Three person God identified in the Bible?

[GodsGrace]

Gotcha. Thx Gotquestions says a recycling of modalism which I had come across.

What does
A RECYCLING OF MODULISM
mean??

 

[Randy]

My point was to point out an analogy. That I have 2 spirits in me and my theory is Christ has 2 spirits also: the divine and human spirit. Since knowledge is a characteristic of a spirit and since Christ knowledge did not know the timing of his second coming and since the divine Spirit knows all things I conclude Christ has 2 spirits: human and divine.

His Spirit and the Fathers Spirit
Humans give birth to humans
When scripture calls Jesus the only begotten Son that follows that same context. Like to Like
We have different views on how that is so. You believe Jesus was begotten of the Father but not made but by some unexplainable way is a Son. Your foundation is mystery.
I believe Jesus, His spirit, was the beginning of the creation of the Father, (not divine), and God was pleased to gift (Not made) His very fullness to dwell in Jesus. So Jesus is like to like offspring a literally only begotten Son with a beginning at some point in history before the world began. The Firstborn. He has always been the Son. A son who is the very image of His Father. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to Dwell. And in that manner He and the Father are one.
So the Son who was, His spirit, was in the body prepared for Him.
That's clear to me, "Father into your hands I commit My spirit"
In considering the Father I don't know with "certainty" that He has no beginning, I do know with certainty "if" the Father has a beginning it could not be by any other being.

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

The Father is the only unbegotten God or the only true God. Jesus's God and Father.

Jesus was exalted, Jesus received authority, Jesus was appointed Heir of all things, Jesus was given a name above all names except God Himself who gave Him that name. A name far superior to the angels of God. So you should be able to see from whom He is getting everything from. His God and Father. It is the Father who glorifies His Son. Even the message Jesus delivered was His Father's as God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son.

 

[Free]

Well, maybe you should read them.

I did. What do you mean by posting them?

Here, you agree that Jesus is YHWH but deny that He is the Father or the Spirit. Thus I asked the question,

If Jesus is YHWH but is not the Father or the Spirit, it follows that neither the Father nor the Spirit are YHWH.

No, it doesn’t follow. You are begging the question by presuming that YHWH is a single person.

I think that monotheism is the nature of God (James 2:19).

Monotheism just means that there is only one true God. It says nothing about his nature.

It is sufficient if it is stated in the OT.

And where is it stated in the OT?

Nevertheless, John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11 tell us clearly that the Spirit of Jesus is the Father.

Perhaps you can post the verses and highlight where they clearly state that or explain how, exactly, how they do.

 

[GodsGrace]

Assume you mean God the Father.

Yes. I meant God Father.
Thanks for clarifying.

Maybe, I've been told it was God the Son. Not a big deal, but I would like to know which one.... or maybe it's all three at once. Beats me.

I'm also told it's God Son. But I really have to understand something myself and not just because it's what I'm told.
I believe the voice coming from the burning bush is God Father. Mainly because He never appeared, and the Son does appear in the OT.

Ouch ... I am of the conviction that God safe-guards His word ... but I have to admit there are minor differences.

Even the NT has errors in it.
But no error that would change what God wants us to know.
Nothing that would change doctrine (whichever one would believe to be true).
But there are errors in there that were caused by writing errors.
There's a list of these errors, they actually have names...but I can't remember any of them.

Agreed, just a curiosity for me. Everyone almost says THE ANGEL OF THE LORD is the 2nd person...I am curious to be shown proof.

Right.
And An angel of The LORD could just mean a messenger too.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeah, I agree with Free in post 1520. I didn't want to repeat it. The question seems to be to be asking specifically for the word "DWELL" so I limited my answer as the word 'dwell' was not defined. For instance, I also thought of all the verses mentioning 'in Christ' or more of the Upper Room Discourse and verses about Christ working in us, or without Him we can do nothing.

I reread your post no. 1550.
I think that IN CHRIST is different from Christ or the Holy Spirit DWELLING IN US.

But, yes, I understand your response.
Without the help of Christ or the Holy Spirit, we can do nothing.
This is so true.
Of our own strength we would lose patience and love very quickly.

 

[GodsGrace]

God cannot be divided.
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
Mark 3:23-26

Did Jesus say “I and the Father are not one?”
.

God is not divided !!

Jesus is part of God as HIS WORD....HIS LOGOS.
The Holy Spirit is part of God as HIS BREATH...HIS LIFE GIVING ABILITIES...etc.

There is ONE GOD.

We're trying as humans to understand something spiritual.
It's not easy.
But we are NOT dividing God,,,,just trying to explain Him.

Did you ever read about Divine Simplicity?
I've forgotten a lot,,,but it states that GOD CANNOT BE DIVIDED INTO PARTS....
Not even HIS NATURE can be divided...HIS ATTRIBUTES.

He is one complete being.
Not divided.

 

[Fastfredy0]

What does
A RECYCLING OF MODULISM
mean??

Modalism in theology, the doctrine, adopted by Sabellius in the third century, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different manifestations of one and the same person.

So, it seems to me based on Gotquestions.org that ONENESS is modalism with a different coat of paint, so to speak. I've never delved into it more deeply.
https://www.gotquestions.org/oneness-doctrine.html .....seems to be a Pentecostal thing

 

[GodsGrace]

Modalism in theology, the doctrine, adopted by Sabellius in the third century, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different manifestations of one and the same person.

So, it seems to me based on Gotquestions.org that ONENESS is modalism with a different coat of paint, so to speak. I've never delved into it more deeply.
https://www.gotquestions.org/oneness-doctrine.html .....seems to be a Pentecostal thing

Oh gosh FF.
I got mixed up with Molinism !
No wonder it made no sense to me....

Sorry 'bout that...

 

[GodsGrace]

Modalism in theology, the doctrine, adopted by Sabellius in the third century, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different manifestations of one and the same person.

So, it seems to me based on Gotquestions.org that ONENESS is modalism with a different coat of paint, so to speak. I've never delved into it more deeply.
https://www.gotquestions.org/oneness-doctrine.html .....seems to be a Pentecostal thing

PS
I tried to teach this to my religion kids...about different manifestations.
I did actually because it's something they understand. (and me too).
However, I was told it's a heresy.

EVERY idea about the Trinity seems to be heresy!!
LOL

 

[Fastfredy0]

You believe Jesus was begotten of the Father but not made but by some unexplainable way is a Son. Your foundation is mystery.

I don't see 'begotten' to be a mystery though I suppose if one delves more deeply into any attribute of a transcendant God everyone will eventually hit a 'mystery'. Perhaps our definition of "begotten" varies. I don't see "begotten" to mean created; rather, I heard the term 'eternally generated'. The analogy I seen if a book and a stand where the stand is the Father and the book is the Son and the Father has eternally supported (begotten) the book. Both the book and stand are eternal.

I believe Jesus, His spirit, was the beginning of the creation of the Father, (not divine)

Ah, well this is our major divide. I see Christ as divine. I am assuming you believe Christ has 1 spirit. (I'll let Free repeat for the nth time various verses to support our contention that Christ is divine *giggle* Aside: Granted terms life 'first born' and 'begotten' seemingly lend support to you cause.

In considering the Father I don't know with "certainty" that He has no beginning, I do know with certainty "if" the Father has a beginning it could not be by any other being.

ex nihilo nihil fit .. out of nothing, nothing is produced : nothing comes from nothing
If God did not always exist (had a beginning) then He is not immutable and scripture says He is unchangable. If God can change then all His promises are subject to change. God is eternal which is an attribute distinct from time for if time was eternal we would never get to this point in time ... I'm wondering off subject .. *giggle*

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

Maybe the question is ... can Christ have 2 natures?
Premise 1: God is eternal (cannot die)
Premise 2: Christ died
Conclusion: Christ is not God ...... or Christ has 2 natures (son of man ... and Son of God ... divine and human)

Is it possible to have 2 natures, divine and human
Premise 1: I have a human nature by definition
Premise 2: The Spirit of God dwells in me
Conclusion: I have a divine and human nature. Roman 8:12-13 12 So then, [a]brothers and sisters, we have an obligation, but not to our flesh [our human nature, our worldliness, our sinful capacity], to live according to the [impulses of the] flesh [our nature without the Holy Spirit]— 13 for if you are living according to the [impulses of the] flesh, you are going to die. But if [you are living] by the [power of the Holy] Spirit you are habitually putting to death the sinful deeds of the body, you will [really] live forever.

The Father is the only unbegotten God or the only true God. Jesus's God and Father.

I can see where you're coming from... terms like "Father" and "begotten" lend strength to your argument. I would say other verses demand the search for other meaning to those terms.

Jesus was exalted, Jesus received authority, Jesus was appointed Heir of all things, Jesus was given a name above all names except God Himself who gave Him that name. A name far superior to the angels of God. So you should be able to see from whom He is getting everything from. His God and Father. It is the Father who glorifies His Son. Even the message Jesus delivered was His Father's as God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son.

Again, I argue Christ has two nature.
Premise 1: God share His glory with no one. Isaiah 42:8
Premise 2: As you imply above, God is sharing His glory with Christ (every knee shall bow and tongue confess)
Conclusion: Christ is God and since Christ died and God cannot die, Christ is also man

 

[Free]

That equals three Gods or else a singular God who is divided into thirds.

Not at all. Study the doctrine of the Trinity and its history. It gets much more technical than I have given, but the language used was very specific and was debated over and thought through to avoid such charges.

Now I agree that He is the 2nd Person of the Trinity but not that He was eternally begotten.

But that is precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity states.

It is clear to me from my reading of holy scripture that He was begotten in the incarnation.

Are you saying he didn’t exist prior to his incarnation?

That means that Jesus will ultimately carry the name of "The everlasting Father" (Isaiah 9:6-7);

For He is in the Father and the Father is in Him (John 14:7-11); and the Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24). I conclude that the Father is the Spirit of Jesus.

What do you mean by "the Spirit of Jesus"?

Also, in the same passage, Philip asks Jesus to shew them the Father; and Jesus points to Himself: Have I been so long with you and yet thou hast not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.

Yep.

That is qualified by Hebrews 10:5. The Son, being the same Spirit as the Father (John 4:23-24, John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4), says to the Father that He has prepared a body for Him. This Person of the Son, in the hypostatic union (as being God in the flesh), is the Person who is sent by the Father.

How does that fit Oneness theology? By saying the Son "is the Person who is sent by the Father," is to say that the Son is not the Father.

Because if He was eternally begotten, that is a 2nd God formed beside Him.

Not at all. Again, study the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Even the NT has errors in it.
But no error that would change what God wants us to know.
Nothing that would change doctrine (whichever one would believe to be true).
But there are errors in there that were caused by writing errors.
There's a list of these errors, they actually have names...but I can't remember any of them.

Agreed ... supposedly there are 180,000 words in the N.T. and 400,000 New Testament variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts.
Example: John 5:4 does not occurs in most English Translation

I think that IN CHRIST is different from Christ or the Holy Spirit DWELLING IN US.

Hmmm, yeah .... I suppose so

EVERY idea about the Trinity seems to be heresy!!

The Trinity is not an obvious conclusion as demonstrated by theologians taking a couple 100 years to espouse it officially.
Saying Christ is not God may be a salvific distinction IMO ... but I believe Christ is God so I'm good

 

[Free]

The Oneness idea is in fact 100 yrs old but that does not make it untrue.

It certainly doesn't mean it is true, especially when the doctrine of the Trinity survived the Reformation and the radical Reformation, when so much was thrown out. That really says something, when numerous denominations who disagree on so much still agreed to the truthfulness of the Trinity.

In Acts 2:38-39, we find that the promise of the Holy Ghost is given to "all that are afar off" and I believe this is referring to the Oneness generation.

What is "Oneness generation"?

When the councils were taking place, there were few who had actually been baptized in Jesus' Name who were allowed to contend for their concept of the Trinity; for the formula by that time had been switched over unilaterally to that of Matthew 28:19.

Do you have evidence of this?

The councils missed a few important truths when they formulated their creeds.

1) the creeds deny that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), stating that the Son is uncreated.

Yet, they fully affirm that Jesus was truly man, as well as God. So, no, they do not deny such.

2) the creeds state that He was "eternally begotten" which is in denial of the plain meaning of Luke 1:35.

Your conclusion doesn't follow as it is begging the question. You are presuming a definition of "begotten" and relating that to the incarnation.

"Only begotten" is the Greek word monogenes, and is used only nine times in the NT. It means "unique," "only," or “one and only.” It is used of Jesus five times--John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9--and is translated as "only begotten" in each instance (in the KJV). The other four times--Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Heb 11:17--it is translated as "only."

It is very important to note that each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to the their child.

So, what “only begotten” does not mean is that Jesus was literally begotten or that there was a time when he did not exist. It speaks of his unique relationship to the Father as his only Son. And this fits perfectly with John 1:1-3 which precludes the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist.

Here is M. R. Vincent on John 1:14's use of monogenes:

"Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation."

There may be a few other discrepancies between the creeds and biblical teaching; but I don't think I have a need to be a nitpicker about it. The two that I have stated above create an understanding, when you accept biblical truth on the matter, that will change your point of view on the nature of the Trinity substantially;

Not at all. You haven't shown any issue with the creeds as there is some error in reasoning on your part that needs to be addressed.

and in accepting biblical truth on the matter, you will come to a biblical knowledge of what the Trinity is truly all about.

I do believe I have the biblical truth of the matter and a biblical view of the biblical Trinity.

 

[Free]

Ah, well this is our major divide. I see Christ as divine. I am assuming you believe Christ has 1 spirit. (I'll let Free repeat for the nth time various verses to support our contention that Christ is divine *giggle*

Don't make me do it...

Aside: Granted terms life 'first born' and 'begotten' seemingly lend support to you cause.

They seem to, but further study shows this not to be the case, as I have just posted regarding "only begotten." As I have posted elsewhere on "firstborn":

How do we then understand "firstborn" as it relates to the Son? We look to its other uses in Scripture.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, (ESV)

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)

We see then that "firstborn" has meanings which are not literal. We know from reading the Bible that the firstborn had certain rights and privileges but we also see in the verses above that it seemed those whom God loved he called his firstborn, even though they were not in any literal sense his firstborn.

The use of firstborn can mean preeminence without the referent having actually been born. Looking at the significance of Psalms 89:27, it is a messianic Psalm where God says of David, "I will make him the firstborn." Here, firstborn clearly means that God will put him in a position of preeminence, "the highest of the kings of the earth." David is here the prototype of the coming Messiah, the "firstborn," and has nothing to do with David's being born or coming into being. This is almost certainly what Paul had in mind, and we see something similar in Romans:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

Here it means the same--that Jesus would be the head of all believers. In relation to the Son then, we can understand that Col. 1:15 is speaking of Jesus's place of preeminence, his sovereignty, and his lordship, over all creation.

A similar idea applies to Rev 3:14. Again, such a verse logically cannot mean that Jesus was the first created thing, as that would ignore much context of Scripture, both immediate and greater. What "firstborn" here refers to is that Jesus was the beginner or author of creation, the one through whom the Father created (1 Cor 8:6). That is in full agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, among others.

 

[Randy]

I don't see 'begotten' to be a mystery though I suppose if one delves more deeply into any attribute of a transcendant God everyone will eventually hit a 'mystery'. Perhaps our definition of "begotten" varies. I don't see "begotten" to mean created; rather, I heard the term 'eternally generated'. The analogy I seen if a book and a stand where the stand is the Father and the book is the Son and the Father has eternally supported (begotten) the book. Both the book and stand are eternal.



Ah, well this is our major divide. I see Christ as divine. I am assuming you believe Christ has 1 spirit. (I'll let Free repeat for the nth time various verses to support our contention that Christ is divine *giggle* Aside: Granted terms life 'first born' and 'begotten' seemingly lend support to you cause.



ex nihilo nihil fit .. out of nothing, nothing is produced : nothing comes from nothing
If God did not always exist (had a beginning) then He is not immutable and scripture says He is unchangable. If God can change then all His promises are subject to change. God is eternal which is an attribute distinct from time for if time was eternal we would never get to this point in time ... I'm wondering off subject .. *giggle*


Maybe the question is ... can Christ have 2 natures?
Premise 1: God is eternal (cannot die)
Premise 2: Christ died
Conclusion: Christ is not God ...... or Christ has 2 natures (son of man ... and Son of God ... divine and human)

Is it possible to have 2 natures, divine and human
Premise 1: I have a human nature by definition
Premise 2: The Spirit of God dwells in me
Conclusion: I have a divine and human nature. Roman 8:12-13 12 So then, [a]brothers and sisters, we have an obligation, but not to our flesh [our human nature, our worldliness, our sinful capacity], to live according to the [impulses of the] flesh [our nature without the Holy Spirit]— 13 for if you are living according to the [impulses of the] flesh, you are going to die. But if [you are living] by the [power of the Holy] Spirit you are habitually putting to death the sinful deeds of the body, you will [really] live forever.



I can see where you're coming from... terms like "Father" and "begotten" lend strength to your argument. I would say other verses demand the search for other meaning to those terms.



Again, I argue Christ has two nature.
Premise 1: God share His glory with no one. Isaiah 42:8
Premise 2: As you imply above, God is sharing His glory with Christ (every knee shall bow and tongue confess)
Conclusion: Christ is God and since Christ died and God cannot die, Christ is also man

"Never dies" should be clear to you.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Man can kill the body but not the soul as in put to death in the flesh but alive in the Spirit. Jesus's spirit preexisted that body. HE never dies. He lives by the Father just as we live by Him.

 

[Cooper]

God is not divided !!

Jesus is part of God as HIS WORD....HIS LOGOS.
The Holy Spirit is part of God as HIS BREATH...HIS LIFE GIVING ABILITIES...etc.

There is ONE GOD.

We're trying as humans to understand something spiritual.
It's not easy.
But we are NOT dividing God,,,,just trying to explain Him.

Did you ever read about Divine Simplicity?
I've forgotten a lot,,,but it states that GOD CANNOT BE DIVIDED INTO PARTS....
Not even HIS NATURE can be divided...HIS ATTRIBUTES.

He is one complete being.
Not divided.

Here is an example.
STAFF (in the centre) IS mother, IS daughter, IS flesh.
(Staff is one person.)

Around the outside.
Mother IS NOT Daughter. Daughter IS NOT Flesh. Flesh IS NOT Mother.

Staff is nothing. She is not Daughter, Flesh or Mother.
.

 

[justbyfaith]

And where is it stated in the OT?

Isaiah 9:6-7.

Perhaps you can post the verses and highlight where they clearly state that or explain how, exactly, how they do.

I've done this a few times already. And I'm certain that you've seen the work. So, I may do it again in a different post.

Are you saying he didn’t exist prior to his incarnation?

He was the Father prior to the incarnation.

His name shall be called "The everlasting Father". The zeal of the LORD of hosts shall perform this. Isaiah 9:6-7.

What do you mean by "the Spirit of Jesus"?

Jesus' Spirit.

How does that fit Oneness theology? By saying the Son "is the Person who is sent by the Father," is to say that the Son is not the Father.

The Son is the same Spirit as the Father; and therefore the same Person.

Of course they are distinct from each other in that the Son is come in the flesh whereas the Father is a Spirit inhabiting eternity without flesh.

What is "Oneness generation"?

The generation that developed after the doctrine was restored through which many people received baptism in Jesus' Name.

Do you have evidence of this?

Not directly on hand. But I'm sure that if you look for it on the internet, you might be able to find it.

Yet, they fully affirm that Jesus was truly man, as well as God. So, no, they do not deny such.

But they do, when they say specifically that the Son is uncreated.

I do believe I have the biblical truth of the matter and a biblical view of the biblical Trinity.

Except that you do not.

 

[justbyfaith]

Notice what it says here.

Rom 4:24, But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on them that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25, Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Clearly, the Father and the Son raised Jesus from the dead:

Gal 1:1, Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Jhn 10:17, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Jhn 10:18, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Nevertheless, there is a problem, Houston.

For this is the correct rendering of Romans 4:24-25.

Rom 4:24, But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25, Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here is an example.
STAFF (in the centre) IS mother, IS daughter, IS flesh.
(Staff is one person.)

Around the outside.
Mother IS NOT Daughter. Daughter IS NOT Flesh. Flesh IS NOT Mother.

Staff is nothing. She is not Daughter, Flesh or Mother.
.

Great example!

Now listen.
STAFF is one person,,,,flesh. Let flesh be GOD.
But if this flesh is acting as MY MOTHER then this flesh is not my sister.

If flesh is Mary's sister this flesh is not MARY'S MOTHER.

But there is only one flesh, one God.
One of God's attributes is as THE WORD.

Another attribute is as GODS LIVING BREATH.

THE WORD IS JESUS.
THE BREATH IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 

[GodsGrace]

Notice what it says here.

Rom 4:24, But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on them that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25, Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Clearly, the Father and the Son raised Jesus from the dead:

Gal 1:1, Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Jhn 10:17, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Jhn 10:18, No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Nevertheless, there is a problem, Houston.

For this is the correct rendering of Romans 4:24-25.

Rom 4:24, But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25, Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Could you be more clear as to your point?