Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Randy]

I would state anyone whom the Father gives a name to exists as a person with that name. A person with our english translation of the name Jesus was resurrected from the dead by the power of God and exalted to the right hand of God. The one with that name lives and never dies. He stated we may ask the Father anything in His name and He would do it so He may bring glory to the Father.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent In Jesus's name. "The Spirit of Christ"

 

[Free]

We are a trinity in the image of God, body, soul and spirit

Are we? Firstly, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God has a body. Secondly, look at what Jesus says:

Mat 22:37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (ESV)

So, according to your reasoning, we are actually body, heart, soul, spirit, and mind. To claim that "we are a trinity," by limiting it to three aspects of humanity, is completely subjective.

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.

Of course "there is no need to divide us into three separate persons," as we know that we are only one person.

People are already doing their hardest to deny the Almighty, and there is no need for us to give them ammunition.

What ammunition would we be giving them?

God is One, and we are one tripartite person as well.

Three problems. First, you're ignoring one of the difficult points for your position that I have given several times in this thread. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is an absolute unity, that is, only one person. Not one. Second, we are not tripartite persons.

Third, God is certainly not a tripartite person. If he were, then it logically follows that he could not have been God prior to the incarnation and the existence of the Holy Spirit as separate from the Father. Tripartite means that the one is composed of three, that is, it takes three separate parts to make the whole. That means God is divisible. To use that language of God is incredibly problematic for your position, and has nothing to do with the Trinity.

Well-meaning people can take things too far in their enthusiasm and make themselves a laughing-stock.

Who is a laughing stock and why?

The inner circle is fine and good, so there is no need to spoil it with Constantine's addition.
.

A common but erroneous understanding. Constantine had little, if anything, to do with the conclusion of the Council of Niacea. Christian theologians and leaders later developed, or rather discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine merely brought bishops together to try and get them to come to a consensus about who Christ was and is, largely due to the division Arius was causing. Division in the Church meant a divided kingdom. He oversaw the proceedings and may have participated in discussions, but apparently didn't cast a vote.

It was a Christological debate, not a Trinitarian one. Do you disagree with the Nicene Creed?

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325

 

[Free]

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.

I have given several things significantly problematic for your position which remain unaddressed.

 

[justbyfaith]

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

Jesus was the Father prior to His incarnation.

His existence as "the Son" began in Mary.

What is problematic about my theory?

Firstly, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God has a body.

You appear here to be denying either that Jesus is God; or that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).

There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is an absolute unity, that is, only one person.

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:

As a "Lord" denotes a singular Person.

and the existence of the Holy Spirit as separate from the Father.

The Holy Spirit certainly isn't separate from the Father. That is a concept of Tritheism.

that is, it takes three separate parts to make the whole. That means God is divisible.

Not if the body is 100% of the person, the soul is 100% of the person, and the spirit is 100% of the person.

I have given several things significantly problematic for your position which remain unaddressed.

Such as? (none that I am aware of).

 

[justbyfaith]

I have given several things significantly problematic for your position which remain unaddressed.

But here is something problematic for your position which remains unaddressed;

namely, that Romans 4:24-25 appears to be teaching Patripassianism as it is compared to Galatians 1:1 (I have made my case in one or more of the posts in this very thread and it remains unanswered).

 

[Cooper]

Are we? Firstly, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that God has a body. Secondly, look at what Jesus says:

Mat 22:37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (ESV)

So, according to your reasoning, we are actually body, heart, soul, spirit, and mind. To claim that "we are a trinity," by limiting it to three aspects of humanity, is completely subjective.


Of course "there is no need to divide us into three separate persons," as we know that we are only one person.


What ammunition would we be giving them?


Three problems. First, you're ignoring one of the difficult points for your position that I have given several times in this thread. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that clearly or explicitly states that God is an absolute unity, that is, only one person. Not one. Second, we are not tripartite persons.

Third, God is certainly not a tripartite person. If he were, then it logically follows that he could not have been God prior to the incarnation and the existence of the Holy Spirit as separate from the Father. Tripartite means that the one is composed of three, that is, it takes three separate parts to make the whole. That means God is divisible. To use that language of God is incredibly problematic for your position, and has nothing to do with the Trinity.


Who is a laughing stock and why?


A common but erroneous understanding. Constantine had little, if anything, to do with the conclusion of the Council of Niacea. Christian theologians and leaders later developed, or rather discovered, the doctrine of the Trinity. Constantine merely brought bishops together to try and get them to come to a consensus about who Christ was and is, largely due to the division Arius was causing. Division in the Church meant a divided kingdom. He oversaw the proceedings and may have participated in discussions, but apparently didn't cast a vote.

It was a Christological debate, not a Trinitarian one. Do you disagree with the Nicene Creed?

https://overviewbible.com/council-of-nicaea/

https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Council-of-Nicaea-325

Jesus is God with us, the Bible tells us so, plus the Trinity diagram. Our Lord and Saviour, whose name on earth they called Jesus, was flesh and blood (a body), for an excellent reason. I am tired of your arguments Free, and you know the scriptures anyway. I get no pleasure coming here, and if I leave, it will be because of you. Perhaps that is what you want, if so, just say.
.

 

[justbyfaith]

Cooper, you bring a valuable addition to the discussions here. Please don't leave.

 

[Free]

Jesus is God with us, the Bible tells us so, and our Lord and Saviour, whose name on earth they called Jesus, was flesh and blood (a body), for a very good reason.

I have addressed this before. We were created in God's image in Gen 1, thousands of years before Christ. So, you cannot use that argument to support the idea that our bodies are made in the image of God. This becomes more apparent when considering Phil 2:5-8, where it clearly says that Christ was in the form of God but he was "found in human form, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." You've put the cart before the horse.

I am tired of your arguments Free, and you know the scriptures anyway. I get no pleasure coming here, and if I leave, it will be because of you. Perhaps that is what you want, if so, just say.
.

Of course I don't want you to leave. I would like it, though, if you would actually address the difficulties with your position, as they are quite serious. If a person's position has irreconcilable contradictions or serious problems that cannot be fixed, as with Oneness, then it should be abandoned. This is one of the most difficult topics to discuss because it is ultimately not fully comprehensible. We cannot fully understand the nature of God, but he has given us some revelations about himself that we are to make the best sense of that we can.

 

[Randy]

Jesus was the Father prior to His incarnation.

His existence as "the Son" began in Mary.

What is problematic about my theory?

John 1:18

John 8:38

John 3:32

Does you Jesus still exist as Jesus?

 

[Free]

But here is something problematic for your position which remains unaddressed;

namely, that Romans 4:24-25 appears to be teaching Patripassianism as it is compared to Galatians 1:1 (I have made my case in one or more of the posts in this very thread and it remains unanswered).

How is that a problem for Trinitarianism? Both verses state that the Father raised Jesus from the dead and neither even imply Patripassianism.

 

[justbyfaith]

John 1:18

John 8:38

John 3:32

Does you Jesus still exist as Jesus?

I'm not certain that I understand what your contention is.

What is problematic about my theory?

Maybe if you iterate with each scripture how you think that scripture contradicts my theory.

 

[Soldiers]

It's been proven that 1 John 5:7 isn't the inspired word of God. It's a spurious passage.

Proof?

 

[justbyfaith]

How is that a problem for Trinitarianism? Both verses state that the Father raised Jesus from the dead and neither even imply Patripassianism.

The passage states that "him" (singular) who rose Jesus from the dead also "was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification."

This singular "him" is the Father according to Galatians 1:1.

The Father was "delivered for our offences and raised for our justification"?

I though that that only applied to the Son...

 

[Free]

The passage states that "him" (singular) who rose Jesus from the dead also "was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification."

This singular "him" is the Father according to Galatians 1:1.

The Father was "delivered for our offences and raised for our justification"?

I though that that only applied to the Son...

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— (ESV)

“God the Father, who raised [Jesus] from the dead.”

Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (ESV)

Again, Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification,” but it was “him,” the Father, “who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord.”

Neither passage implies Patripassianism.

 

[justbyfaith]

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— (ESV)

“God the Father, who raised [Jesus] from the dead.”

Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (ESV)

Again, Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification,” but it was “him,” the Father, “who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord.”

Neither passage implies Patripassianism.

I see that you found a translation that makes your point of view plausible.

However, many other translations make the subject of the sentence, "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" so that the One who was "delivered up for our trespasses and raised from the dead for out justification" is the Father.

So, those translations are not the inspired word of God, in your opinion?

We should discount every other translation and hold to the ESV as being the only inspired translation (at least, in this instance)?

I think that you can make a case for any doctrine by simply switching your translation so that what it says fits your theology.

I believe that people do this with the kjv all of the time. They read the kjv and say, "I don't like what that says. What does this translation say?"

They are, in effect, doing what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3, heaping to themselves teachers, in the translators of other versions, to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

In the two translations that I go by, Romans 4:24-25 teaches Patripassianism.

Rom 4:24 (kjv), 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.

Rom 4:24 (nlt), for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Rom 4:25, He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God.

I will go by them because I believe that they are each, the inspired word of the Lord, as we take them at face value.

In order to not go by them, you have to discount that they are each, even the word of God.

Where does that leave you in being able to hold the scriptures as authoritative?

And even in the ESV, the meaning that I am attempting to set forth to you is not necessarily lost.

 

[Randy]

I'm not certain that I understand what your contention is.

What is problematic about my theory?

Maybe if you iterate with each scripture how you think that scripture contradicts my theory.

Each scripture speaks of Christs witness of things He saw and heard of from being in His Father presence. Before the incarnation.

We can also add Christs words in His prayer to His Father.
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jesus is not the Father. It can't hold. Unless you think Jesus only thought He was with the Father before the world began. Are you suggesting He needs therapy?

Now does your Jesus whom you state was the Father before coming to earth still exist as that Jesus?

 

[Free]

I see that you found a translation that makes your point of view plausible.

However, many other translations make the subject of the sentence, "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" so that the One who was "delivered up for our trespasses and raised from the dead for out justification" is the Father.

So, those translations are not the inspired word of God, in your opinion?

We should discount every other translation and hold to the ESV as being the only inspired translation (at least, in this instance)?

I think that you can make a case for any doctrine by simply switching your translation so that what it says fits your theology.

I believe that people do this with the kjv all of the time. They read the kjv and say, "I don't like what that says. What does this translation say?"

They are, in effect, doing what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3, heaping to themselves teachers, in the translators of other versions, to tell them what their itching ears want to hear.

I think you need to much slower to assume (speak) and quicker to read (listen). Anyone who is even half paying attention to my posts can see that I post from the ESV almost exclusively, as it is a solid version and certainly better than the KJV. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding a translation that agrees with me, much less thinking that other "translations are not the inspired word of God."

You made a number of illogical jumps there.

In the two translations that I go by, Romans 4:24-25 teaches Patripassianism.

Rom 4:24 (kjv), 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.

Rom 4:24 (nlt), for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Rom 4:25, He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God.

I will go by them because I believe that they are each, the inspired word of the Lord, as we take them at face value.

In order to not go by them, you have to discount that they are each, even the word of God.

This is what happens when you don't branch out and actually study, especially when you use inferior versions or don't bother to study the original language behind the translations. The NASB immediately shows the problem with your understanding based on what the KJV states.

Rom 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. (NASB)

The italicized "He" at the beginning of verse 25 means that it doesn't appear in the Greek text. This is backed up by my KJV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Of course, the KJV is not disagreeing with me, it just appears that way with the addition of "He" to begin verse 25, but it actually is a reference to Jesus.

Where does that leave you in being able to hold the scriptures as authoritative?

You again assumed to much, especially now that your argument has been shown to be lacking. Some translations are better than others, which is why it is best to reference six or ten, rather than just one or two. In the least, reference the NASB so you can see which words are not actually in the text. And a Greek-English interlinear is incredibly helpful at times, such as this.

And even in the ESV, the meaning that I am attempting to set forth to you is not necessarily lost.

That meaning just isn't there. Everyone knows that it was "Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." The verses about that are abundant and clear, not the least of which are:

Mar 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (ESV)

Luk 23:34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments. (ESV)

Clearly not one and the same.

 

[Cooper]

I have addressed this before. We were created in God's image in Gen 1, thousands of years before Christ. So, you cannot use that argument to support the idea that our bodies are made in the image of God. This becomes more apparent when considering Phil 2:5-8, where it clearly says that Christ was in the form of God but he was "found in human form, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." You've put the cart before the horse.


Of course I don't want you to leave. I would like it, though, if you would actually address the difficulties with your position, as they are quite serious. If a person's position has irreconcilable contradictions or serious problems that cannot be fixed, as with Oneness, then it should be abandoned. This is one of the most difficult topics to discuss because it is ultimately not fully comprehensible. We cannot fully understand the nature of God, but he has given us some revelations about himself that we are to make the best sense of that we can.

My position is straight from the Word of God. There are no errors, except your own.
.

 

[Free]

My position is straight from the Word of God. There are no errors, except your own.
.

You say so, but you haven't proven anything either way.

 

[justbyfaith]

Each scripture speaks of Christs witness of things He saw and heard of from being in His Father presence. Before the incarnation.

We can also add Christs words in His prayer to His Father.
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jesus is not the Father. It can't hold. Unless you think Jesus only thought He was with the Father before the world began. Are you suggesting He needs therapy?

Now does your Jesus whom you state was the Father before coming to earth still exist as that Jesus?

The pre-incarnate Jesus is the Father in my view; and the risen Jesus, who is ascended to exist outside of time, is also the Father. One God, even the Father.