition of "begotten," or rather, monogenes is what is important.

 

[justbyfaith]

He absolutely is not. The Son and the Father are continually and consistently spoken of as distinct throughout the NT. And they should be, if the relationship of Father and Son is to actually mean something and communicate something to us about God. A father is never his own son nor is a son his own father.

Be careful in appealing to anything in John, as his prologue sets up everything that he records or says of Jesus. If one gets the prologue wrong, or ignores it, they will most likely misunderstand everything else about Jesus. John is very specific in his wording in 1:1-18 for a reason.

Yes, they are distinct from one another; since Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and the Father is the same Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity.

Do you deny that they are the same Spirit / essence?

 

[Free]

Yes, they are distinct from one another; since Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and the Father is the same Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity.

Again, absolutely not. I have dealt with this at length earlier in this thread. It makes no sense whatsoever of what God reveals of himself in the Bible, beginning with Gen 1:1, 26-27 and John 1:1.

Again, a father is never his own son nor is a son ever his own father. This is just as true of God, even more true if that were possible, since we mirror God and our father/son relationships are the metaphor for him.

Do you deny that they are the same Spirit / essence?

They are the same essence, but they have always both existed, which means they have always been distinct. There was never a time when they didn't both exist, along with the Holy Spirit.

 

[justbyfaith]

Again, absolutely not. I have dealt with this at length earlier in this thread. It makes no sense whatsoever of what God reveals of himself in the Bible, beginning with Gen 1:1, 26-27 and John 1:1.

Again, a father is never his own son nor is a son ever his own father. This is just as true of God, even more true if that were possible, since we mirror God and our father/son relationships are the metaphor for him.


They are the same essence, but they have always both existed, which means they have always been distinct. There was never a time when they didn't both exist, along with the Holy Spirit.

Yes; because Jesus rose to fill all things; to even exist outside of time. So, He is co-eternal with the Father.

However, He was not eternally begotten; but in the incarnation (Luke 1:35); and Jesus was the Father prior to His incarnation.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Then you go ahead and take these scriptures out of context and twist them to mean what you want then. You're the one missing the point.

Paul does not mean,

That at the name of journeyman and BB1956, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

He means,

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Phil.2:10

See. You think the forebearance our Lord and Master showed is because he's less than God. The truth is, he shows the forebearance of God himself.