Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[GodsGrace]

John 1:1-3 refers to the Word (logos) of God manifesting a begotten Son (John 1:14)

The Word became flesh.
But it always existed IN GOD, as the Logos, His reason, His thoughts.
Begotten means something unique...it does not mean something that came into being - at least not in biblical theology.
John 1:14
New Living Translation
So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.

American Standard Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

The Word already existed...it just became flesh.

John 8:58 refers to Jesus being a man prophesied about before Abraham. In John 9:9, ego eimi is translated as "I am the man" in the NIV. So in John 8:40 Jesus referred to himself as a man then the context would be regarding himself as a man.

John 8:58
58Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!”
59At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.

Jesus was not a man prophesied about before Abraham.
Jesus was PRESENT before Abraham was.
This is why they picked up stones to throw at Him....the Jews knew He was referring to God, the Great I Am.

John 8:40
40Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

Not sure of your point, but Jesus heard everything from God.

John 17:5 refers to Jesus pre-existing in God's thoughts and plans (the logos). Hence in Revelation 13:8, for example, Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." But Jesus was not literally slain from the creation of the world; he was slain one time in Israel about 2,000 years ago.

Jesus was slain from the creation of the world.
Jesus died as a man one time in Jerusalem in about 30AD.

But there is no time for God. He lives outside of time.
Jesus had to have died from the creation of the world or no one would have been saved before his death.

His death was eternal.
His salvation was eternal (for mankind).

Everything always was and God sees everything all at one time.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Good question in the thread title.

I think it just comes down to a number of things, but in my opinion Trinitarianism has to be taught whereas non-Trinitarian is in the plain text reading of the Bible and I think it is what most people will intuitively grasp when reading the Bible. It's actually a complex subject, highly debatable, and yes it has been argued about for centuries.

You may find that non-Trinitarianism is explicitly stated in the Bible, whereas the Trinitarianism isn't described or explained in the same way the Trinity doctrine is explained in the Athanasian creed for example. However, John 17:1-3 explicitly states there is only one true God known as the Father. Therefore, Jesus is a non-Trinitarian.

Hello Runningman, Thank you for your input.

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Free]

John 1:1-3 refers to the Word (logos) of God manifesting a begotten Son (John 1:14)

What do you think logos means? What do you mean by "manifesting"?

John 8:58 refers to Jesus being a man prophesied about before Abraham.

Where is prophecy stated or implied in that verse or passage?

In John 9:9, ego eimi is translated as "I am the man" in the NIV. So in John 8:40 Jesus referred to himself as a man then the context would be regarding himself as a man.

Words and phrases can have different meanings, even if they are more nuanced, in different contexts. How does the context of John 9:9, where a man healed by Jesus says "I am," apply to the context of Jesus in 8:58?

John 17:5 refers to Jesus pre-existing in God's thoughts and plans (the logos).

What in the context leads you to that conclusion? Jesus is actually saying that he possessed the glory of the Father, despite God having said in Isaiah that he will not give his glory to another. It's impossible to be in possession of something and to be in relationship with someone when you are just a mere thought or plan, is it not?

Hence in Revelation 13:8, for example, Jesus is referred to as "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world." But Jesus was not literally slain from the creation of the world; he was slain one time in Israel about 2,000 years ago.

That is one understanding of that verse. Is it:

Rev 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (NIV)

or:

Rev 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (NIV)

It's a bit ambiguous. My NIV Study Bible has the following alternate rendering:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain.

This latter translation is what the ESV agrees with:

Rev 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (ESV)

Regardless, either way, what is there to suggest that this would support your understanding of John 17:5?

 

[Runningman]

The Word became flesh.
But it always existed IN GOD, as the Logos, His reason, His thoughts.
Begotten means something unique...it does not mean something that came into being - at least not in biblical theology.
John 1:14
New Living Translation
So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.

American Standard Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

The Word already existed...it just became flesh.

Jesus and the word[Logos] of God are not the same things actually (Rev 20:4). One refers to God's words referring to His ideas, i.e., prophecies. Prophecies about Jesus are words that were brought into being. For example, are there any examples of Jesus pre-existing, talking to anyone, or doing anything in the old testament?

John 8:58
58Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!”
59At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.

Jesus was not a man prophesied about before Abraham.
Jesus was PRESENT before Abraham was.
This is why they picked up stones to throw at Him....the Jews knew He was referring to God, the Great I Am.

But the passage about the Great I am in Exodus 3 doesn't refer to Jesus, it refers to YHWH and Jesus was never identified by the name YHWH nor referred to as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So I am inclined to stick with my original statement.

Exodus 3
14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

15God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

John 8:40
40Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

Not sure of your point, but Jesus heard everything from God.

Well, contrary to the accusations against him that he was claiming to be God, he said he is not a man or a son of man and will not lie or change His mind about it.

Numbers 23
19God is not a man, that He should lie,
or a son of man, that He should change His mind.
Does He speak and not act?
Does He promise and not fulfill?

Jesus was slain from the creation of the world.

Just in God's foreknowledge. The Bible is clear just slain one time.

Jesus died as a man one time in Jerusalem in about 30AD.

But who died? A man or did God die?

But there is no time for God. He lives outside of time.
Jesus had to have died from the creation of the world or no one would have been saved before his death.

If God died before the creation of the world then why did a man need to die?

His death was eternal.
His salvation was eternal (for mankind).

Everything always was and God sees everything all at one time.

Jesus died an eternal death? Seems he was resurrected by God.

Acts 2
24But God raised Him from the dead, releasing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for Him to be held in its clutches.

 

[Runningman]

What do you think logos means? What do you mean by "manifesting"?

I prefer going with a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech. I mean by manifesting the same way 1 John 1:1-3 says.

Where is prophecy stated or implied in that verse or passage?

Below refers to Abraham seeing the prophecy concerning the Messiah in the sense of knowing about it in faith, but not literally seeing Jesus.

John 8
56Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”

Matt 13
17For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Words and phrases can have different meanings, even if they are more nuanced, in different contexts. How does the context of John 9:9, where a man healed by Jesus says "I am," apply to the context of Jesus in 8:58?

Both contexts are about men.

What in the context leads you to that conclusion? Jesus is actually saying that he possessed the glory of the Father, despite God having said in Isaiah that he will not give his glory to another. It's impossible to be in possession of something and to be in relationship with someone when you are just a mere thought or plan, is it not?

It's more nuanced than that. Receiving glory from God isn't the same as being God:

John 17
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—

That is one understanding of that verse. Is it:

Rev 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (NIV)

or:

Rev 13:8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (NIV)

It's a bit ambiguous. My NIV Study Bible has the following alternate rendering:

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written from the creation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain.

This latter translation is what the ESV agrees with:

Rev 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (ESV)

Regardless, either way, what is there to suggest that this would support your understanding of John 17:5?

Start here: where is an example of Jesus having glory with God before the world existed? Are there any? If no, why would one assume Jesus literally existed? I can see that it obviously refers to Jesus pre-existing in God's foreknowledge, but not literally.

 

[Free]

I prefer going with a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech.

In John 1:1b and 1:2, the word "with" is the Greek word pros. Being in the accusative case, it denotes motion towards. It isn't merely being with but it is intimate union and communion; it is interpersonal relationship inseparable from God, yet distinct from him. This is why 1:1c makes sense in every good translation--"the Word was God [in nature]."

Ideas, statements, speeches, etc., cannot fit with what John was meaning; only a person can. Only a person can be in intimate relationship with another person.

And that is supported by 1 John 4:8 and 16--"God is love." The highest and fullest expression of love is an action from one person to another (such as in John 15:13). If God's nature is love, then it necessarily must have always been expressed in the highest and fullest expression within himself, since there are no other gods. But if God is unitarian, wouldn't that be impossible? God would have needed creation in order to love. However, if God needed creation in order to become love, then he could not be love; love could not be intrinsic to his nature. It only makes sense if God is a Trinity (or at least a "binity"), that love can be an attribute of being. That agrees rather well with John 1:1b and 1:2, does it not?

Again, John is remarkably consistent.

Below refers to Abraham seeing the prophecy concerning the Messiah in the sense of knowing about it in faith, but not literally seeing Jesus.

John 8
56Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”

Yes, Abraham saw the day coming, but that is not what Jesus is referring to in verse 58. The Jews respond in verse 57 with "You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?" There rhetorical question points out the matter of Jesus's relatively young age compared to the 2000 or so years since Abraham. That is what Jesus responds to in verse 58.

Notice that Jesus first says "before Abraham was." That is past tense, indicating that Abraham had existed at a point in time in the past. Jesus then compares himself to that with, "I am." That is absolute existence, taken straight from Ex 3:14. In other words, Jesus takes the name of God and applies it to himself.

The Jews picked up stones to stone him because that was blasphemy; he was making himself equal to God. And that is not the only time that happens. They fully understood what he said, so I think we should probably understand it that way as well. It is also completely consistent with John 1:1-3, and it should be or else there is a serious problem.

Matt 13
17For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Both contexts are about men.

Jesus is a man, yes, but he is also God. John's gospel starts by pointing that out.

It's more nuanced than that. Receiving glory from God isn't the same as being God:

John 17
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one—

Two things. First, that doesn't actually address the point you made, namely, that "John 17:5 refers to Jesus pre-existing in God's thoughts and plans (the logos)." I responded by asking: It's impossible to be in possession of something and to be in relationship with someone when you are just a mere thought or plan, is it not?

Second, to more clear in what I said previously, Jesus is actually saying that he possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation--"before the world existed"--despite God having said in Isaiah that he will not give his glory to another. Existing prior to creation is absolute existence; in which the Son possessed the glory of the Father. That is perfectly consistent with John 1:1-2 and 8:58. And, again, we should expect it to be or there is a serious problem.

Start here: where is an example of Jesus having glory with God before the world existed? Are there any? If no, why would one assume Jesus literally existed? I can see that it obviously refers to Jesus pre-existing in God's foreknowledge, but not literally.

We don't need an example. Jesus himself said he possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation. John's prologue, the whole purpose of which is to introduce us to who Jesus is, begins with him stating the absolute existence of the Word in 1:1a, the intimate union and communion of the Word with God in 1:1b, and then states that the Word was God in nature. The third clause is perfectly consistent with the first two clauses; it could be said to be the logical conclusion.

John 1:2 begins by reiterating the absolute existence of the Word, and finishes by reiterating the intimate union and communion the Word had with God (again, supported by John 17:5, and 1 John 4:8, 16).

That cannot simply be referring to God's foreknowledge or his plans, or whatever else. It can only mean that the preincarnate Son, the Word, literally existed prior to all creation with the Father (and the Holy Spirit). That means he is also truly and fully God, but that he isn't the Father. Combine that with the foundational fact that there is only one God, and...

It is all very consistent and coherent, which cannot be said if the Son merely preexisted in God's mind. Of course, that doesn't mean it is easy to understand or fully comprehensible.

 

[Hopeful 2]

The Word became flesh.
But it always existed IN GOD, as the Logos, His reason, His thoughts.
Begotten means something unique...it does not mean something that came into being - at least not in biblical theology.

I don't know where you got that definition, but Merriam Webster say..."
transitive verb
1: to procreate as the father : SIRE
He died without begetting an heir.
2: to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
Violence only begets more violence.

John 1:14
New Living Translation
So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.
American Standard Version
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
The Word already existed...it just became flesh.

Agreed.

John 8:58
58Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!”
59At that point they picked up stones to throw at him. But Jesus was hidden from them and left the Temple.

Jesus was not a man prophesied about before Abraham.
Jesus was PRESENT before Abraham was.
This is why they picked up stones to throw at Him....the Jews knew He was referring to God, the Great I Am.

John 8:40
40Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

Not sure of your point, but Jesus heard everything from God.



Jesus was slain from the creation of the world.
Jesus died as a man one time in Jerusalem in about 30AD.

But there is no time for God. He lives outside of time.
Jesus had to have died from the creation of the world or no one would have been saved before his death.

His death was eternal.
His salvation was eternal (for mankind).

Everything always was and God sees everything all at one time.

 

[Runningman]

In John 1:1b and 1:2, the word "with" is the Greek word pros. Being in the accusative case, it denotes motion towards. It isn't merely being with but it is intimate union and communion; it is interpersonal relationship inseparable from God, yet distinct from him. This is why 1:1c makes sense in every good translation--"the Word was God [in nature]."

Ideas, statements, speeches, etc., cannot fit with what John was meaning; only a person can. Only a person can be in intimate relationship with another person.

And that is supported by 1 John 4:8 and 16--"God is love." The highest and fullest expression of love is an action from one person to another (such as in John 15:13). If God's nature is love, then it necessarily must have always been expressed in the highest and fullest expression within himself, since there are no other gods. But if God is unitarian, wouldn't that be impossible? God would have needed creation in order to love. However, if God needed creation in order to become love, then he could not be love; love could not be intrinsic to his nature. It only makes sense if God is a Trinity (or at least a "binity"), that love can be an attribute of being. That agrees rather well with John 1:1b and 1:2, does it not?

I understand your point, but the definition of logos is the one I provided and I don't think John minced words either. God created with the spoken word throughout the Bible, beginning in Genesis, where the one doing the creating is referred to as YHWH, a singular masculine noun, God's name. No mention of someone there called the Son or Messiah, Jesus, etc.

We can look a bit more beyond John 1:1 to get an idea of the context. John 1:9 says the true Light gives light to all men entering the world and John 1:30 says Jesus is a man. It follows, at least to me, that the true Light giving light to all men would not be the man Jesus in John 1:30. John 1:14 says he was begotten of the Father. So the picture I am seeing is Jesus didn't exist except for in the logos of God until he was born.

Again, John is remarkably consistent.


Yes, Abraham saw the day coming, but that is not what Jesus is referring to in verse 58. The Jews respond in verse 57 with "You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?" There rhetorical question points out the matter of Jesus's relatively young age compared to the 2000 or so years since Abraham. That is what Jesus responds to in verse 58.

Notice that Jesus first says "before Abraham was." That is past tense, indicating that Abraham had existed at a point in time in the past. Jesus then compares himself to that with, "I am." That is absolute existence, taken straight from Ex 3:14. In other words, Jesus takes the name of God and applies it to himself.

I see this as the Pharisees attempting to gaslight Jesus since Jesus never claimed to see Abraham. In typical fashion, they were essentially making another false accusation baiting him to commit blasphemy so they could justify stoning him. They seem to have intentionally misunderstood Jesus to be making a claim to deity, but their premise was false.

I see Abraham "seeing his [Jesus'] day" as a reference to Abraham seeing the prophecy of Jesus in faith, though not literally having it. That isn't unprecedented, there is a good reason to view John 8:58 as a reference to Jesus the man being prophesied about before Abraham.

Hebrews 11
13All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

The Jews picked up stones to stone him because that was blasphemy; he was making himself equal to God. And that is not the only time that happens. They fully understood what he said, so I think we should probably understand it that way as well. It is also completely consistent with John 1:1-3, and it should be or else there is a serious problem.

I believe they misunderstood Jesus in the same way I pointed out above. Jesus said elsewhere God is greater than himself which lends context and interpretation to John 8:58. If God is greater than Jesus, then they aren't equals, then it wouldn't make sense to say he is God.

“the Father is greater than I.” – John 14:28
“My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all.” – John 10:29

Jesus is a man, yes, but he is also God. John's gospel starts by pointing that out.


Two things. First, that doesn't actually address the point you made, namely, that "John 17:5 refers to Jesus pre-existing in God's thoughts and plans (the logos)." I responded by asking: It's impossible to be in possession of something and to be in relationship with someone when you are just a mere thought or plan, is it not?

For a human, yes, but for God it isn't impossible because through scripture that's how He is.

The question is, did God literally know Jeremiah before he was born and did Jeremiah pre-exist? I guess most people would say no and it refers to God's foreknowledge. I apply the same precedent to Jesus.

Jeremiah 1
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Second, to more clear in what I said previously, Jesus is actually saying that he possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation--"before the world existed"--despite God having said in Isaiah that he will not give his glory to another. Existing prior to creation is absolute existence; in which the Son possessed the glory of the Father. That is perfectly consistent with John 1:1-2 and 8:58. And, again, we should expect it to be or there is a serious problem.


We don't need an example. Jesus himself said he possessed the glory of the Father prior to creation. John's prologue, the whole purpose of which is to introduce us to who Jesus is, begins with him stating the absolute existence of the Word in 1:1a, the intimate union and communion of the Word with God in 1:1b, and then states that the Word was God in nature. The third clause is perfectly consistent with the first two clauses; it could be said to be the logical conclusion.

John 1:2 begins by reiterating the absolute existence of the Word, and finishes by reiterating the intimate union and communion the Word had with God (again, supported by John 17:5, and 1 John 4:8, 16).

That cannot simply be referring to God's foreknowledge or his plans, or whatever else. It can only mean that the preincarnate Son, the Word, literally existed prior to all creation with the Father (and the Holy Spirit). That means he is also truly and fully God, but that he isn't the Father. Combine that with the foundational fact that there is only one God, and...

I don't believe that would be Jesus literally pre-existing. " Glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world existed." refers to Jesus being crucified, resurrected, etc. Jesus was not crucified and resurrected before the world began, not in a literal sense, but in God's prophecy, yes absolutely. So Jesus wouldn't have literally had that glory with God before the world existed except in God's foreknowledge, thoughts, the logos.

Furthermore, John 17:3 and John 5:44 say there is only one God, the Father. I believe that explicitly rules Jesus out as being that one and only true God.

It is all very consistent and coherent, which cannot be said if the Son merely preexisted in God's mind. Of course, that doesn't mean it is easy to understand or fully comprehensible.

I guess we see it differently, but yes thanks for sharing your perspective. It's always nice to read about what others believe.

 

[Josef]

Hey All,
I have a question for non trinitarians. How do you explain this passage?

Luke 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

We have the Holy Ghost descending.
We have Jesus upon whom the Holy Ghost descended.
We have the voice who proclaims, " Thou art my beloved Son. . . " Does anybody doubt that the voice is the Father?.

Trinity is a word used to express the doctrine of the oneness of God as existing within the three distinct Persons (or personalities) of the one God. It is originates from the Greek word "trias." The first time "trias" was used was by Theophilus around 168-183 A D. The first time for the Latin term "trinitas" was by Tertullian in 220A.D. to express the Trinity doctrine. We can break down the doctrine to these four points:
1. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29, 32).
2. The Father is God and is a divine Person or Personality distinguishablly different from the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Exo. 4:22-24, Isa. 44:6. 1Cor.8:6)
3. Jesus Christ is equally God, and is a Person distinguishablly different from the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Deut. 18:15, Dan. 3:23-24, John 1.1; 14, John 5:18)
4. The Holy Spirit is equally God and a divine person distinguishablly different from the Father and the Son. ( Genesis 1.2, Isa. 63:14, Matthew 28:19, Acts 5:3-4)

The doctrine of the Trinity was developed to help people understand the relationship between God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Remember that, at this time 168-183 A.D., believers did not have access to a completed Bible as we do. They received their teaching through oral communication. So doctrines were introduced to help believers retain critical information.

So how can three distinct persons be one distinct person? This doesn't seem possible. How can three ones be one in total?

1 x One x I = 1 or One or I.

I can multiply any form of one in any order. Each of the ones are separate, distinct unto itself, yet they all equal each other to the point that any form may be used as the answer. That is probably as close as I can get to explainiy the doctrine of the Trinity.

Have I fully explained the Trinity? Qf course not. How can the finite (me) fully describe the infinite (God)? I hope this helps a little in the discussion. Keep walking everybody.
May God
bless,
Taz

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Iconoclast, I think, you are making a judgmental statement, https://christianforums.net/threads/sanctification-and-the-spirit.100643/

you can think what you want, but no one who has the Spirit of truth in them denies Jesus is God. They are not yet a Christian. That is a correct biblical judgment jn7:24

 

[Hopeful 2]

I sometimes wonder why trinitarians never discuss the trinity being God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit ?
It is only after the Word takes on flesh that their doctrine seems to apply.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I sometimes wonder why trinitarians never discuss the trinity being God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit ?
It is only after the Word takes on flesh that their doctrine seems to apply.

Now that you mentioned this, I see some relevant scripture.

 

[Free]

I sometimes wonder why trinitarians never discuss the trinity being God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit ?
It is only after the Word takes on flesh that their doctrine seems to apply.

Because God is triune; he is the Trinity. The Trinity is the Father (not God), the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit. There is the ontological Trinity—God as he self-exists (there never was a time when he was not triune)—and the economic Trinity—the role of each person in the Trinity within creation, salvation, and redemption.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Because God is triune; he is the Trinity. The Trinity is the Father (not God), the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit. There is the ontological Trinity—God as he self-exists (there never was a time when he was not triune)—and the economic Trinity—the role of each person in the Trinity within creation, salvation, and redemption.

Hello Free, I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Scripture reference please.

 

[Free]

Hello Free, I'm trying to understand what you are saying, Scripture reference please.

For which part? There is a fair bit that can be unpacked in what I said and no single reference I can give.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

For which part? There is a fair bit that can be unpacked in what I said and no single reference I can give.

The first part for a start, Because God is triune; he is the Trinity.

 

[Free]

The first part for a start, Because God is triune; he is the Trinity.

There are numerous verses; I can't just post one. I have given several in this discussion already. The question was asked about why Trinitarians don't discuss "the trinity being God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." No Trinitarian would say that because that is not what the Trinity is; that would mean three gods.

God, Yahweh, is the Trinity, consisting of "the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit."

 

[WalterandDebbie]

There are numerous verses; I can't just post one. I have given several in this discussion already. The question was asked about why Trinitarians don't discuss "the trinity being God, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." No Trinitarian would say that because that is not what the Trinity is; that would mean three gods.

God, Yahweh, is the Trinity, consisting of "the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit."

Yes, I understand I can only see The Father and His Son, and the Holy Spirit, The Comforter

But The Holy Spirit is from the Father, is this what you are saying? making three persons?

 

[Free]

Yes, I understand I can only see The Father and His Son, and the Holy Spirit, The Comforter

But The Holy Spirit is from the Father, is this what you are saying? making three persons?

Yes. That God exists as three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial persons is what the doctrine of the Trinity states.

 

[Free]

I don't know where you got that definition, but Merriam Webster say..."
transitive verb
1: to procreate as the father : SIRE
He died without begetting an heir.
2: to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
Violence only begets more violence.

The Greek word used of the Son is monogenes, and means "unique," "only," "one and only." It is used only nine times in the NT; five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” nor does it refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time.

Each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18, although, because we already know that the preincarnate Son “was with God and was God,” it can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.”