Three person God identified in the Bible?

[for_his_glory]

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.

Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[Cooper]

"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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.

It shouldn't be necessary to make excuses unless there is an error.
And to introduce the philosophy of men! Oh! Deary deary me.
It proves the point really.
.

 

[Cooper]

So who went to the cross?

The Saviour of the world went to the cross, and that is something no mortal man can do.
.

 

[Cooper]

So who went to the cross?

I tend to think of one God personified in Jesus Christ, so the question "who is he" becomes irrelevant.
.

 

[Randy]

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

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

 

[Randy]

I tend to think of one God personified in Jesus Christ, so the question "who is he" becomes irrelevant.
.

4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

 

[Randy]

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.

Thats NOT what the proof text Paul wrote states.
Jesus did not get absorbed back into the Father. He, Jesus, the Christ, is forever.

But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.'

Psalm 110​

Of David. A psalm.​

1 The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

Daniel 7
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Rev 11:15
Then the seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and loud voices called out in heaven:
“The kingdom of the world
has become the kingdom of our Lord
and of His Christ,
and He will reign forever and ever.”

We have a Jesus in heaven now who is at the right hand of His God and Father. He will raise up on the last day according to "His" Fathers will. He, Jesus "Lives" and the Christ is forever.

 

[justbyfaith]

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Jhn 3:13, And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

[justbyfaith]

Psalm 110​

Of David. A psalm.​

1 The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

Eph 4:5, One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

[Randy]

Eph 4:5, One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Its "also" written
One God One Lord
Jesus is alive in heaven now. That Jesus refers to another as His God and His Father.
Who is He?

 

[justbyfaith]

Its "also" written
One God One Lord
Jesus is alive in heaven now. That Jesus refers to another as His God and His Father.
Who is He?

Isaiah 9:6 has the answer that you are looking for.

 

[Randy]

Jhn 3:13, And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Its also written
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

 

[Randy]

Isaiah 9:6 has the answer that you are looking for.

Jesus is the only "Like to Like" begotten Son of the Father. He is God and He is Gods Son.
You have thrown quite alot out the window in regard to Gods Son.

 

[Free]

It shouldn't be necessary to make excuses unless there is an error.

Where am I making excuses?

And to introduce the philosophy of men! Oh! Deary deary me.

Where have I introduced “the philosophy of men”?

It proves the point really.
.

What point?

You have once again not even tried to address verses which prove difficult for your position, showing that it simply cannot be sustained. Why is that? Why have you continually avoided addressing everything that shows serious problems with your position? That is the point that has been proven.

 

[Cooper]

"Is not" simply shows they are distinct.


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.


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.

u
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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.

The words "Father" and "Son" and "Holy Spirit" indicate their distinctiveness. Nothing else is needed.

Find another excuse for the use of the derogatory "is not" negative.

GOD "is not" this, and God "is not" that indeed, when God is ALL IN ALL.

Nobody is taken in by that.
.

 

[Free]

The words "Father" and "Son" and "Holy Spirit" indicate their distinctiveness. Nothing else is needed.

Yes, more is needed, because they are not the same person, yet each is fully God. Modalists believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they also believe they are the same person at different points in history. Oneness believe they are all one person in different concurrent modes, which makes their distinctiveness meaningless--it is an illusion, at best.

Find another excuse for the use of the derogatory "is not" negative.

It is not derogatory. It is biblical and therefore absolutely necessary to maintain the distinctions between the persons.

GOD "is not" this, and God "is not" that indeed, when God is ALL IN ALL.

Nobody is taken in by that.
.

Actually, it was what the vast majority of Christians believe, as stated in the Athanasian Creed.

Are you going to address anything that is problematic for your position, or are you just going to continue to ignore it all and keep saying the trinitarian position is false? It really says a lot when engage in this type of discussion, which has been pretty much the entire discussion. If you cannot address the problems with your position, then it's time to stop saying another position is false and take a look at your own. Maybe it's time to change it.

 

[Cooper]

Yes, more is needed, because they are not the same person, yet each is fully God. Modalists believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they also believe they are the same person at different points in history. Oneness believe they are all one person in different concurrent modes, which makes their distinctiveness meaningless--it is an illusion, at best.


It is not derogatory. It is biblical and therefore absolutely necessary to maintain the distinctions between the persons.


Actually, it was what the vast majority of Christians believe, as stated in the Athanasian Creed.

Are you going to address anything that is problematic for your position, or are you just going to continue to ignore it all and keep saying the trinitarian position is false? It really says a lot when engage in this type of discussion, which has been pretty much the entire discussion. If you cannot address the problems with your position, then it's time to stop saying another position is false and take a look at your own. Maybe it's time to change it.

We are a trinity in the image of God, body, soul and spirit and there is no need to divide us into three separate persons, or that will be the end of the human race, and a bloody end it will be, if taken literally, and even Christians tend to do that. People are already doing their hardest to deny the Almighty, and there is no need for us to give them ammunition.

God is One, and we are one tripartite person as well. Well-meaning people can take things too far in their enthusiasm and make themselves a laughing-stock. The inner circle is fine and good, so there is no need to spoil it with Constantine's addition.
.

 

[justbyfaith]

Are you going to address anything that is problematic for your position,

I know that you weren't talking to me right there; but I want to say that I find that there is nothing truly problematic for my position.

 

[Randy]

We are a trinity in the image of God, body, soul and spirit and there is no need to divide us into three separate persons, or that will be the end of the human race, and a bloody end it will be, if taken literally, and even Christians tend to do that. People are already doing their hardest to deny the Almighty, and there is no need for us to give them ammunition.

God is One, and we are one tripartite person as well. Well-meaning people can take things too far in their enthusiasm and make themselves a laughing-stock. The inner circle is fine and good, so there is no need to spoil it with Constantine's addition.
.

You speak of 3 parts of one whole.
All the "fullness of God was pleased to dwell in Jesus". He is not a part but the very image of His Father. The only begotten like to like Son. God and Gods Son. But He is not His Father.

 

[Randy]

I know that you weren't talking to me right there; but I want to say that I find that there is nothing truly problematic for my position.

Didn't you state that you believe "Jesus" began in Mary?