Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Randy]

Where did I state that? I don't think that I stated that.

Do you think Jesus is still Jesus in heaven?

 

[Randy]

If you had been reading my posts, you would know the answer to your questions.

Jesus, when He ascended, ascended to "fill all things" (Ephesians 4:10), that is, to exist outside of time.

Therefore, He was there, existing side-by-side with the Father, in the beginning.

Yes, Christ is now at God's right hand. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity. Jesus is that same Spirit dwelling in human flesh.

They are distinct; not separate.

He gave out spiritual gifts to all. That's Paul's point as we read around that text. That has nothing to do with existing outside of time. He ascended to the right hand of God as psalm 110 states and Jesus stated at His trial. So do you believe Jesus is at the right hand of God now?

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 

[Randy]

Where did I state that? I don't think that I stated that.

I found your reply=>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.

Your in direct contradiction to Jesus.

I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Jesus knows His scriptures
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

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.

Here again you are in direct contradiction to Jesus.
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

You also are in direct contradiction with 1john and john 1:18

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.

 

[Free]

I have not "misrepresented your position" here.

Yes, you have.

Hebrews 9:16-22 also teaches Patripassianism. Which is a denial of your contention.

Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
Heb 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (ESV)

Where? I can see nothing that teaches Patripassianism.

It is "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" who "was delivered over for our offences and raised again for our justification;" just as the text plainly bears out.

It is a forced reading to say that Jesus is the One who was delivered over.

You simply cannot be serious. It is the natural reading because we know, without a doubt, that it was Jesus, the Son, not the Father, "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification."

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.

While we know that Jesus was in fact delivered over,

And you contradict what you just said. Which is it, is it "a forced reading to say that Jesus is the One who was delivered over" or " we know that Jesus was in fact delivered over"?

the reading of the passage requires that it is "Him who raised Jesus from the dead" who was "delivered over".

Actually, no, it certainly doesn't.

Yes, this is true. Thus we gain an added insight into biblical truth when we read this passage; as the passage is quite clearly declaring that Jesus is the Father.

It not only doesn't state it clearly, it isn't even implied.

You are fighting a losing battle here. The clear meaning of the passage is that "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (the Father) also "was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification".

Again, it isn't even implied. You are reading into the text a meaning that simply isn't there. The plain and most straightforward meaning shows two different people--the Father and the Son.

As I said, the "He" does not have to be even in there in order to get the intended meaning that "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" (the Father) also "was delivered up for our offences and was raised for our justification".

And that the kjv is authoritative, indicates that it is to be accepted and that such translations as the ESV do not trump it in its renderings of such passages as Romans 4:24-25.

The problem with this argument is that you are now saying the English "He" was inspired despite it not being in the Greek manuscripts, which means it likely wasn't in the original, and only inspired, text. That means any late addition to the text, whether Latin, English, or any other language, is inspired and authoritative. One could make the Bible say what they want and claim it is inspired because it appears in their version of the Bible. That is the logical outcome of your argument.

That would indicate more than one God, if the Father be God...and thus a polytheistic theology.

No, not more than one God. Don't misrepresent others' positions.

Really...I believe that I have addressed every verse that has been presented to me on my watch.

You believe you have, but you haven't. Not even close. You haven't addressed:

1. John 1:1-2 and the exposition I gave.
2. Gen 1:26-27 and the plurality within the one God.
3. The numerous verses which state that God sent the Son (Matt 10:40; 21:37; Mark 9:37; Luke 10:16; John 3:16, 17; 5:23; 12:44, 45, 49; 14:24; 15:21; 17:3, 8, 21; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10, 14).
4. The verses that speak of his pre-exsitence in heaven with the Father (John 1:1; 3:13; 6:38, 62; 12:46; 16:28; 17:5, 24; 1 John 1:2).
5. The verses which state that Jesus is going to the Father (John 14:2, 12, 28; 16:10, 17; 16:28; 17:11, 13).

There are also the arguments you haven't addressed:

6. The deficiency of the God of Oneness by needing creation in order to love. Therefore, he cannot be love as John states in 1 John 4:8, 16. This despite Jesus saying that the Father loved him "before the foundation of the world."
7. The difference between yachid and 'echad (and the Greek equivalent heis), which shows that God is never clearly or directly referred to as an absolute unity.

That's just off the top of my head; there may be more, there may not be.

Although your statement may indeed be true since I am not an anti-trinitarian.

You certainly aren't trinitarian and argue against it.

You seem to be very clearly in denial of the truth.

How about proving my statement wrong rather then?

 

[Free]

As a "Trinitarian of a different sort", I can show you that Jesus is God very easily.
...

If they are the same Lord then they are the same Person.

Thus, Jesus is God, even the Father.

If you believe there is only one Person and that Jesus is the Father, then you're not a "Trinitarian of a different sort." You're not at all Trinitarian. As I've stated before, you cannot simply take a term like "Trinitarian" and then redefine it how you like so that you can claim to be "a Trinitarian of a different sort." Since you believe in the absolute oneness of God, why do you want people to think you're Trinitarian anyway? That's not honest.

 

[justbyfaith]

Do you think Jesus is still Jesus in heaven?

Yes, why wouldn't I?

 

[justbyfaith]

He gave out spiritual gifts to all. That's Paul's point as we read around that text. That has nothing to do with existing outside of time.

Ephesians 4:10 teaches us that Jesus ascended to fill all things...and time is a created thing.

He ascended to the right hand of God as psalm 110 states and Jesus stated at His trial. So do you believe Jesus is at the right hand of God now?

Yes.

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

I have already dealt with some of these contentions. If you had been reading my posts, you would not be re-hashing what has already been dealt with; and causing me to have to repeat myself.

I found your reply=>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.

Your in direct contradiction to Jesus.

I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Yes, Jesus is distinct from the Father. The Father is a Spirit without flesh inhabiting eternity; and Jesus is the same Spirit come in flesh. The Father sits on a throne and Jesus is in the flesh at His right hand.

Jesus knows His scriptures
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Consider that the scriptures teach us that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Matthew 11:25, Luke 20:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Here again you are in direct contradiction to Jesus.
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

The glory Jesus had with the Father before the world was began is the glory that the pre-incarnate Word had with the risen Jesus (who is the Father). The presence of the Father that Jesus is asking to be glorified in, is the presence of the pre-incarnate Word (who is the Father); as He will rise to become the risen Jesus.

You also are in direct contradiction with 1john and john 1:18

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.

I do not deny that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning.

Next...

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, you have.

Your position, in context of this argument, is exactly the opposite of this:

However, you have to discount the kjv and the nlt as being not the word of the Lord, in order to discount the manner in which they translate this passage.

How have I misrepresented it?

Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
Heb 9:20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
Heb 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (ESV)

Where? I can see nothing that teaches Patripassianism.

Again, your translation leaves things to be desired in being able to see what is clearly taught by the passage.

Heb 9:16, For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17, For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18, Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19, For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21, Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22, And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The Old Testament was a will and testament; and the scripture teaches that where there is a will and testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Who is the testator in the case of the Old Testament; but God the Father?

Actually, no, it certainly doesn't.

It does. However, apparently you are in debate mode and in a frame of mind where you cannot admit to the truth even if it is clearly shown to you.

Again, it isn't even implied. You are reading into the text a meaning that simply isn't there. The plain and most straightforward meaning shows two different people--the Father and the Son.

All I have actually done is quote the text...that "Him who raised Jesus from the dead" (the Father, Galatians 1:1), also "was delivered for our offences and was raised for our justification." And you say I am reading in to the text. But what I am doing is simply reading the text.

 

[justbyfaith]

The problem with this argument is that you are now saying the English "He" was inspired despite it not being in the Greek manuscripts, which means it likely wasn't in the original, and only inspired, text. That means any late addition to the text, whether Latin, English, or any other language, is inspired and authoritative. One could make the Bible say what they want and claim it is inspired because it appears in their version of the Bible. That is the logical outcome of your argument.

It does not matter whether the "He" is inspired or not. If I don't include the "He" in the NASB rendering, the meaning is the same:

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, who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

I took out the "He" and the meaning is the same as what I have been declaring to you, if you will read it more carefully.

You believe you have, but you haven't. Not even close. You haven't addressed:

1. John 1:1-2 and the exposition I gave.

I think that I addressed that; but maybe I didn't. I would ask you to bring that post to the forefront.

2. Gen 1:26-27 and the plurality within the one God.

I do not deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are distinct members within the Godhead.

3. The numerous verses which state that God sent the Son (Matt 10:40; 21:37; Mark 9:37; Luke 10:16; John 3:16, 17; 5:23; 12:44, 45, 49; 14:24; 15:21; 17:3, 8, 21; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10, 14).

Answered by Hebrews 10:5, primarily. I also made one post that dealt with anything that is not distinctly answered by that verse.

4. The verses that speak of his pre-exsitence in heaven with the Father (John 1:1; 3:13; 6:38, 62; 12:46; 16:28; 17:5, 24; 1 John 1:2).

Jesus is pre-existent in heaven with His Father in my theology; in that He ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); that is, to exist once again outside of time.

5. The verses which state that Jesus is going to the Father (John 14:2, 12, 28; 16:10, 17; 16:28; 17:11, 13).

Yes, in my theology the Father is in heaven as a Spirit without flesh; while Jesus is the same Spirit come in human flesh.

6. The deficiency of the God of Oneness by needing creation in order to love. Therefore, he cannot be love as John states in 1 John 4:8, 16. This despite Jesus saying that the Father loved him "before the foundation of the world."

Since Jesus is pre-existent as a Person who is Omnipresent and outside of time, your point is moot.

7. The difference between yachid and 'echad (and the Greek equivalent heis), which shows that God is never clearly or directly referred to as an absolute unity.

I can show that God is an absolute unity simply be revealing what it says in scripture (in John 4:24, Ephesians 4:4). God is one Spirit. Other than that, He exists as three distinct Persons within the Godhead; and therefore I have no contention with these Hebrew words.

You certainly aren't trinitarian and argue against it.

I believe in one God who exists as three distinct Persons within the Trinity.

If that is not the Trinity, what is?

Your version of three Gods?

I would say that you aren't a trinitarian and argue against it. Instead, you are a Tritheist.

And it is against the ToS to misrepresent someone's position; and I think that you have done this by saying that I am not a trinitarian.

So, if I have done the same to you, then both of us are guilty; unless of course, you are not a trinitarian. Then I am not guilty..

 

[justbyfaith]

If you believe there is only one Person and that Jesus is the Father, then you're not a "Trinitarian of a different sort." You're not at all Trinitarian. As I've stated before, you cannot simply take a term like "Trinitarian" and then redefine it how you like so that you can claim to be "a Trinitarian of a different sort." Since you believe in the absolute oneness of God, why do you want people to think you're Trinitarian anyway? That's not honest.

You have misrepresented my position and that is against the ToS.

I do not teach that Jesus is the Father per se;

But that He is "the Father come in human flesh".

Jesus and the Father are distinct from each other in that the Father is a Spirit without flesh; while Jesus is the same Spirit come in flesh.

The doctrine of the Trinity states that God is three-in-one.

If you do not believe that but believe rather that God is three, period; then you are a Tritheist.

 

[justbyfaith]

Free, I wonder if I can convince you of the truth by coming in through the back door.

There is an argument of the Jehovah's Witnesses; and it goes like this.

1 Corinthians 8:6 says this,

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.

This verse plainly tells us that Jesus is the Lord and therefore He is not God since there is one God, even the Father and Jesus is the Lord. Therefore Jesus is not God since He is the one Lord and therefore He is not the one God.

What is your answer to the Jehovah's Witness?

 

[justbyfaith]

There is one God, even the Father; and therefore if Jesus is not the Father (but is rather the Lord), then He isn't God.

 

[justbyfaith]

Consider that the scriptures teach us that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

 

[justbyfaith]

There is one God, even the Father; and therefore if Jesus is not the Father (but is rather the Lord), then He isn't God.

What do you say, Free?

 

[Randy]

There is one God, even the Father; and therefore if Jesus is not the Father (but is rather the Lord), then He isn't God.

He's not the only unbegotten God - The Father
He is the only begotten God or like to like begotten Son. God? So yes He is all that the Father is. No, He has always been the Son. One God, One Lord which is what Paul wrote not the JW's.

The eternal life in the Son is the Father. He never dies. Likewise, those in Him never die.

He is not speaking of life in the flesh. People who are NOT in Christ live in the flesh.

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

The will of another
Colossians 1:19
New Living Translation
19 For God in all his fullness
was pleased to live in Christ,

You are wrong about the Father having no form. Moses was not allowed to see Gods face for God had stated no man shall see my face and live. God shieled Moses with His hand and Moses saw His back. So stating the Father is without form is a false premise. Man was created in their likeness or form as we read in genesis. Angels have also been noted in bodily form. Not a carbon based body but of the Spirit.

 

[Soldiers]

As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, and then repeated some more, those are all verses that simply support monotheism and say nothing about the nature of God.

Define what you mean by the nature of God, as depending on what you mean there are an enormous amount talking about His nature (and what it's not).

 

[Soldiers]

The question is to those who don't believe the Father and Son are distinct persons. Is that your belief?
I am not attempting to confuse anyone.

They are both distinct and not distinct. Our minds cannot comprehend being two seemingly opposing things can be. That's the infinity divinity for you, finite mortality cannot comprehend it. A triange has 3 distinct sides you can all recognize, but it's still the same triangle, one triangle. 3 in 1 & 1 in 3.

 

[Free]

Define what you mean by the nature of God, as depending on what you mean there are an enormous amount talking about His nature (and what it's not).

Yes, there is. In the context of this discussion on the Trinity, by the nature of God, I am referring to whether or not he is three coequal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons. It is the nature of his self-existence—how he existed before creation of space and time.

There is a lot of conflating monotheism with the specific aspect of the nature of God as I have defined above.

 

[Free]

Free, I wonder if I can convince you of the truth by coming in through the back door.

There is an argument of the Jehovah's Witnesses; and it goes like this.

1 Corinthians 8:6 says this,

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.

This verse plainly tells us that Jesus is the Lord and therefore He is not God since there is one God, even the Father and Jesus is the Lord. Therefore Jesus is not God since He is the one Lord and therefore He is not the one God.

What is your answer to the Jehovah's Witness?

A couple of things. Firstly, if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then "one Lord Jesus Christ" necessarily precludes the Father from being Lord. Secondly, if "of whom are all things" points to the deity and eternal preexistence of the Father, then "by whom are all things" necessarily points to the deity and eternal preexistence of Jesus (the Son).

Does away with both the JW and Oneness arguments, based on simple, straightforward logic.