Three person God identified in the Bible?

[theWind]

theSeriousOne

Silly man- that is exactly what the 'Trinity' teaches! I bet you've fallen for the CATHOLIC scam!

Now you're really revealing your ignorance of the very position you are attempting to defend.

The official definition of the trinity is three persons, not three gods.

 

[Free]

The 'us' there is a misinterpretation/mistranslation or else we wouldn't have this in the very next verse.

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."
Gen. 1:27

This is begging the question. Do you have any scholarly support that "us" and "our" are "misinterpretation/mistranslation" or do you understand ancient Hebrew? In verse 26 it is God himself speaking, using plural pronouns of himself, then he inspired Moses to use the singular in verse 27. Why? Because there is a diversity within the unity of God. It supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

If there was any remote possibility that God was plural, we would see a corresponding they here, and many other places throughout Scripture.

We never see that ... anywhere.

There is only one God, so why should we see "they," as that would suggest more than one God?

 

[Free]

Have you ever read John 1:1?

The Word = The Son
God = The Father

"In the beginning was The Son, and The Son was with The Father, and The Son was The Father."
John 1:1

One individual person.

You're begging the question, putting in "the Father" to suit your doctrine and conclude that it is true, rather than letting the verse speak for itself.

What you have posted ignores the Greek grammar, which is very specific for the very reason. The whole point of the verse, indeed John's prologue, is to tells us who the Word is. Firstly, when we look at "with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But that doesn't convey the full meaning; it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy.

Secondly, John used the article in 1:1b, which refers to God as a being, but he did not use the article in 1:1c for "God." If he had, then God and Word become interchangeable, which would support Modalism. But that is false. Without the article then, the only meaning we can get is one of a qualitative nature, that is, it is meaning that the Word is divine in nature.

Nowhere in any trinity explanation are we told that any of the three are each other.

Obviously, because that would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity and support the heresy of Modalism.

On the contrary, we are told they are totally separate and different from each other, but all god.

Nonsense.

That would be nonsense if that is actually what the doctrine of the Trinity taught. They each truly and fully God and distinct one from the other, yes, but they are not totally separate and different from each other.

 

[theWind]

This is begging the question. Do you have any scholarly support that "us" and "our" are "misinterpretation/mistranslation" or do you understand ancient Hebrew? In verse 26 it is God himself speaking, using plural pronouns of himself, then he inspired Moses to use the singular in verse 27. Why? Because there is a diversity within the unity of God. It supports the doctrine of the Trinity.

Not in the least.

He spoke "of Himself" in the plural, then inspired Moses to speak of Him in the singular?

God is not the author of confusion.
1 Cor. 14:33

Singular pronouns don't allow any possibility of a trinity. Sorry.

If I say "We need to wrap up this thread.", am I speaking of myself in the plural? Of course not!

The angels were present with God at Creation.
Job 38:4

Then Moses spoke of God in His True singular nature.

There is only one God, so why should we see "they," as that would suggest more than one God?

There is one god in the trinity definition, but three persons. Three is plural.

It wouldn't make a lick of sense to refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as He if the trinity were a legit Biblical concept. And all of that ignores the fact that none of your argument holds a single drop of water without any passage in all of Scripture that plainly defines and explains a trinity concept for God.

You are arguing upon a non-existent foundation.

You must first establish that it is a legit concept that is even taught in Scripture to begin with, THEN, and only then, can you legitimately argue which verses are, or are not, referencing it.

You don't even have the first piece of the puzzle.

 

[theWind]

That would be nonsense if that is actually what the doctrine of the Trinity taught. They each truly and fully God and distinct one from the other, yes, but they are not totally separate and different from each other.

They are absolutely different from each other, that's what distinct means.

dis·tinct
/dəˈstiNG(k)t,dəˈstiNGk(t)/
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...2ahUKEwi0kezixMD9AhXyEUQIHbhdCTIQ3eEDegQICBAK
adjective

1. 1.
   recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.
   "the patterns of spoken language are distinct from those of writing"

No trinitarian understands the important dynamics of their own position. That's how flawed the entire argument for the trinity really is. Even the most high profile pastors and preachers that argue for it don't understand it.

 

[Free]

Not in the least.

It is if you cannot provide proof that there is a mistranslation.

He spoke "of Himself" in the plural, then inspired Moses to speak of Him in the singular?

God is not the author of confusion.

Of course not. So, we have to make sense of what he has revealed to us. And what he has revealed to us in these two verses is that there is diversity within the unity.

Singular pronouns don't allow any possibility of a trinity. Sorry.

Prove it. I'll give you a hint--you can't, because no one can. I'll leave you to do the study and figure out why.

If I say "We need to wrap up this thread.", am I speaking of myself in the plural? Of course not!

But, you aren't God either.

The angels were present with God at Creation.
Job 38:4

Firstly, we're made in the image of God, not of angels. Secondly, angels are created beings. Thirdly, what does Job 38:4 have to do with your statement?

Then Moses spoke of God in His True singular nature.

There is one god in the trinity definition, but three persons. Three is plural.

Yes, it is.

It wouldn't make a lick of sense to refer to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as He if the trinity were a legit Biblical concept.

Why not? One of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism--that there was, is, and ever will be only one God. To refer to God in the plural would suggest polytheism and create that confusion that God is not the author of.

And all of that ignores the fact that none of your argument holds a single drop of water without any passage in all of Scripture that plainly defines and explains a trinity concept for God.

And, yet, you have left most of my arguments unaddressed. Why is that? If none of them "holds a single drop of water," they should be easy to refute.

It is hard not to notice that you once again left my arguments unaddressed, regarding John 1:1.

You are arguing upon a non-existent foundation.

You must first establish that it is a legit concept that is even taught in Scripture to begin with, THEN, and only then, can you legitimately argue which verses are, or are not, referencing it.

You don't even have the first piece of the puzzle.

That's what I've been trying to do but it doesn't help when you leave my arguments largely unaddressed.

Here is a basic definition of the Trinity:

“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, p.26)

That leads to these three foundations:

1. Monotheism—there is only one God
2. There are three divine Persons
3. The Persons are coequal and coeternal
(ibid., p. 28)

There are numerous passages in Scripture to support each, which is precisely what I have been trying to discuss. I assume you will agree with the first two foundations but disagree with the third, correct?

 

[Free]

They are absolutely different from each other, that's what distinct means.

dis·tinct
/dəˈstiNG(k)t,dəˈstiNGk(t)/
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...2ahUKEwi0kezixMD9AhXyEUQIHbhdCTIQ3eEDegQICBAK
adjective

1. 1.
   recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.
   "the patterns of spoken language are distinct from those of writing"

No trinitarian understands the important dynamics of their own position. That's how flawed the entire argument for the trinity really is. Even the most high profile pastors and preachers that argue for it don't understand it.

Be careful in who you are claiming doesn't understand it, because so far, you have not even come close to proving it is false. Consistent with that, is that distinct does not necessarily mean absolutely different from one another.

If I eat a piece of chocolate cake for dessert and am asked if I would like another, what should I expect if I say yes? A piece of pie? A piece of carrot cake or fruitcake? Of course not. I would fully expect a piece of cake from the same cake. That second piece is distinct from the first but it is still from the same cake; it is different because it is not the exact same piece, yet it has the same chemical makeup because it is from the same chocolate cake. Of course, that is as far as that analogy extends.

Or, if we consider water, a bit of water can stay liquid, be turned to ice, or turned into a gas. It is still the same substance, H2O, yet can exist in a distinct state. As it is, that would support Modalism. However, if we look at the triple-point of water, a given amount of H2O can exist simultaneously as solid, liquid, and gas at a given temperature and pressure. If H2O can do that, why can't God?

Why do you want to put God in a box?

 

[theWind]

But, you aren't God either.

So if God says we, strict human grammar applies to an unlimited being, but if I say it, it's lax.

You make a strong point.

Firstly, we're made in the image of God, not of angels. Secondly, angels are created beings. Thirdly, what does Job 38:4 have to do with your statement?

Job 38:7

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. And this discussion with you could really be summed up as a Yes it is, No it's not level discussion as you are not following the information that is being exchanged with honesty and sincerity.

Why not? One of the foundations of the Trinity is monotheism--that there was, is, and ever will be only one God. To refer to God in the plural would suggest polytheism and create that confusion that God is not the author of.

Well, ... how many persons are in the trinity? Don't think there's any getting around the plural there.

And, yet, you have left most of my arguments unaddressed. Why is that? If none of them "holds a single drop of water," they should be easy to refute.

Every single one of them has been refuted, but you are employing a "If I don't admit defeat, I can't be defeated!" mentality and strategy which is only effective in your own little bubble.

POP!!!

Here is a basic definition of the Trinity:

1. Monotheism—there is only one God

Correct

2. There are three divine Persons

Plural

3. The Persons are coequal and coeternal

Any claimed nature of God MUST align with Scripture, and with what God Himself has claimed .... about Himself.

He makes crystal clear that no "OTHER" is equal to, nor anything like, Him in the least.
Isaiah 40:25
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 46:5, 9
Isaiah 48:11

Therefore that definition is Biblically unsound. It is false. It is heresy.

There are numerous passages in Scripture to support each, which is precisely what I have been trying to discuss. I assume you will agree with the first two foundations but disagree with the third, correct?

The first is the ONLY one that is supported by Scripture.

 

[Free]

So if God says we, strict human grammar applies to an unlimited being, but if I say it, it's lax.

But that is to beg the question, presuming that God can't, in some sense, refer to himself as "we" and "our." It doesn't apply to you because you are an absolute unity. God is not.

No, it's not. And this discussion with you could really be summed up as a Yes it is, No it's not level discussion as you are not following the information that is being exchanged with honesty and sincerity.

That's a bit rich coming from you, don't you think, considering all that you have left unaddressed, such as my post #125 and most of what I said in post #163? I have tried to answer everything that is relevant to the discussion with honesty and sincerity, as I always do.

Well, ... how many persons are in the trinity? Don't think there's any getting around the plural there.

One God, three persons.

Every single one of them has been refuted, but you are employing a "If I don't admit defeat, I can't be defeated!" mentality and strategy which is only effective in your own little bubble.

POP!!!

This is just straight up dishonesty, as I have pointed out one post you left entirely unaddressed and the vast majority of another.

Any claimed nature of God MUST align with Scripture, and with what God Himself has claimed .... about Himself.

He makes crystal clear that no "OTHER" is equal to, nor anything like, Him in the least.
Isaiah 40:25
Isaiah 42:8
Isaiah 46:5, 9
Isaiah 48:11

Exactly, on all counts. There is only one God and he has claimed that he is also a "we" and "our" within being "he." Everything there not only doesn't disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity, but supports it.

Therefore that definition is Biblically unsound. It is false. It is heresy.

The first is the ONLY one that is supported by Scripture.

You haven't shown any of this to be the case.

 

[theWind]

you are an absolute unity. God is not.

That is a conclusion based on an unproven assumption that God is multiple persons that are united. The Bible nowhere makes that case, as I have stated, and challenged anyone to disprove, from the very beginning.

The only absolute statement about God's nature in the Bible is that He is a spirit. That doesn't make Him plural, and, to be honest, it doesn't imply it in any way at all either. We get statements about Him being omnipresent and all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., but nothing at all that states that God is plural. On the contrary, the Bible is chock full of statements that claim the opposite. Isaiah 42-48.

There is only one God and he has claimed that he is also a "we" and "our" within being "he." Everything there not only doesn't disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity, but supports it.

Nope. He absolutely has never claimed that and you haven't once produced any Scripture to support that.

It doesn't exist.

 

[theWind]

Free

Which of the three persons that make up the trinity god would you say are the one True God?

You say all of them, right?

The Bible very clearly says otherwise.

"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the (ONE) true God, and eternal life."
1 John 5:20

Full of pronouns and culminating with a very decisive declaration of THE True God. Not even a hint of any plurality there.

 

[Edward]

Nope. He absolutely has never claimed that and you haven't once produced any Scripture to support that.

It doesn't exist.

What about Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”.../KJV

If Jesus was alone who was He talking to? What does "us" mean? What does "our" mean?

No scripture for it, Lol! Want another?

Try Psalm 2. Most scholars agree that this chapter is all three of the trinity having a conversation. That's what they say. I am no scholar but it sounds like it could be.

 

[theWind]

What about Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”.../KJV

If Jesus was alone who was He talking to? What does "us" mean? What does "our" mean?

See post #133 here.
https://christianforums.net/threads/three-person-god-identified-in-the-bible.2858/page-7

And Job 38:7. There were many angels present when God said 'us'.

Try Psalm 2. Most scholars agree that this chapter is all three of the trinity having a conversation. That's what they say. I am no scholar but it sounds like it could be.

I will check it out.

 

[Consecrated Life]

We know from scripture that this Jesus who is the Christ is God because by His own Word He claims the GLORY OF GOD:

Jhn 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

And we know from scripture that God has declared sole ownership of His Glory.
Only God can claim the Glory of God.
God alone has the Glory of God.

Isa 42:8
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another."

By virtue of scripture we know that Jesus Christ claiming to have the Glory of God makes Him either God, or a liar.
For me He is God

 

[Free]

That is a conclusion based on an unproven assumption that God is multiple persons that are united. The Bible nowhere makes that case, as I have stated, and challenged anyone to disprove, from the very beginning.

Firstly, that is the very thing we are trying to establish and you keep avoiding answering most of my arguments. It's hard for this discussion to go anywhere if you avoid most everything that others are posting. Secondly, no where does the Bible say that God isn't a compound unity.

The only absolute statement about God's nature in the Bible is that He is a spirit. That doesn't make Him plural, and, to be honest, it doesn't imply it in any way at all either. We get statements about Him being omnipresent and all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., but nothing at all that states that God is plural. On the contrary, the Bible is chock full of statements that claim the opposite. Isaiah 42-48.

Actually, no, it isn't. There is not one statement that precludes God from being a compound unity. Not one. You need to do more study before I bend and provide you with the evidence.

Nope. He absolutely has never claimed that and you haven't once produced any Scripture to support that.

He certainly did and I gave the very verse that states exactly that. God himself said:

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

Diversity within the unity.

It doesn't exist.

It sure does.

 

[Edward]

See post #133 here.
https://christianforums.net/threads/three-person-god-identified-in-the-bible.2858/page-7

And Job 38:7. There were many angels present when God said 'us'.

I will check it out.

Meditate on this scripture over your morning coffee.

1 Corinthians 12:4-6
4 There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit is the source of them all. 5 There are different kinds of service, but we serve the same Lord. 6 God works in different ways, but it is the same God who does the work in all of us.../NLT

 

[jaybo]

The Bible clearly and unequivocally states that there is a triune God, i.e., three in one. Anyone who doesn't understand that can't read God's word or can't believe it.

 

[theWind]

We know from scripture that this Jesus who is the Christ is God because by His own Word He claims the GLORY OF GOD:

Jhn 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

And we know from scripture that God has declared sole ownership of His Glory.
Only God can claim the Glory of God.
God alone has the Glory of God.

Isa 42:8
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another."

By virtue of scripture we know that Jesus Christ claiming to have the Glory of God makes Him either God, or a liar.
For me He is God

Agreed.

But is He part of a trinity?

 

[theWind]

no where does the Bible say that God isn't a compound unity.

Lack of evidence is not proof of anything.

It doesn't say that God isn't an invisible flying pink elephant either.

Actually, no, it isn't. There is not one statement that precludes God from being a compound unity. Not one. You need to do more study before I bend and provide you with the evidence.

Deut. 6:4
Zech. 14:9
Isaiah 42-48

I don't need you to provide anything.

 

[jaybo]

Agreed.

But is He part of a trinity?

Yes, He is part of the trinity.