Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Cooper]

There is, as that diagram of the Trinity shows. One God, three divine, coequal, co-eternal persons.

That is very true. The Father is God, and the Son is the same one God.
.

 

[Free]

That is very true. The Father is God, and the Son is the same one God.
.

I have never denied that they are one God, but they are and always have been distinct persons.

 

[Cooper]

I have never denied that they are one God, but they are and always have been distinct persons.

I'm not sure about that, possibly only a change of name and location, but still the same one God.

As a child I used to watch deep sea divers at work in the River Humber. The fish would see one person while I saw another person, but actually it was one diver.
.

 

[Free]

I'm not sure about that, possibly only a change of name and location, but still the same one God.

I'm sure about it. One God, three divine, coequal, co-eternal persons. That is what best takes into account all that God reveals of himself.

As a child I used to watch deep sea divers at work in the River Humber. The fish would see one person while I saw another person, but actually it was one diver.
.

You and the fish were both looking at the same person. I really don't see how this explains anything.

 

[Cooper]

I'm sure about it. One God, three divine, coequal, co-eternal persons. That is what best takes into account all that God reveals of himself.


You and the fish were both looking at the same person. I really don't see how this explains anything.

Well, 2,000 years ago people were seeing a man, now they are seeing Jesus. He looks different but is still the same one God in heaven and on earth.
.

 

[Cooper]

I'm sure about it. One God, three divine, coequal, co-eternal persons. That is what best takes into account all that God reveals of himself.


You and the fish were both looking at the same person. I really don't see how this explains anything.

The same person is God among his creaton, and then high above their world, but still one God.
.

 

[Free]

Well, 2,000 years ago people were seeing a man, now they are seeing Jesus. He looks different but is still the same one God in heaven and on earth.
.

I don't understand what you're saying here. 2,000 years ago people were seeing Jesus.

The same person is God among his creaton, and then high above their world, but still one God.
.

The Son is the same person and is God, but he is not the Father.

 

[Free]

The pre-incarnate Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6).

Do you agree that it is dangerous to make a doctrine out of one verse? Other uses of "father":

Job 29:16 I was a father to the needy, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know. (ESV)

Isa 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
Isa 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. (ESV)

That the son, who is given, will be called "Everlasting Father," refers to the Messiah's benevolent reign as king. It is not saying anything about the Godhead. He cannot be the Father if he is sent by the Father, continually spoken of as distinct from the Father, and has existed in relationship with the Father for all eternity past.

Then you have two dwelling in eternity who are identified as the Son. The pre-incarnate Son, being outside of time, and the after-incarnate Son, also being outside of time: therefore you have two who are identified as the Son existing outside of time.


This presents a dilemna for your theology; for now you are not purporting a Trinity but a Quadrinity: Father, Son, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I really don't know how you came to this conclusion. I stated: "The Son existed in eternity past prior to creation, which is clearly prior to his death, resurrection, and ascension. When he ascended, he simply returned to the place from where he came."

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

 

[justbyfaith]

Did you actually read that verse?
We get to sit on Jesus's throne just as He sat down "with" His Father on "His" Fathers throne.
The throne in Daniel 7 that the Son of Man approaches and receives from the one sitting on that throne.


To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.
I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits a of God sent out into all the earth. 7He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

The Lamb sits on the throne of the Father, that should be clear from the verse.

 

[justbyfaith]

Do you agree that it is dangerous to make a doctrine out of one verse? Other uses of "father":

Job 29:16 I was a father to the needy, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know. (ESV)

Isa 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
Isa 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. (ESV)

That the son, who is given, will be called "Everlasting Father," refers to the Messiah's benevolent reign as king. It is not saying anything about the Godhead. He cannot be the Father if he is sent by the Father, continually spoken of as distinct from the Father, and has existed in relationship with the Father for all eternity past.

There is clearly one Father in holy scripture (Malachi 2:10); and Isaiah 9:6 proclaims that He is the son that was given.

I have explained the Trinity on not a few occasions; but certain people continue to want to reject the truth for a concept of Tritheism.

I really don't know how you came to this conclusion. I stated: "The Son existed in eternity past prior to creation, which is clearly prior to his death, resurrection, and ascension. When he ascended, he simply returned to the place from where he came."

Your conclusion doesn't follow.

It certainly does follow. However, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 may be at play so that you don't see it.

 

[Free]

Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians says of the original Greek: “It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of ‘to seize’, ‘to snatch violently’ to that of ‘to hold fast.’” The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: “We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω [har·paʹzo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize, snatch violently. So it is not permissible to glide from the true sense ‘grasp at’ into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’”
So the scripture at Philippians 2:6 should not convey any kind of thought of forcefully retained or held onto. The Greek work harpazo nowhere in the scriptures is used that way. So for anyone to try to force the word harpazo to be used that way when its not ever in any scripture used that way because of your belief you want to force the word harpazo to be used that way, I'm not going to agree with.
Philippians 2:6 being translated, "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped.” Is an accurate translation. So the point of Philippians 2:6 is that although Jesus was in the form of God he never snatched at the idea or thought that he was equal to God. This is the truth you don't want to accept because this scripture explicitly confirms Jesus isn't God and he never said he was.

On the contrary. Here, you have run into the problem of taking The Expositor's Greek Testament out of context, by proof-texting such a small portion of the discussion.

"We cannot find any passage where ἁρπάζω or any of its derivatives has the sense of “holding in possession,” “retaining”. It seems invariably to mean “seize,” “snatch violently”. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense “grasp at” into one which is totally different, “hold fast”. Are we not obliged, then, to think of the ἁρπαγμός (= ἅρπαγμα) as something still future, a res rapienda? Cf. Catena on Mark x. 41 ff. (quoted by Zahn), Jesus’ answer to the sons of Zebedee, οὐκ ἐστὶν ἁρπαγμὸς ἡ τιμή, “the honour is not one to be snatched”. Observe how aptly this view fits the context. In ver. 10, which is the climax of the whole passage, we read that God gave Jesus Christ as a gift (ἐχαρίσατο) the name above every name, i.e., the name (including position, dignity and authority) of Κύριος, Lord, the name which represents the O.T. Jehovah. But this is the highest place Christ has reached. He has always (in Paul’s view) shared in the Divine nature (μ. Θεοῦ). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped. This position of Κύριος is the reward and crowning-point of the whole process of His voluntary Humiliation. It is the equivalent of that τελείωσις of which the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks. This perfection “He acquired as He successively seized the occasions which His vocation as author of salvation presented to Him, a process moving on the lines of His relations to mortal, sinful men” (Davidson, Hebrews, p. 208). Along the same lines He was raised to the dignity of Κύριος, which is a relation to mankind."

This part is very important: "He has always (in Paul’s view) shared in the Divine nature (μ. Θεοῦ). But it is only as the result of His Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection and Exaltation that He appears to men as on an equality with God, that He is worshipped by them in the way in which Jehovah is worshipped."

M. R. Vincent both agrees that Christ "shared in the Divine nature," but disagrees as to the meaning of "robbery":

"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God (οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ). Robbery is explained in three ways. (1) A robbing, the act. (2) The thing robbed, a piece of plunder. (3) A prize, a thing to be grasped. Here in the last sense.
Paul does not then say, as A.V., that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God: for, (1) that fact goes without. saying in the previous expression, being in the form of God. (2) On this explanation the statement is very awkward. Christ, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal with God; but, after which we should naturally expect, on the other hand, claimed and asserted equality: whereas the statement is: Christ was in the form of God and did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but (instead) emptied Himself. Christ held fast His assertion of divine dignity, but relinquished it. The antithesis is thus entirely destroyed.
Taking the word ἁρπαγμὸν (A.V., robbery) to mean a highly prized possession, we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis in the passage is upon Christ's humiliation. The fact of His equality with God is stated as a background, in order to throw the circumstances of His incarnation into stronger relief. Hence the peculiar form of Paul's statement Christ's great object was to identify Himself with humanity; not to appear to men as divine but as human. Had He come into the world emphasizing His equality with God, the world would have been amazed, but not saved He did not grasp at this. The rather He counted humanity His prize, and so laid aside the conditions of His preexistent state, and became man." (Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 878-879).


Any particular reason for not addressing the five points I gave? They really are a crucial part of the context.

 

[Free]

There is clearly one Father in holy scripture (Malachi 2:10);

Yes, that is my point.

and Isaiah 9:6 proclaims that He is the son that was given.

As I pointed out, there are other meanings and uses of "father," and the NT makes it unequivocally clear that the Father is not the Son. Logically, a son is never is own father nor a father his own son.

I have explained the Trinity on not a few occasions; but certain people continue to want to reject the truth for a concept of Tritheism.

There is only one in this discussion that seems to think the Trinity is tritheism, but it certainly isn't me.

It certainly does follow.

The Son, who has existed for all eternity with the Father, came down and took on human flesh, and then returned to the Father. One Son, not two. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

However, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 may be at play so that you don't see it.

Firstly, if you want to imply that anyone who believes differently than you is "perishing," that is, not saved, you will be banned from this thread for violating the ToS. Secondly, that is a useless argument that gets us nowhere, since anyone who disagrees with anyone else could state the same.

 

[JLB]

The Son ; The Firstborn
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
John 1:18 - the only begotten God https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1-18.htm
If you asked me if Jesus is Deity I wouldn't state to you Deity isn't found scripture. I would state the fullness of Deity was pleased to live or dwell in Him and the Son is the image of that Deity. Col 1:19 Gifted and from the will of another.
If you asked me if the Father is Deity I would state yes.

Deity =Divinity or God - Gods fullness dwells in Jesus He is the image of that God, The glory of that radiance of that God and the very imprint of that Gods being.

So is Jesus God?
He never dies
Yes, He is all that the Father is
No, He has always been the Son.

So what is you answer?

Is The Son who created all things, God?


JLB

 

[jaybo]

Why is this still being debated? We are approaching 1300 posts on this subject. God will not be changed by our descriptions. I vote to end the discussion.

 

[Free]

Why is this still being debated? We are approaching 1300 posts on this subject. God will not be changed by our descriptions. I vote to end the discussion.

Because people want to discuss it. And so it will continue. If you don't want to take part, then don't.

 

[jaybo]

Because people want to discuss it. And so it will continue. If you don't want to take part, then don't.

Thank you for your "kind" response.

 

[Randy]

So what is you answer?

Is The Son who created all things, God?


JLB

Yes and No

 

[JLB]

Yes and No

Thanks for being honest.

 

[Randy]

So what is you answer?

Is The Son who created all things, God?


JLB

Whats your answer?
Jesus calls the Father the only true God. If He always was and always was God then how does this believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross, "Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

Is this coeternal?
Col 1:19

Father -only unbegotten God
Jesus -the only begotten God

If Jesus always was and always was God how did He become the Son?

 

[Randy]

The Lamb sits on the throne of the Father, that should be clear from the verse.

You wrote=>Actually, the One on the throne is the Lamb (Revelation 3:21) in the book of Revelation.

Yes He did sit "with" His Father on "His" Fathers throne.

I am not sure what point you wanted to make.