I absolutely totally believe there are 3 divine persons in the Godhead, so I do not believe this thread poses a challenge to the forum rules... At least I hope not as I believe this topic is worthwhile discussing...it may however challenge your present understanding of the trinity as taught more commonly in the church.
So I have been reading through Ephesians when I came to this...
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
I have always cherished those scriptures, having believed that with all of God's recommendations and commandments, comes the power to accomplish them, and I thank my heavenly Father for the love of my life, and for granting whatever was necessary to ensure our relationship grew despite the many ups and downs, ebbs and flows, of what is now 45 years of marriage...but then I came across the following little gem, and am seeing this in a new light.
The 'trinity' has for some time been for me a focus of study and attention. The several inconsistencies and contradictions between scripture and the creeds and 'fundamental beliefs' of the various churches which teach one or another form of trinitarian doctrine are often rooted in the rejection of a real, literal, genuine Father/Son relationship between Jesus and His Father before the incarnation at Bethlehem, before creation. The lack of harmony between the presumed co-equalty of the 3 persons of the godhead and a literal Father/Son relationship, results in a metaphorical skewing of scripture that ultimately translates as a God who did not give His only begotten Son, but someone else. A co-partner, share-holder or whatever. But not a Son. So after reading the following, might I now suggest that here is empirical proof from Paul that the Father indeed did give His only begotten Son? That the Son left the Father's side in order to 'leave His eternal home' to become one with His bride, the church? "For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones....that they two may become one flesh". Did not Christ, the literal only begotten Son, truly leave His Father's side in order to become one flesh with humanity?
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
KJV Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Why is it, you believe, that the Son is so like His Father, it can be said of the Son to be the express image of His Father? And why do you think one can declare, with absolute confidence, that Jesus, the Son of God is also God? I say it is because Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father, begotten in eternity, and inheriting all the very same attributes and characteristics and nature that make His Father, God. Thus the Son must also be God. In fact I would suggest that being the literal only begotten Son, is the most powerful argument in favor of His divinity.
Even more glorious of course, is His voluntary humiliation in laying off His divine attributes, in order to become man, that He may take His bride, the church, in marriage, becoming one flesh with those who love Him and keep His commandments.
So I have been reading through Ephesians when I came to this...
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
I have always cherished those scriptures, having believed that with all of God's recommendations and commandments, comes the power to accomplish them, and I thank my heavenly Father for the love of my life, and for granting whatever was necessary to ensure our relationship grew despite the many ups and downs, ebbs and flows, of what is now 45 years of marriage...but then I came across the following little gem, and am seeing this in a new light.
The 'trinity' has for some time been for me a focus of study and attention. The several inconsistencies and contradictions between scripture and the creeds and 'fundamental beliefs' of the various churches which teach one or another form of trinitarian doctrine are often rooted in the rejection of a real, literal, genuine Father/Son relationship between Jesus and His Father before the incarnation at Bethlehem, before creation. The lack of harmony between the presumed co-equalty of the 3 persons of the godhead and a literal Father/Son relationship, results in a metaphorical skewing of scripture that ultimately translates as a God who did not give His only begotten Son, but someone else. A co-partner, share-holder or whatever. But not a Son. So after reading the following, might I now suggest that here is empirical proof from Paul that the Father indeed did give His only begotten Son? That the Son left the Father's side in order to 'leave His eternal home' to become one with His bride, the church? "For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones....that they two may become one flesh". Did not Christ, the literal only begotten Son, truly leave His Father's side in order to become one flesh with humanity?
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
KJV Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Why is it, you believe, that the Son is so like His Father, it can be said of the Son to be the express image of His Father? And why do you think one can declare, with absolute confidence, that Jesus, the Son of God is also God? I say it is because Jesus is the literal Son of God the Father, begotten in eternity, and inheriting all the very same attributes and characteristics and nature that make His Father, God. Thus the Son must also be God. In fact I would suggest that being the literal only begotten Son, is the most powerful argument in favor of His divinity.
Even more glorious of course, is His voluntary humiliation in laying off His divine attributes, in order to become man, that He may take His bride, the church, in marriage, becoming one flesh with those who love Him and keep His commandments.