Three person God identified in the Bible?

[Free]

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?

This: "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," is absolutely false. That is how you have misrepresented my position. It really seems that you don't understand how translations come about and that no translation is perfect.

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

So, because it disagrees with your interpretation, based on reading Oneness theology into the text, and is in better agreement with the Greek behind the text, the ESV "leaves things to be desired in being able to see what is clearly taught by the passage"? That is a very interesting take on the matter, since it is literally the other way around. The ESV is much more clear on what was actually stated in the Greek.

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?

That is begging the question, by presuming that God is only the Father.

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.

I'm not going to keep repeating these same things. Your interpretation of the text is forced and based on an unnatural reading of it. This is because you are reading something into the text that isn't there.

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.

You are quoting it but not understanding it.

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

Those are two distinct persons. Again, we know that it was "Jesus . . . who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." That is what the NT states repeatedly. There is hardly a clearer teaching in the entire Bible.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

presuming that God is only the Father.

...would be as silly as presuming that water is only the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

if "one God, the Father" precludes Jesus from being God, then "one Lord Jesus Christ" necessarily precludes the Father from being Lord.

 

[Free]

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.

I agree that even with "He" the meaning is the same, and it isn't the meaning you are stating.

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

I'll reply to this in a separate post.

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

You do and you don't. You deny it when it comes to Gen 1:26-27 because you deny that God has always existed as three distinct persons, that there never was a time when he was not three distinct persons; you deny it prior to the incarnation. In order for you to say that you do not deny the Trinity, you must necessarily make the Holy Spirit and the Son distinct persons from the Father and each other, after Christ's ascension. But that is not at all the Trinity. That is simply Oneness's "Coexistent Modalism" co-opting the word "Trinity" to try and appear trinitarian, for some reason.

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

Actually, Hebrews 10:5 fully supports those verses.

Heb 10:5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; (ESV)

Notice that "Christ came into the world," into "a body" that was "prepared" for him.

You still have to deal with all those verses and the fact that they state God sent the Son or that the Son came into the world. That only makes sense if he existed prior to coming into the world.

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.

Again, that is not at all what is meant in Trinitarian theology. That is a very deceptive teaching.

As I've pointed out previously, you're conflating two different references to time and eternity. Your "preexistent" Jesus had to first come in human flesh, after creation by the one Person, the Father. But that is not at all what is meant according to the doctrine of the Trinity. There was never a time when the Son was not. He is the second person of the Trinity who necessarily exists, along with the Father and Holy Spirit, and who came and took on human flesh, and then returned to be with the Father.

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

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

No, because, again, you're conflating the two references. My point stands.

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.

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

No, you don't. The historical doctrine of the Trinity is very much at odds with your "Trinity." The very fact that you argue that you "can show that God is an absolute unity" supports my point, as it contradicts the historical trinitarian concept. Your "Trinity" is, again, better thought of as Coexistent Modalism. It appears to be just a new spin on an old heresy to make it more palatable.

If that is not the Trinity, what is?

The historical doctrine, which I've had to repeat ad nauseam in this thread.

Your version of three Gods?

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

My patience with your purposeful misrepresentation of trinitarianism is wearing very thin. It is absolutely not tritheism. I do not want to see that false charge again.

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.

I've shown with your own words that you cannot be 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..

I am trinitarian, you are Oneness trying to appear as trinitarian. There is no misrepresentation there.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Right!

Don't pretend you are agreeing with me while you contradict what I say.

He wasn't God

To whom are you referring by your word, "God", here? Which do you mean?

1. "He wasn't [God the Father]"
2. "He wasn't [God the Son]"

...he was God the Son in the flesh.

True.

I honestly don't understand why you see some great difference in what I'm proclaiming and what you're doing.

You're an unitarian, whereas I am a Trinitarian. You can't see the difference between being an unitarian and being a Trinitarian?

You're establishing a 'difference' between God and Jesus

The truth is that God the Father is not God the Son/God the Son is not God the Father. What do you mean by saying I am "establishing" that truth?

God never said, "This is me, my Son."

Which do you mean?

1. God the Son never said that.
2. God the Father never said that.

I agree with both proposition 1 and proposition 2.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

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

That God is three _______s in one _______?

Can you fill in those blanks without misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[Free]

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

Firstly:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

"In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1.

"Was the Word." "Was" is the Greek, en, which speaks of absolute preexistence before any creation. What that statement means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

"And the Word was with God." "With," being the Greek, pros, means "intimate relationship" or "communion." "God" contains the article in the Greek--"the God"--and is therefore a reference to the Father (at a minimum).

"The Word was God." It is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek. As such, it refers to the nature of the Word. It is saying that the Word was divine or deity.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of en, pros, and God containing the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with the Father.

I should also include verse 3:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made. That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

John's whole point is who the Word is. To sum then, the Word had eternal preexistence, the same as the Father, in intimate relationship with God, and was in nature deity himself. Yet, we know there was only one God. The best explanation is that there is plurality within the one God, hence, the historical doctrine of the Trinity best takes this evidence into account.

Secondly:

The Son was involved in creation, and so was the Holy Spirit, but the Father is the originator. There is very much a reason why Gen 1 says that God created by speaking and why John 1:1 says that the divine logos was in the beginning "with God." As Vern S. Poythress says:

"Logos in the Greek has a range of meaning, including reason, law, word, speaking, declaration. The meaning "reason" explains why the study of reasoning came to be called logic. The meanings related to communication and discourse are mot pertinent to understanding the word logos in John 1:1. In John 1:1 the phrase "In the beginning" alludes to Genesis 1:1. And John 1:3 explicitly says that "all things were made through him," alluding to God's work of creation in Genesis 1.
. . .
John 1:1-3, by reflecting back on Genesis 1, indicates that the particular speeches of God in Genesis 1 have an organic relation to a deeper reality in God himself. The particular speeches derive from the One who is uniquely the Word, who is the eternal speech of God. God has an eternal speaking, namely, the Word who was with God and who was God. Then he has also a particular speaking in acts of creation in Genesis 1. This particular speaking harmonizes with and expresses his eternal speaking."

To sum the second point, it is very interesting and seems to be very purposeful, that John 1:1 speaks of plurality within the one God, just as Gen 1:26-27 do so as well. John was not only very specific in his grammar, as I have pointed out, he was intentional in bringing Genesis 1 to bear on his description of who the Word is.

Very relevant also is that John 1:14 says "the Word became [egeneto] flesh." That is, the Word entered time. Egeneto is only used in John's prologue of things coming into existence, an action in time. It is the same verb used in verse 3 for each instance of "made" (to come into being). It is also used of John the Baptist, in verse 6, and "made" in reference to "the world" in verse 10. Interestingly, it is also used to speak of those who "become children of God."

The incarnation is a mystery, but John clearly makes the case the Word had always existed before creation--absolute preexistence--with God and was divine in nature. He then entered time, taking on human flesh, completed the work he both came and was sent to do, and then was received back into glory.

Remember, this is John's introduction, the whole point of which is to introduce us to the Word that became flesh. Everything else he says about the Son, Jesus, the Son of God, flows from this and cannot contradict it.

 

[miamited]

Hi Paul E. Michael

Don't pretend you are agreeing with me while you contradict what I say.

I was agreeing with you in that you have to define the 'God' that is the Son with that particular description because he is different than 'God' the Father. However, I do make the claim that because of those differences Jesus is not God. God the Father is one singular entity of light and love and wisdom and power and glory that surpasses all of those things as we might think them to imagine in our grandest description of those adjectives. Jesus, according to God's very words spoken aloud that people on the earth at the time could hear, was said of God, "This is my Son. In whom I am well pleased."

That's as far as I'm willing to go with it and as far as I'm inclined, as far as God went with it in His testimony to us, also. Jesus is God's Son who came to earth as the promised servant of God that Isaiah had promised he would be and did, as per Jesus' own testimony the bidding of the Father who is in heaven and is to be eternally praised. Amen!!

Jesus, it would seem according to his very prayer to his Father asked that we be made one, as they are one, by the Holy Spirit. So, there are three separate and distinct entities that make up the God-head, but only one of those entities is God of God. The ever existent, always present Spirit that is light and love. Who feels emotions separately from the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But we will all know the truth in the millennial reign. At that time we will see God the Father and Jesus the Son, as they are. I believe that Jesus will be glorified and appear to us much as Moses appeared to the early Israelites. I believe that he will walk among us, as he did 2,000 years ago, but there will still be God the Father always as the head and authority over even him. As it is written: More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.
Paul seemed to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
According to Paul, Jesus is the first of us to be raised from the dead. He is the firstfruits of a body of believers that God will raise up on the day of His judgment those who trusted in His Son's testimony and death. Jesus is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Of those who have 'fallen asleep'...died~!

Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Paul E. Michael]

There is an argument of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Russellites have no argument.

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

True.

and therefore He is not God

False. And saying "therefore" will not hide your non sequitur, nor convert it into an entailment.

Jesus is not God

By your word, "God", are you referring to the Father? If not, then to whom or what are you referring by it? If so, then this is what you are saying:

"Therefore Jesus is not [the Father]"
​

If you're saying that, then you're affirming an essential tenet of Trinitarianism, preaching to the Trinitarian choir.

 

[Cooper]

That God is three _______s in one _______?

Can you fill in those blanks without misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity?

The Omnipresent, Eternal, Almighty, Saving, Creator, God is One.
.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Jesus is not God

By your word "God", are you referring to the Father? If not, then to whom or what are you referring by it? If so, then this is all you are saying:

"Jesus is not [the Father]"
​

If you are saying that Jesus is not the Father, then you're just affirming an essential tenet of Trinitarianism.

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

In His Spirit, Jesus is the unbegotten God. Of course He is begotten in that He is come in flesh.

So stating the Father is without form is a false premise.

Of course the Father has a form. He is come in the flesh, in the Person of Jesus.

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.

So, yes, it is clear that the fact that the one Lord Jesus Christ is the Father is a biblical notion (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2 Corinthians 6:17-18). And therefore the fact that the one God, being the Father, is Jesus, is also a biblical notion (Hebrews 1:8-9).

So, because it disagrees with your interpretation, based on reading Oneness theology into the text, and is in better agreement with the Greek behind the text, the ESV "leaves things to be desired in being able to see what is clearly taught by the passage"? That is a very interesting take on the matter, since it is literally the other way around. The ESV is much more clear on what was actually stated in the Greek.

Actually, I started by reading the kjv in this passage; and the kjv definitely preaches Patripassianism in it; which I read out of the kjv text. I did not look for the idea of Patripassianism in any text and then say "eureka" when I found it in Hebrews 9:16-22. And I also did not say, "I'd better find a different version" when I saw that Patripassianism was taught by the kjv text of Hebrews 9:16-22. That would be doing what was prophesied in 2 Timothy 4:3; if I were not already baptized in Jesus' Name.

You are quoting it but not understanding it.

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

Those are two distinct persons. Again, we know that it was "Jesus . . . who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." That is what the NT states repeatedly. There is hardly a clearer teaching in the entire Bible.

Most translations render the subject of the sentence as "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead" so that He "who was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification", at least as the sentence is structured, is not Jesus our Lord but "Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead". I suppose that we should stop reading Bibles that render it in this fashion?

You should start your own ESV-only cult.

You do and you don't. You deny it when it comes to Gen 1:26-27 because you deny that God has always existed as three distinct persons, that there never was a time when he was not three distinct persons;

I affirm that there never was a time when He was not three distinct Persons. Misrepresenting someone's position is against the ToS.

You still have to deal with all those verses and the fact that they state God sent the Son or that the Son came into the world. That only makes sense if he existed prior to coming into the world.

1) Jesus existed as the Father prior to coming into the world;

and,

2) Jesus ascended to exist outside of time; and therefore He also exists as the Son into eternity past (prior to when He came into the world, as time bears it out).

That is a very deceptive teaching.

2Co 2:17, For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

2Co 4:1, Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2Co 4:2, But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

2Co 6:8, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;

As I've pointed out previously, you're conflating two different references to time and eternity. Your "preexistent" Jesus had to first come in human flesh, after creation by the one Person, the Father. But that is not at all what is meant according to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Where, in the Trinitarian creeds, is it denied?

There was never a time when the Son was not.

I agree.

He is the second person of the Trinity who necessarily exists, along with the Father and Holy Spirit, and who came and took on human flesh, and then returned to be with the Father.

However, if He was eternally begotten, you have a problem.

Because God by nature inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15).

And therefore if it was only God the Son (and not the Father) who descended and ascended,

It would be true that God the Son, being Omnipresent outside of time, descended into time and then ascended to be Omnipresent and outside of time.

That is two Persons, defined as the Son, dwelling in eternity.

Therefore, you do not have a Trinity, but a Quadrinity.

No, because, again, you're conflating the two references. My point stands.

I lost you somewhere along the way, so that I don't know what you are talking about here.

No, you don't. The historical doctrine of the Trinity is very much at odds with your "Trinity." The very fact that you argue that you "can show that God is an absolute unity" supports my point, as it contradicts the historical trinitarian concept. Your "Trinity" is, again, better thought of as Coexistent Modalism. It appears to be just a new spin on an old heresy to make it more palatable.

The Trinity as a doctrine is the doctrine that we have one God who exists in the form of three distinct Persons. My doctrine does not contradict that definition and so falls under the spectrum of what can be defined as the Trinity; whether you like it or not.

Also, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is "three-in-one"...and therefore if you do not see God as an absolute unity you are contradicting the latter part of that statement and, I would say that you have even departed from the true and faithful doctrine of the Trinity.

The historical doctrine, which I've had to repeat ad nauseam in this thread.

You have not been purporting the historical doctrine of the Trinity. Your concept is closer to the mormon idea of God; in that you say "the Father IS NOT the Son IS NOT the Holy Ghost".

I've shown with your own words that you cannot be a trinitarian.

No, you have not.

I am trinitarian, you are Oneness trying to appear as trinitarian. There is no misrepresentation there.

There is a misrepresentation here for certain. I wonder if I should report you.

That God is three _Persons_s in one _God_?

Can you fill in those blanks without misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity?

I filled in the blanks.

 

[justbyfaith]

Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made. That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

The Word certainly was not made; since He was the Father.

The Son, on the other hand, was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3 (kjv))

The Son was involved in creation, and so was the Holy Spirit, but the Father is the originator.

I would just point out what it says here, and let the word speak for itself:

Isa 44:24, Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

To sum the second point, it is very interesting and seems to be very purposeful, that John 1:1 speaks of plurality within the one God,

I do not deny a plurality within the one God, even while emphasizing that He is absolutely One. I wonder how such a thing can be? Maybe there is something to this "Trinity" doctrine?

The incarnation is a mystery, but John clearly makes the case the Word had always existed before creation--absolute preexistence--with God and was divine in nature. He then entered time, taking on human flesh, completed the work he both came and was sent to do, and then was received back into glory.

Yes, however, the Son was not eternally begotten; but in the incarnation (Luke 1:35).

 

[justbyfaith]

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.

"one God, the Father" does not preclude Jesus from being God; but it does preclude Him from being God if He is not the Father.

Just as "one Lord Jesus Christ" does not preclude the Father from being Lord; but it does preclude Him from being Lord if He is not Jesus Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

Actually, Hebrews 10:5 fully supports those verses.

Heb 10:5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; (ESV)

Notice that "Christ came into the world," into "a body" that was "prepared" for him.

You still have to deal with all those verses and the fact that they state God sent the Son or that the Son came into the world. That only makes sense if he existed prior to coming into the world.

Jesus did exist prior to coming into the world; as the Father.

Now, when it says that "the Father sent the Son" the meaning is not lost when we say that the Son is God the Father as He is united with human nature in the hypostatic union.

In that, "a body was prepared for Him"...this is how the Son was sent.

Jesus clearly was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh".

The Son was sent by the Father in that from the moment of His conception, He was destined to die on the Cross of Calvary.

Because the Son is the Son in that He is come in human flesh.

 

[GodsGrace]

"one God, the Father" does not preclude Jesus from being God; but it does preclude Him from being God if He is not the Father.

Just as "one Lord Jesus Christ" does not preclude the Father from being Lord; but it does preclude Him from being Lord if He is not Jesus Christ.

Hi Justbyfaith,

Do you agree with the following?


The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus did exist prior to coming into the world; as the Father.

Now, when it says that "the Father sent the Son" the meaning is not lost when we say that the Son is God the Father as He is united with human nature in the hypostatic union.

In that, "a body was prepared for Him"...this is how the Son was sent.

Jesus clearly was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh".

The Son was sent by the Father in that from the moment of His conception, He was destined to die on the Cross of Calvary.

Because the Son is the Son in that He is come in human flesh.

If Jesus is the Father,
HOW did the Father send the Son?
Did He send Himself??

Please read my above post and reply.
Thanks.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hi Justbyfaith,

Do you agree with the following?


The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion — the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.

1) I believe that the central doctrine of Christianity is found in John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-4;

and,

2) I believe that Jesus was begotten in the incarnation (Luke 1:35, Romans 1:3).

3) I believe that Jesus is still pre-existent into eternity past; since He ascended to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); that is, to exist outside of time.

For I would argue that if the Son is eternally begotten and is not the same Spirit / Person / God as the Father, that that is a 2nd God formed beside Him; which is expressly denied by the prophet Isaiah.

 

[miamited]

If you are saying that Jesus is not the Father, then you're just affirming an essential tenet of Trinitarianism.

Hi Paul E. Michael

That's exactly what I'm saying, don't know how that relates to trinitarianism. I'm not familiar with the term. Is it in the Scriptures?

God bless,
Ted

 

[justbyfaith]

If Jesus is the Father,
HOW did the Father send the Son?
Did He send Himself??

Please read my above post and reply.
Thanks.

I used to go and help my adopted mother Eunice with things she had to carry to certain places in her shopping cart. She used to always say, "Jesus sent him to me today to help me with my load."

One day, I went there because I needed something from her. She said the same thing.

But her sister promptly retorted, "Jesus didn't send him that time; he sent himself".

Note that I am not laying this before you as a parable;

But as an example of the possibility that someone can indeed send himself into a situation.