Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Randy]

The invisible Holy Spirit, who is "God with us," was made visible in Mary's flesh.
.

Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. You ignore that the only begotten Son was in the Fathers presence in the beginning and He came down as such a witness. John 1:18 He has always been the Son and He stated the Father sent Him and He came to do His Fathers will. Jesus has always been the Son. The Holy Spirit has never been declared God's Son in scripture.

John 17
Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

You are mistaken.

The lamb took a scroll from the hand of the one who sat on the throne because the one who sits on the throne has form. When Moses wanted to see God on the mountain top God told Moses no man shall see His face and live and He shielded Moses with His hand and Moses saw His back. My heavenly Father has form. The angels in God in heaven bow down to the one on the throne. They have form as well. The Spirit of God is not depicted with a bodily form.

 

[Randy]

The invisible Holy Spirit, who is "God with us," was made visible in Mary's flesh.
.

Again this is 1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Not your statement
Beware of saying the Son "is not" the Father because those who deny the Son have not the Father
Jesus stated He was Gods Son. John who wrote Logos also wrote John 1:18 which stated Jesus was the "only" begotten Son who came down from the Fathers presence as the only such eyewitness. The exalted Jesus in heaven still states "My Father" "My God"
The only thing I don't see is why despite all that is written of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God you refuse to believe He is and always has been Gods Son and not the Father.

To state Jesus is the Father denies Jesus's own testimony and the testimony of the Apostles.
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.

 

[Cooper]

Again this is 1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Not your statement
Beware of saying the Son "is not" the Father because those who deny the Son have not the Father
Jesus stated He was Gods Son. John who wrote Logos also wrote John 1:18 which stated Jesus was the "only" begotten Son who came down from the Fathers presence as the only such eyewitness. The exalted Jesus in heaven still states "My Father" "My God"
The only thing I don't see is why despite all that is written of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God you refuse to believe He is and always has been Gods Son and not the Father.

To state Jesus is the Father denies Jesus's own testimony and the testimony of the Apostles.
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.

1 John 2:23 is a dire warning, not to deny the deity of Jesus. He was the invisible God made visible in the likeness and image of man. That is why he spoke as a man.

The reason the creator made a body for himself was to redeem us from our sins, which are many. Only God himself could pay the ransom necessary
.

 

[Cooper]

ADDED
As Jesus is the Father with us on earth, it is best not to say, write, or otherwise publish the words:-

"The Father is not the Son, and the Son, is not the Father."

See 1 John 2:23 for the consequences.
.

 

[Randy]

1 John 2:23 is a dire warning, not to deny the deity of Jesus. He was the invisible God made visible in the likeness and image of man. That is why he spoke as a man.

The reason the creator made a body for himself was to redeem us from our sins, which are many. Only God himself could pay the ransom necessary
.

I have testified to you that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who was in the Fathers presence from the beginning.
And Jesus, that Son, is the only way to the Father.

But Jesus spoke of another. Again you deny the testimony given. What I don't see is "why".
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God

John 1:18 -the only begotten Son who came down from the Fathers presence

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

[Cooper]

I have testified to you that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who was in the Fathers presence from the beginning.
And Jesus, that Son, is the only way to the Father.

But Jesus spoke of another. Again you deny the testimony given. What I don't see is "why".
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God

John 1:18 -the only begotten Son who came down from the Fathers presence

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Have a read of this from the New Living Translation, and remember only God can propitiate in the forgiveness of our sins. See what you think and if you have any questions, get back to me.

Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
(1) The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship.
(2) If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared.
(3) But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year.
(4) For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
(5) That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer.
(6) You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin.
(7) Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—as is written about me in the Scriptures.’”
(8) First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses).
(9) Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect.
(10) For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.
(11) Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins.
(12) But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand.
(13) There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet.
(14) For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.
(15) And the Holy Spirit also testifies that this is so. For he says,
(16) “This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the LORD: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
(17) Then he says, “I will never again remember their sins and lawless deeds.”
(18) And when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:1-18
.

 

[Randy]

Have a read of this from the New Living Translation, and remember only God can propitiate in the forgiveness of our sins. See what you think and if you have any questions, get back to me.

Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
(1) The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship.
(2) If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared.
(3) But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year.
(4) For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
(5) That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer.
(6) You were not pleased with burnt offerings or other offerings for sin.
(7) Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—as is written about me in the Scriptures.’”
(8) First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses).
(9) Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect.
(10) For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.
(11) Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins.
(12) But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand.
(13) There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet.
(14) For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.
(15) And the Holy Spirit also testifies that this is so. For he says,
(16) “This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the LORD: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
(17) Then he says, “I will never again remember their sins and lawless deeds.”
(18) And when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices.

Hebrews 10:1-18
.

First of all this not not the Father role playing in this prophesy. Christ or the only begotten Son speaks of another beforehand. The translation has added thought to the text I prefer less added thought.

That is why, when Christ came into the world, he said to God, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings. But you have given me a body to offer.

And again Father and Son are shown.

 

[RudolfRed]

1 JN 5:6-8 - NASB - 6 "This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

These verses do indeed reveal the Trinity, and absolutely nothing you say to the contrary is true, and bears no weight whatsoever against this truth.

And the verse in dispute, not here, is attested to in scant evidence, but very early on, and may, or may not have been added. We will never know.

Of all the related Goth Germanic tribes which invaded Rome, the Vandals were the last. And the Vandals were Unitarian Christians, who hated the concept of the Trinity, and who extended their influence to conquer and gather up all the Pro Trinitarian scriptures they could, to burn them, and replace them with what they felt were not definitive Trinitarian verse based scripture, which could quite easily account for the very limited early evidence suggesting the possible authenticity of the verse in question.

However, without the disputed verse, as with the NASB version above, it clearly reveals the Trinity. Of course one may choose an NIV, or ESV, etc.., if they prefer, because it still reveals the Trinity, even if you do not like the KJV with the disputed verse found there.

You simply deny the justifiable, plausible, and righteous deniability of God, which requires faith, and wrestling with both God, and His scripture, to search out, and seek hidden truths, based on the strength of faith. As God wrestled with Jacob, as our given example, God too does require us to wrestle with Him, and His scriptures, to prove our fruit / bearing the strength of our faith, or lack thereof. And in spite of our dispute over these versus, the truth remains, that we are required to wrestle with God, and his Scriptures, as per the example given, to prove our own convictions based on the strength of our faith, or again upon our lack thereof.

So save your breath, because I could not care less, nor will I listen to the nonsense I believe you post. Deny it all you want, the above passage, does indeed witness the Trinity, and I will not bother to engage you further on this, because I simply do not care about anything you would try and say to the contrary.

And I am sorry if you feel that is rude, and dismissive, but again I am sorry, because I indeed do dismiss what you have to say to the contrary on the matter.

Have a good day.

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8-9; John 8:58, Exodus 3:14; John 8:59, John 10:31-33); God is a Spirit (John 4:24); and there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is a Spirit, Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

 

[Randy]

Jesus is God (Hebrews 1:8-9; John 8:58, Exodus 3:14; John 8:59, John 10:31-33); God is a Spirit (John 4:24); and there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is a Spirit, Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

Jesus didn't state that but another claimed that Spirit as their own. The one Jesus stated was living "in "Him"
Fathers promise=>In the last days I will pour out "My Spirit.."

As I stated the eternal life found in the only begotten Son is the Father. col 1:19;John 6:57;John 14:10
If the Father is the only unbegotten God or as Jesus Himself states "the only true God" and as John states Jesus is the only begotten Son how then does anyone state the person of God the Spirit?

We do see the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Jesus stated that. Its the Spirit of the only unbegotten God. Now the Fathers Spirit would have the Fathers nature.

 

[justbyfaith]

We do see the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Jesus stated that.

The Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24); and there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

 

[Randy]

The Father is a Spirit (John 4:23-24); and there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4).

Yes, its the Fathers Spirit. But the Father has form.

We read the only begotten Son who was in the Fathers presence came down as a eyewitness of the Father. John 1:18
We read God gave His own begotten Son. John 3:16

We read of a Jesus who ascended where He was before.

We read Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Sidetracking to the Spirit of God doesn't make your case nor address what has been testified to. Jesus was with the Father from the beginning. And is now where HE was before.

 

[justbyfaith]

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Eph 4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jas 3:9, Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

In all three of these verses we find that there is one God, even the Father.

Therefore, since Jesus is God, He is the Father (albeit come in human flesh).

Just as there is one Lord, Jesus Christ...

And since the Father is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18), He is also Jesus Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

1Co 8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Eph 4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Jas 3:9, Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

In all three of these verses we find that there is one God, even the Father.

Therefore, since Jesus is God, He is the Father (albeit come in human flesh).

Just as there is one Lord, Jesus Christ...

And since the Father is the Lord (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18), He is also Jesus Christ.

So who went to the cross?

 

[Free]

I do not deny a distinction between the Father and the Son.

I will deny that they are separate, i.e. the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost.

"Is not" simply shows they are distinct. If the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit, then there is no distinction at all.

In what manner does the Bible show that they have coexisted?

Again, ontologically. You are saying that the resurrected Christ ascended to exist outside of time. But the manner in which the Bible states they have coexisted for all eternity past is that there never was a time when the Son did not exist as distinct from the Father. This is prior to all creation. In what you are saying is there was a time when the Son did not exist.

No; He was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35). I have scripture that substantiates my contention. Do you have scripture to substantiate yours?

Your verse does not at all substantiate your position. You have to go right to the meaning of "only begotten," which I have provided more than once in this thread, only for the crickets to respond.

John 3:16--"he gave his only begotten Son"-- and 1 John 4:9--"God sent his only begotten Son into the world"--both show that the Son was begotten before all creation, before all time and space. And this is precisely what John 1:1 shows, along with verses 2 and 3. This is why we speak of the Son being eternally begotten or eternally generated.

John 1:1-2, yes the Word existed alongside of God in the beginning; for the risen Jesus is ascended to exist outside of time.

You are conflating two ideas or rather periods of "time"--before all creation of time and space, and after all creation, specifically after Christ's resurrection. John 1:1-2 show that the Word, the preexistent Son, existed alongside and in intimate relationship with the Father prior to the creation of all space and time, before the beginning began. This is further supported by verse 3:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple logic tells us that since "all things were made through [the Word], and without him was not any thing made that was made," then the Word has always existed, in intimate relationship with the Father. If the Word came into existence at a point in time, then John 1:1-3 are false.

I don't see how 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Colossians 1:16-17 in any way preclude the Son being begotten in the incarnation.

1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17 simply repeat the simple logic of John 1:3. And notice that neither mention the Word, but rather 1 Cor 8:6 says "Jesus Christ" and Col 1:13 tells us that Paul is speaking of the Son in verse 16 and 17.

Then I am in agreement with the idea that God is ontologically three Persons.

If you were, then we wouldn't be having any disagreement. Do you agree that there was a "time" before creation existed, that all that existed was God? If so, did God exist as three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons? If not, then you are not in agreement that God is ontologically three persons.

Yes, there is one Spirit who is God.

The Father being that Spirit dwelling in eternity without flesh.

The Son being the same Spirit come in human flesh.

This is most definitely substantiated by the biblical language.

If by "same Spirit" you mean "same substance," then yes, but that language is confusing, as it sounds like the Holy Spirit is all that exists, who also happens to be the Father, who then came in the flesh as the Son. But that is not biblical.

There is.

Mar 12:29, And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

This is stunning but not surprising. I have addressed this error several times in this discussion ('echad and heis vs. yachid), only for every anti-trinitarian not only to ignore it, but to then repeat the same defeated argument. Again, this is only a statement of monotheism, not a statement regarding the nature of God. You would do well to stop using it to support your position, because it doesn't.

The Trinity, by definition, refers to one God as three distinct Persons. The Trinity that I purport fits under that definition (as I do not purport three modes but three Persons).

If you don't agree with the Athanasian Creed, then you really believe in three modes, not persons. Or, if you believe one eternal Person became three Persons, then that would also be three modes, not persons. Distinction of persons in that case is just illusory or superficial.

You give lip service to the concepts of monotheism.

Because the historical doctrine of the Trinity, being based entirely on Scripture, fully affirms monotheism.

Again, to say that the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost, defines them as being separate rather than distinct.

No, it's just to keep them distinct and, as the Athanasian Creed states, to not confound the persons. That is, to not say that the Father alone existed for all eternity prior to creation and then became the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or, put another way, to not say that one Person became three Persons.

What one person was saying about it is that everlasting Father does not refer to God the Father.

Because it doesn't, otherwise it would completely contradict the NT.

Jesus is God; and Jesus is flesh and blood (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).

Yes, he is truly God and truly man. That is in harmony with the historical doctrine of the Trinity.

Jesus is the Son in that He is come in human flesh. Therefore, He was not the Son before He became flesh.

Jesus is the Son come in human flesh. That is precisely what John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:26-17 clearly show. Logically, it cannot be otherwise. As I have also pointed out many times in this discussion, Jesus said that he came from the Father, that he was sent by the Father, and that he was with the Father prior to his incarnation (John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 17:5, 24). These ideas are then repeated in various places throughout the NT.

 

[RudolfRed]

1 JN 5:6-8 - NASB - 6 "This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And in spite of Everything they say to the contrary, the Trinity Is Real!!!!

They quote scripture which shows the various offices, or duties, and purposes within the Economic Trinity, of why Christ had to come as the Royal Kingly Messiah, as opposed to an assigned leser non-kingly, or ambassador / servant messiah, such as Cyrus was assigned, to be God's lesser ambasador, or assigned servant to enact God's plans.

Christ Jesus likewise as the Royal or Kingly Messiah, likewise fulfilled God's overall purposes of being the only means for anyone's salvation, .... thru faith in Christ, and Christ's finished work alone, and not of works lest any man should boast - Ephesians 2:8-10 - Where our good works are merely the proof of our salvation thru faith alone in Christ Jesus, again lest any man should boast ( of their good works, ) as per the verse mentioned above, Eph 2:8-10

And the only thing they are good at, is to quote all of the NT Scriptures which reveal and demonstrate the doctrinal truth of what Christ Jesus performed as one member of the trinity, in the Office, or Purpose and Fulfillment as Christ come in the Form Of The Son Of God, again as per 1 Corinthians 1:

So how does quoting the verses that prove Christ's fulfilment of His office as the "Son Of God," mean that in that Trinitarian Office mean he was not fully God, who merely came in the Form of the Son, again as per 1 Cor 1:, etc..,

They are clever in how they presents their lies which try and say otherwise. In the gospels the only thing Christ could commend the evil for, was on how clever they were.

.......... That's all they can boast in their lies, how clever they are. In a highly dishonest manifestation, all they do is quote scripture on the office of Christ, as the Son, in the role of the Son, and falsely try and show that as subordination, rather than the truth, of the mere appearance of subordination, for justifiable deniability sake, of Christ, who is fully God, merely in the office or appearance of, and as, the Son.

 

[justbyfaith]

So who went to the cross?

The Father in flesh. (Romans 4:24-25, Galatians 1:1).

 

[justbyfaith]

"Is not" simply shows they are distinct. If the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit, then there is no distinction at all.

The Son is distinct from the Father in that the Father is a Spirit without flesh while the Son is the same Spirit come in human flesh. But the Father is the Son is the Holy Ghost, in that they are all the same Spirit.

Again, ontologically. You are saying that the resurrected Christ ascended to exist outside of time. But the manner in which the Bible states they have coexisted for all eternity past is that there never was a time when the Son did not exist as distinct from the Father. This is prior to all creation. In what you are saying is there was a time when the Son did not exist.

No, the Son always existed; for He ascended to exist outside of time (Ephesians 4:10); from everlasting to everlasting. Therefore His existence extends into eternity past.

Your verse does not at all substantiate your position.

Luk 1:35, And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This verse does in fact substantiate that the Son was begotten in the incarnation.

show that the Son was begotten before all creation, before all time and space.

If that is the case, then there was another God formed beside God; which is denied by the prophet Isaiah.

You are conflating two ideas or rather periods of "time"--before all creation of time and space, and after all creation, specifically after Christ's resurrection. John 1:1-2 show that the Word, the preexistent Son, existed alongside and in intimate relationship with the Father prior to the creation of all space and time, before the beginning began. This is further supported by verse 3:

Yes, Jesus ascended to exist outside of time (Ephesians 4:10); even into eternity past and eternity future. Since He exists in eternity past, He existed alongside the Father prior to the creation of all space and time, before the beginning began.

If the Word came into existence at a point in time, then John 1:1-3 are false.

The Word is from everlasting to everlasting; since He is the Father.

1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17 simply repeat the simple logic of John 1:3. And notice that neither mention the Word, but rather 1 Cor 8:6 says "Jesus Christ" and Col 1:13 tells us that Paul is speaking of the Son in verse 16 and 17.

I still don't see how your verses deny the reality of Jesus being the Father.

If you were, then we wouldn't be having any disagreement. Do you agree that there was a "time" before creation existed, that all that existed was God? If so, did God exist as three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons?

Yes to both questions.

If by "same Spirit" you mean "same substance," then yes, but that language is confusing, as it sounds like the Holy Spirit is all that exists, who also happens to be the Father, who then came in the flesh as the Son. But that is not biblical.

Chapter and verse, please, that denies this premise as being unbiblical.

This is stunning but not surprising. I have addressed this error several times in this discussion ('echad and heis vs. yachid), only for every anti-trinitarian not only to ignore it, but to then repeat the same defeated argument. Again, this is only a statement of monotheism, not a statement regarding the nature of God. You would do well to stop using it to support your position, because it doesn't.

Mark 12:29 does not use the word echad to denote "one" in the English. It is written in the Greek language and therefore would not be using a Hebrew word.

If you don't agree with the Athanasian Creed, then you really believe in three modes, not persons.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Athanasian creed except in instances where statements in it are denied by holy scripture.

Such as when it says that the Son is uncreated. Scripture teaches that Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3).

And when it says that the Son is eternally begotten. Luke 1:35 makes it clear (at least, from my point of view) that He was begotten in the incarnation.

Or, if you believe one eternal Person became three Persons, then that would also be three modes, not persons.

No, I do not believe that. I believe that one Person became two other Persons and did not cease to be the Person that He was previous to His evolution into distinct Persons other than Himself.

Because the historical doctrine of the Trinity, being based entirely on Scripture, fully affirms monotheism.

But you are not purporting the historical doctrine of the Trinity.

You are purporting Tritheism, in that you say that "The Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

This is more in conjunction with the mormon idea of the Trinity than anything we find in sound doctrine.

No, it's just to keep them distinct and, as the Athanasian Creed states, to not confound the persons. That is, to not say that the Father alone existed for all eternity prior to creation and then became the Son and the Holy Spirit. Or, put another way, to not say that one Person became three Persons.

The one Person who is the Father did not become the Father; so one Person did not become three Persons.

The Father took on an added nature of human flesh and lived a human life. Then He released Himself (His Spirit) back to Himself as He exists outside of time; and this "2nd Spirit" (being the same Spirit as the 1st) is distinct from the 1st in that He has experiential knowledge of being human since He has lived a human life in the Person of Jesus (Luke 23:46).

Because it doesn't, otherwise it would completely contradict the NT.

You are going to have to show a few chapter and verse examples of what you are talking about. I don't see my theology as contradicting anything in the NT.

Jesus is the Son come in human flesh. That is precisely what John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:26-17 clearly show.

Jesus is the Word come in human flesh. He is the Son in that He is in flesh. So, the Word became the Son by taking on an added nature of human flesh.

I contend that the Word, being God (John 1:1), is the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, James 3:9 (kjv)).

 

[for_his_glory]

Unless I missed something, I am not in disagreement with any of your statements.

Back in your post #1792 you said: However, "The everlasting Father" does not mean God here, in your theologies.

This was in response to me giving you Isaiah 9:6 the mighty God, the everlasting Father and you said it does not mean God in that verse, but now you agree, I'm confused by what you meant about the everlasting Father not meaning God in that verse.

 

[justbyfaith]

Back in your post #1792 you said: However, "The everlasting Father" does not mean God here, in your theologies.

This was in response to me giving you Isaiah 9:6 the mighty God, the everlasting Father and you said it does not mean God in that verse, but now you agree, I'm confused by what you meant about the everlasting Father not meaning God in that verse.

What I was attempting to say was that certain people with whom I am contending have made a case that "the everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6 does not refer to God.

I was not saying that I, myself, believe that "the everlasting Father" does not refer to God in Isaiah 9:6.

Certain opponents have attempted to change the wording of Isaiah 9:6, not once, but twice, in order to teach that when Isaiah says "The everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6, that He is not referring to the Father (God) but to some other father.