WHAT Is the Trinity?

[amadeus]

Great verse Amadeus.
Hebrews 1:6-8 which is from Psalm 45:6

Of course in the above verse God is telling Jesus, the SON, that He is God and will be sitting on His throne forever.

Maybe we could speak about this word "begotten" which has so many confused. (I don' mean on this forum).

Begotten does not mean that Jesus was gotten or made.
It means that He was a part of God Father and then became separate from God Father. But Jesus, or the 2nd person we should say, WAS FROM THE BEGINNING.
He was NOT CREATED.

Actually, while not a student of the Greek, my Strong's and my Vine's Expository Dictionary show the same verb form, begotten [#1085], is used with regard to a human bearing children. Another form of the same verb, begat [#1080] is used for example in Matthew chapter 1 to describe the human begetting of children. While it could mean what you say it does, it does not I believe establish it as God begetting God. Someone with knowledge of the Greek may correct me on this.

It just means that He is a UNIQUE "person" - a person of deity, a divine person, ....GOD. When the bible is speaking about Jesus it will use Lord and when speaking of God it will use LORD. This is to distiniguish who is being spoken of --- not because Jesus is less in nature to God. His NATURE is a nature of God.

The distinction between God and Lord seems to be right to me, but I have never that I recall tried to confirm it.

 

[amadeus]

I agree with the poster who stated that the doctrine of the Trinity was defined with time.

Jesus DID mention the Holy Spirit in Mathew 28:19 when He sends the Apostles on the Great Commission.

I believe Jesus told the Apostles the Holy Spirit would come, but they seem to have concentrated on what their eyes could see (Jesus); much as is done today?

My point was that if early believers who wrote the epistles in the NT were aware of a Trinity and believed in it as it is usually defined, why would they not include the Holy Spirit along with the Father and the Son in each greeting? This is not proof but an indication that the Holy Spirit was not an entity that needed to be addressed equally with Father and Son.

Calling Jesus, God, is an easy thing for me. The Holy Spirit, however, I find it difficult to separate from the Father who is certainly a Spirit and Holy. Why is it necessary to see the HS as a separate but equal part rather than a special gift or manifestation of the Father for men?

 

[bbyrd009]

The distinction between God and Lord seems to be right to me, but I have never that I recall tried to confirm it.

ha "let's all define God" it really is kinda rich

 

[amadeus]

They both existed at the same time!
Jesus is the Word. The Word was with God and was God.
The Word was Always with God.
THEN He became a man. But He was Always with God, Jesus did not come second in time.

Time is always a problem because what is it to God anyway if for Him there really in no time? Some believers insist that God is limited by time, while other insist that time itself is one of God creations. While I can easily believe that Jesus created first in order to then do the rest of creation, I usually go along with there being no time for God. In this I catch myself in a quandary. It is problematic is deciding whether Jesus is always and simultaneous with the Father or Jesus is subsequent to the Father. And there I hang. Step out here in faith? Why? Is it needful to know the resolution to my quandary?

Perhaps in "position"---to be discussed.

Without looking it up somewhere, I do not know what you mean by "position".

 

[amadeus]

ha "let's all define God" it really is kinda rich

I believe God has defined it clearly as He wanted to in the inspired writings of scripture. The difficulty in laying in out in terminology easily understood by anyone may have to do with two things. The first is that not everyone is supposed to be able to understand God's meanings because He also doesn't cast pearls before swine. The second would be that even those who are not swine, may only be given the understanding when and if they have, according to God, a need to know.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't see it as a biblical word. And I can't say how I understand it
The bible tells me " The Lord thy God is ONE".... I believe it.
The Father, The Son , and Holy Spirit are One. The same One.
I " think" that The Lamb has been the part of Godhead which has had contact with the earth long before He came as Jesus. Being Melchizedek King of Salem , Peace. And , probably the angel who wrestled with Jacob. Someone else mentioned how The Spirit "clothed Himself with Gideon" in that battle. And He too was very active here in the OT before He came to dwell within Gods people in the NT.
Someone I read mentioned that Mary was a suragate for Jesus and that she was not Jesus' flesh mother...ie Him being conceived "all of God" as in not flesh.( well that's how I read it.. could be wrong) but I can't agree with that. What would be the point.
The whole point was that He came to redeem mankind...as a man. A sinless man, full of the Holy Spirit . THAT to me is the amazing beauty of Redemption. God's amazing Plan. " To me" having Him 100% Spirit in Mary detracts from that. But that just me...and irevevant to ' the trinity '. He was still The Glorious Lamb who had "emptied Himself , and laid aside His Glory to become man," to reveal The Father to us and destroy the choke hold of the devil over man.
He came to reveal The Father. "If you've seen Me, you have seen The Father." Not just His acts, but His heart of Love.
Some things I know, some things I believe, and some things I think.
Even the things I 'know' I hold lightly. Except where the price paid, the cross and the blood of Jesus' sacrifice is concerned.

Agreed.
I just want to say that yes, Jesus was 100% man and 100% God.
He was fully man and fully God.
He was NOT only spirit, as you state,
and He was NOT only man or His sacrafice would not have been sufficient.
It took someone MORE than sinful man to atone for man's sin and sins. It took God.

 

[GodsGrace]

I have tried to keep up with post in this thread; what time permits. Forgive me if I repost something similar to what someone else has already said. I am typing on my cell.

The only way I can understand Father, Son, and Spirit; The LORD, the One true God, is by considering the body.

Unlike man in his envying, strife, and argument for a higher position. There is only perfect harmony within God. Respect. Love. Unity. Intimacy. God is Relationship. HE has given us the model to live by: ONE body; many members working in harmony and love as a whole for a common good; each of us having a vital role...but still equal and of ONE body.

The question is: do we really believe in ONE body that is His? Many members but ONE. Or are we each separate, operating solely on our own?

Man is the one that makes it a competition. God is One: Father, Son, and Spirit.

The body of Christ is One: some apostles, some teachers, some administrative...relationship(or we should be).

Yes. It's unfortunate we don't really understand what you state above.
Sometimes the members of the ONE Body like to wrestle with each other...


1 Corinthians 3:1-10
1 Corinthians 6:13-17
1 Corinthians 12

 

[bbyrd009]

The body of Christ is One...(or we should be).

ha, pretty sure the Body is one already, but we are looking for it in the wrong place lol

 

[GodsGrace]

i think you will find your perspective to be on the Catholic side of a pretty wide bell curve, as this search kind of indicates, but we can ask Christ Himself,

My answers will be in blue.
Why are you sending me to a Google page?
I never even go to links but did in your case because I'd like to understand you better. I think I know what you believe, but it would be so nice to just hear you say it. No matter.

36While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light."
Jesus said this, then went away and hid from them.

(the second sentence being the more operative one here, but nonetheless) the first is arguably just a restatement of His first reply (v35) to Who is this Son of Man?
v35 being 'Jesus answered, "The light will be with you only a little longer. Walk while you have the light so that darkness doesn't overtake you. The one who walks in darkness doesn't know where he's going.' so, either an aside or a conflation of Son of Man, the question, with The light..., correct?

While we have the light:

While Jesus was still with them back the because He was soon to die.
Also, while we are ABLE to find Him NOW. He is saying that we should receive the light while we are willing and can, because a day may come when our hearts are hardened and He will be shut out.
This reminds me of Hebrews 6:4-6

Become Sons of Light:
Simply to become believers in Jesus, the Light, and become followers of Him Who offers us the light. Those who walk and believe in Jesus, do not walk in the dark.
John 12:46
John 8:12

I'm not sure it's an aside or a conflation.
A conflation of what two ideas??
I think he's just stating that He's the light.
But Jesus was also much more.


And the argument that in v 35 Christ is now speaking in an "aside" is a compelling one; the question is not being directly answered, see, and then Christ "went and hid from them." For the same reason that you cannot quote Jesus saying that He is God, and the same reason that this discussion goes on endlessly. Christ does not want to be worshipped as Nehushtan...is one way to put it. Jesus Cult is i guess another, although those first few hits look useless

I can't click on Jesus Cult.
But what about John 12:23?
Jesus says that it's almost time for Him to be glorified. Jesus was a Jew.
Would He want Himself to be glorified? Doesn't this go against what you're saying?
Only God could be glorified.

In verse 25 Jesus is again offering eternal life. Who but God could offer eternal life?
Verse 26: If anyone serves Jesus, the Father will Honor him. Why would the Father Honor the one who serves Jesus? Many serve today - we're not told that the Father will Honor us because we serve any particular person...

I didn't see Jesus chasing away the palm wavers in Luke 19:40. In fact, He said that if the people did not shout, the very stones would. He was greeted as a King who had won a battle and returned in victory.

Does John 10:27 and John 15:1-6 not speak about Jesus saying He is the shepherd of the sheep? Doesn't this refer to Ezekiel 34? God said --- I myself will sheherd them -- Others have led them astray. (my wording).

another way to say it is that there is a popular notion that one might perform some altar works once and then just "really, really" believe that Jesus did everything else needed for them to go to heaven--when they die, of course--and Jesus even said "it is finished" to back them up lol

LOL indeed! The Easy Believers and Hyper Gracers. They say it is finished but Idoubt they know what it means. They never proclaim it. They do love to proclaim that works are not necessary when Jesus clearly said they are. It Is Finished---HE did His part, now we must do ours. Easy.

crap i'm just making it worse lol look you are a Son of Man, ok, at least if you fit this, While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light, and this elevating of "Son of Man" to something it is not strikes me as not understanding why Jesus would call Himself "Son of Man" in the first place, that being because He was a man.

I don't think Jesus called Himself Son of Man because He was the son of man !!
You make it too easy.
Did Jesus not say at Nazareth:
"Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing".
NASB
Luke 4:21
What scripture?
Isaiah 61:2
Isaiah foretold the coming of the Lord.
Jesus proclaimed Himself that Lord.
Those who heard him in the synagogue wanted to stone Him because they knew what it meant.

This is another central problem with the Trinity doctrine, the tangle that is created with going beyond "God is the head of Christ" imo, because now you gotta make Mary holy, too, see, and it just perpetuates out from there, you end up with something...perpetual

You haven't clearly presented any problem, so far.
I don't understand why you bring Mary up.
God IS the head of Christ.

Click to expand

 

[bbyrd009]

Click to expand

the problem with "click to expand" is now you break the software for anyone you are talking with. Anyway,

"I think I know what you believe, but it would be so nice to just hear you say it."

ok, no problem: Who is this 'Son of Man?'
While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light."
Jesus said this, then went away and hid from them.

that is who i believe this "Son of Man" is, and the second sentence cannot be dropped, it is intrinsic to the truth here.

 

[bbyrd009]

While Jesus was still with them back the because He was soon to die.

is dismissed by your next statement,

Also, while we are ABLE to find Him NOW. He is saying that we should receive the light while we are willing and can,

which i agree to, but that means "because He was soon to die" cannot be correct.

because a day may come when our hearts are hardened and He will be shut out.

possibly, but i would keep an open mind there, might be other valid interpretations

Simply to become believers in Jesus, the Light, and become followers of Him Who offers us the light.

this describes two different people to me; there are believers, like satan, and then there are followers of Christ, and the two don't have much of anything to do with each other that i can see

 

[bbyrd009]

"A conflation of what two ideas?"

Son of Man and The light, which is the one that cannot be true, unless Jesus was worried about His dying removing their path to Him, which cannot be true if we have access to Him now, right

"I think he's just stating that He's the light."

a perfectly logical assumption on the face of it, yes.
Now just incorporate "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except the Father" into that, i guess

iow you are being invited to assume that Jesus was stating that He is the light, but then you have a logical conundrum, as we have already discovered. When Christ was crucified Grace was not removed, but instituted

 

[bbyrd009]

"But Jesus was also much more."

"and then He went away and hid from them."

 

[bbyrd009]

"Would He want Himself to be glorified? Doesn't this go against what you're saying?"

i don't see how, you would have to explain what you mean there, but nonetheless that was an answer to, specifically, some Greeks (meaning logical thinkers imo) that asked Philip "Sir, we want to see Jesus." And Philip went and told Andrew, and they both "went and told Jesus," which is not just idle chatter either, Greeks who have come to worship asking Philip, and Philip telling Andrew, and both of them telling Jesus has meaning. And His reply was "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified..." and then notice that He immediately makes the same little speech about basically who the Son of Man is.

So, while it is certainly tempting to assume that Christ meant Himself only, we can see the pains that He goes to to "hide Himself" from this definition, meaning possibly that it is true in a sense, sure enough, but that we are led to make an incorrect assumption in our def of "Son of Man" here that is not intended. And while you may of course believe what you like, Jesus was a man. A man with God as His head, but still a man.

And imo God nor Christ speak in puzzles to intentionally deceive; it is just likely that trying to define God or Christ from our pov is a waste of time. The best you can hope for in that scenario is to arrive at a belief that excludes others from your conception of "saved," when they state a belief that varies from yours, and now you are adversaries over something that neither of you can prove

"Only God could be glorified."

yes, making Jesus' statement rather odd, a logical problem, good catch btw, never noticed it. See that the answer was a reply to some "Greeks," who asked one Apostle, and that Apostle went to another Apostle, and only then did the request come to Jesus. Imo this is Jesus' way of saying that Greeks, logical thinkers who supposedly came to worship Jesus, right, would end up glorifying Jesus through the Apostles, and Jesus is not seeking glory, in fact about to go down in apparent ignominy, hung on a tree and cursed; (not even the legal punishment for the charges against Him btw), for which Jesus certainly does not expect any glory, or even praise imo

 

[bbyrd009]

"In verse 25 Jesus is again offering eternal life. Who but God could offer eternal life?"

oh, i get you now. Well, to that i would say that God is the head of Christ. I can confidently make you the same offer, here;

While you have the light, believe in the light so that you may become sons of light.

now, am i God?

 

[bbyrd009]

"Verse 26: If anyone serves Jesus, the Father will Honor him. Why would the Father Honor the one who serves Jesus?"

because if/when you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father.
But don't forget that "Jesus said this, and then went and hid from them"
in connection with that concept

"Many serve today - we're not told that the Father will Honor us because we serve any particular person..."

hmm, not sure why v26 does not apply to you, too

 

[bbyrd009]

"I don't think Jesus called Himself Son of Man because He was the son of man !!"

ha, listen to yourself now. And understand that i have no dispute here, you might be completely right ok, but note that we do not even have a common definition for "Son of Man," and i don't just mean you and me, i mean Doctors of Theology who cannot agree ok

 

[bbyrd009]

"You haven't clearly presented any problem, so far."

then let me do so; Trinity doctrine is fine enough on paper, but in practice it becomes a bludgeon to separate Believers who would otherwise have no disputes with each other, and to arbitrarily judge other people who hold contrasting opinions about Christ, not even mentioning that now you gotta deify Jesus' mother too, and Jesus as 100% man just gets harder and harder to find (and thus follow), and one might easily end up spending a morning in basically pointless discussions about who can define God the best

 

[bbyrd009]

now pls understand that i have no issue with those who believe Trinity as a working understanding to better follow Christ, ok; but when it becomes about deifying Jesus so as to worship Him, to the point of "Jesus has done everything necessary for me to go to heaven when i die, all i have to do is look to Him," i am compelled to mention that a bunch of believers in the Promised Land did what sounds to me like the same thing, until a priest came and broke Nehushtan up.

 

[Helen]

"I don't think Jesus called Himself Son of Man because He was the son of man !!"

ha, listen to yourself now. And understand that i have no dispute here, you might be completely right ok, but note that we do not even have a common definition for "Son of Man," and i don't just mean you and me, i mean Doctors of Theology who cannot agree ok

I have been reading these last number of posts and got myself totally confused..then I thought..hmmm maybe Mark has lost it...is he asking himself questions and answering himself!!?

The last few posts look like you are talking to an imaginary friend.