The Distinction of Persons in The Holy Trinity

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
there are Three distinct Persons in the Godhead. Not one with different "masks".
if this is true, the I ask, "Who made all things?", scripture, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

now this, Isaiah 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;"

so who is this that made all things?. or is this two separate persons exchanging the same mask, or is this the Same one person?

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Hebrew Name of God, “Yahweh”, has its root in the verb, “’ehyeh”, speaking of the “eternal, self-existence” of the God of the Holy Bible, Who is Unique, as He has no equal.

The main Name of the Triune God of the Holy Bible, is “Yahweh”, or, as some use the corrupted form, “Jehovah”. It is this NAME, that Jesus Christ refers to in Matthew 28:19, which is used equally for the Three Persons.
You're out of your mind, jumping to conclusions beyond serious acceptability. ehyeh is a conjugation of the verb 'to be', nothing more, nothing less, it is used throughout the Bible for all statuses of beings. You lie when you say otherwise. When Jesus said '..in the name ..' he did not refer to YHWH, it's just a flippin' noun that everyone uses, everyday.

You are a polytheist, and you are so oblivious to the meaning of the term, that you are in denial that you are one. You're logic and induction is worse than a conspiracy theorist's.
 
Last edited:

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jesus is here speaking during His Incarnate life, as the God-Man, and as The Servant. the Bible says that during this time Jesus laid aside His "equality" with God the Father, as seen in Philippians 2:5-11; John 17:5; Hebrews 2:2-9; Luke 24:26. While Jesus was during His earthly life "subordinate" to the Father, yet, because He never ceased to be Almighty God, He could, while on earth demand equal honor with the Father, John 5:23, say that He and the Father wre "one" as to their Power and Authority and Protection, John 10:30, accept the fact when told that He was "equal to God" John 5:18; accept Worship as God, Matthew 14:33, had the power to forgive sins Matthew 9:1-8, etc, etc. There is no doubt that Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, are 100% coequal, coessential and coeternal with the Father.
No one who is a man, claiming to be God, declares that he is a man. You haven't an ounce of sense in anything that you have said.
Put down your Greek lexicon and start showing some wisdom and competency for a change, if able.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit, as “another Comforter” (14:16). “another” is from “ἄλλος”, which means, “another, i. e. one besides what has been mentioned”.
we must disagree with that assessment. according to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, "ANOTHER", here in John 14:16 concering God is the same one person. listen to the definition, "Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort" Sort is the same kind, or person, which God is only one Person.

what you said is in ERROR, "which means, “another, i. e. one besides what has been mentioned". that's a incorrect statement. it is speaking of the same one person who is the "Comforter" who came as a child. supportive scripture, Luke 2:25 "And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him."

this word, "consolation", here in this verse is the Greek term,
G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis (pa-ra'-klee-sis) n.
1. an imploration, entreaty (urgent request (for mercy or help)).
2. an exhortation (urgent counsel, encouragement, or caution).
3. a comfort, solace.
[from G3870]
KJV: comfort, consolation, exhortation, intreaty
Root(s): G3870

now, a Question. why is G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis used here in Luke 2:25 instead of G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n. in 1 John 2:1, and in John, (as you quoted from the bible), John 14:16, where the Lord Jesus is the advocate, (1 John 1:2), which he is also, the comforter, (John 14:16), is used? GREAT question, now the answer. as the G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis, he, the Lord Jesus ther Ordinal Last, is in FLESH and Blood, and in a state of G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), per Phil 2:7 & 8... as a man, hence the definition,
G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

THIS IS THE HUMAN "COMFORTER", God in flesh as a man.

but when he shed that natural flesh, as John 14:16 points out, this same G3874 παράκλησις paraklesis, who was in flesh is a state of G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), is now "GLORIFIED" in the Spirit, Per John 17:4 & 5, is in a resurrected body having all power is the,
G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).

3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

yes, this child that was born, Luke 2:25, correspond to Isaiah 9:6. and a son GIVEN, is the, "Counsellor", (comforter), the Mighty God, the everlasting Father.

yes the Holy Ghost, who is the, as definition #2. states, 2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another). and who is our an intercessor? the Holy Ghost.

there he is the Holy Ghost, JESUS.


101G
The "Spiritual Saboteur"


The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
 

fellow

Active Member
Jan 17, 2020
164
29
28
83
ark
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Mar_12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Rom_3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
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.
Eph_4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Jas_2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNB

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Oh how true the scriptures are, "But to us there is but one God, the Father", who is LORD, (per, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:") so the ONE God is LORD, all caps.... which is the "First", the Ordinal First. and ONE Lord, which is the Last, the Ordinal Last. (per, 1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.").

so we have One LORD, and we have One Lord. the One LORD who is the Father, who is the First, the Ordinal First. and, and, and, we have the Lord who is Son, who is the Last, the Ordinal Last.

well there we have it, PLAIN AS DAY, the First and the Last, now, may we guess is this? that's right, the ONE PERSON... "JESUS", brilliant deduction Watson.

Revelation 1:16 "And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength."
Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:"
Revelation 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
yes, the ONLY one who is IMMORTAL, "I am alive for evermore,"

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
 

ChristisGod

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2020
6,900
3,846
113
64
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
you write, "The Father is not the Son; but the Son is the Father (Isaiah 9:6). and "And also, the Lord is that Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17), even the Holy Ghost." as two examples from #2

In the first place, "The everlasting Father", is not saying that Jesus Christ is God the Father. The Hebrew here is literally, "Father of Eternity", From Whom eternity originates, as in "The First and The Last".

In the passage in 2 Corinthians, The "Lord" here is not Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit, where the Greek construction, "ο δε κυριος το πνευμα εστιν", with the repeated article, "ο, το", can read, "And the Spirit is Lord", as the verse goes on to say, "and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." and this is clear from verse 18, "απο κυριου πνευματος", "from the Lord Spirit".

No where in the Bible are The Three Persons in the Trinity, shown as identical Persons.
he is oneness which teaches the Son is the Father or one person is the other.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
he is oneness which teaches the Son is the Father or one person is the other.
I do not identify as Oneness. I identify myself as having leanings towards Oneness doctrine.

I do emphasize the Oneness of the Lord in my teachings; but I do believe that there are distinctions between the Persons in the Trinity; and technically this classifies me as Trinitarian.
 

fellow

Active Member
Jan 17, 2020
164
29
28
83
ark
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do not identify as Oneness. I identify myself as having leanings towards Oneness doctrine.

I do emphasize the Oneness of the Lord in my teachings; but I do believe that there are distinctions between the Persons in the Trinity; and technically this classifies me as Trinitarian.
Our God is a jealous God so think! I am a son, I am a husband, and I am a father. That doesn't make me three people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNB

101G

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2012
12,259
3,385
113
Mobile, Al.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Our God is a jealous God so think! I am a son, I am a husband, and I am a father. That doesn't make me three people.
well someone is smelling the coffee. (Just not able to drink it... yet). correct, because one Person may carry three title, but those titles do not make that one person, three distinct person(s). Titles are not persons, but A PERSON CAN HOLD A TITLE, OR MANY, AS STATED ABOVE.

But in God's case, he's the "ANOTHER", of himself who holds the title "Father", and "Son". which means he's a "diversity" of himself in flesh. not a separate and distinct person, no, but as the BIBLE states, Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
here the Offspring is the same person who is the "Root" in the verse. just as the First is the same person who is the Last, or as the Beginning is the same person who is the End, just as the Alpha is the same person as the Omega, ect.... if only one could grasp the understanding of G243 Allos, as the ANOTHER of one's OWN-SELF, as it is in, Phil 2:6, clearly states.

101G
The "Spiritual Saboteur"
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Son is distinct from the Father in that He is come in the flesh while the Father is a Spirit without flesh (the Son is the same Spirit in flesh).

Jesus, when dying on the Cross, released His Spirit into eternity (Luke 23:46) and that Spirit received the title of Holy Ghost.

The Spirit of Jesus, while He walked the earth, was the Father (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11).

There is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4); the Father (John 4:23-24), the Son (Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 5:12), and the Holy Ghost (John 7:39, 2 Timothy 1:14).

There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5); the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21), the Son (1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 12:3) and the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 3:17).

There is one God (Ephesians 4:6); the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6, James 3:9 (kjv), Romans 15:6, Ephesians 4:6), the Son (Hebrews 1:8-9; Exodus 3:14, John 8:58, John 8:59, John 10:31-33), and the Holy Ghost (Acts of the Apostles 5:3-4, Romans 8:26-27).

Now read Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 with these things in mind; and also understand that it is not sound doctrine to say that there are nine members in the Trinity.

Here I am doing what is written here:

Tit 2:1, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You're really good at explaining this. Since the Trinity Doctrine is also one of my favorite subjects, I really appreciate it.
He didn't explain anything that he concluded, Randy. He pre-supposed that Jesus was God, then went throughout the Bible trying to establish proof-text for it, without ever once either recognizing, or addressing, the incomprehensible nonsense of his proposition.
He twisted and eisegeted almost all the Greek that he set forth as having an unequivocal meaning and usage. There are absolutely no reserved words for God in any of the Bible, there is no intrinsic meaning or inference to 'I am', nor 'Alpha', nor 'Omega', nor 'Lord' or 'god'. Context defines all exegesis.
Genesis 3:14 employs an entire expression, which is meant to convey a principle, the aseity, supremacy and sovereignty of God. One can never parse the text, and then still retain the principle that was conveyed in the entire statement. 'I am that I am' means what was intended only in its entirety, 'I am' on its own does not have the same inherent declaration. It is the same with '..Alpha and Omega..', individually, there is no divine inference in the etymologies of the two words. This is so elementary, that it's a shame that it needs to be pointed out.

He jumped to conclusions on every time that the '..I am..' appeared in a sentence, expressed by Jesus, but, either ignorantly, incompetently, or deceitfully, did not address the areas where Paul, and the blind, amongst many others, also uttered the same statement - but the translators expressed it more correctly ('I am he'). On another post, he claims that the Roman soldiers were so well versed in the Torah, that they recognized the Tetragrammaton simply because Jesus replied to their inquiry as to ' who is Jesus?', with 'I am he, ...let these people go' (notice the context).
He hasn't a clue what he's talking about, Randy. Sorry to intervene, but his argumentation is utterly incompetent. Look again at the context, it's self-explanatory why Jesus said 'I am..'

John 18:7-9
18:7. Therefore He again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." 8. Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way," 9. to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one."

Further, whenever Jesus asserts that he is subordinate to the Father, he comes back with the cliché, 'that's Jesus referencing his man nature..'. Question is, why does one who is clearly a man to all those around him, he ate food, sweat in the hot sun, defecated in the woods , etc.., feel a need to impress upon his audience that he is a man? ...It is because, so that they do not dare think that his power or authority is from himself, nor do they even try to deify him. This is why he was so emphatic about his ontological inequality with the Father, and and his stress to glorify God, the Father (countless times throughout Scripture).

So I think it very important that we establish a clear distinction between the Persons of the Trinity. And I appreciate your clear ability to do this.
There is absolutely no distinction between the persons of the trinity, outside of their names - each one is identical, for each one is God who is perfect in every way. In order for there to be a change in one from the other, there would have to be a deficiency, as in one lacking something that the other had. In other words, it is the absolute quintessence of redundancy to have 2 all-powerful persons in one entity, let alone 3?

The trinity doctrine is as perverted and subversive, as any theological tenet can ever be.

Sorry Randy, I would like to address the rest of his thesis, but it's too long for now (late over here). Hopefully another time soon...
 

Randy Kluth

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2020
7,624
2,338
113
Pacific NW
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He didn't explain anything that he concluded, Randy. He pre-supposed that Jesus was God, then went throughout the Bible trying to establish proof-text for it, without ever once either recognizing, or addressing, the incomprehensible nonsense of his proposition.
He twisted and eisegeted almost all the Greek that he set forth as having an unequivocal meaning and usage. There are absolutely no reserved words for God in any of the Bible, there is no intrinsic meaning or inference to 'I am', nor 'Alpha', nor 'Omega', nor 'Lord' or 'god'. Context defines all exegesis.
Genesis 3:14 employs an entire expression, which is meant to convey a principle, the aseity, supremacy and sovereignty of God. One can never parse the text, and then still retain the principle that was conveyed in the entire statement. 'I am that I am' means what was intended only in its entirety, 'I am' on its own does not have the same inherent declaration. It is the same with '..Alpha and Omega..', individually, there is no divine inference in the etymologies of the two words. This is so elementary, that it's a shame that it needs to be pointed out.

He jumped to conclusions on every time that the '..I am..' appeared in a sentence, expressed by Jesus, but, either ignorantly, incompetently, or deceitfully, did not address the areas where Paul, and the blind, amongst many others, also uttered the same statement - but the translators expressed it more correctly ('I am he'). On another post, he claims that the Roman soldiers were so well versed in the Torah, that they recognized the Tetragrammaton simply because Jesus replied to their inquiry as to ' who is Jesus?', with 'I am he, ...let these people go' (notice the context).
He hasn't a clue what he's talking about, Randy. Sorry to intervene, but his argumentation is utterly incompetent. Look again at the context, it's self-explanatory why Jesus said 'I am..'

John 18:7-9
18:7. Therefore He again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." 8. Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way," 9. to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one."

Further, whenever Jesus asserts that he is subordinate to the Father, he comes back with the cliché, 'that's Jesus referencing his man nature..'. Question is, why does one who is clearly a man to all those around him, he ate food, sweat in the hot sun, defecated in the woods , etc.., feel a need to impress upon his audience that he is a man? ...It is because, so that they do not dare think that his power or authority is from himself, nor do they even try to deify him. This is why he was so emphatic about his ontological inequality with the Father, and and his stress to glorify God, the Father (countless times throughout Scripture).


There is absolutely no distinction between the persons of the trinity, outside of their names - each one is identical, for each one is God who is perfect in every way. In order for there to be a change in one from the other, there would have to be a deficiency, as in one lacking something that the other had. In other words, it is the absolute quintessence of redundancy to have 2 all-powerful persons in one entity, let alone 3?

The trinity doctrine is as perverted and subversive, as any theological tenet can ever be.

Sorry Randy, I would like to address the rest of his thesis, but it's too long for now (late over here). Hopefully another time soon...

As much as I appreciate your good will in arguing this without hostility, I still have to disagree with you. I still think the brother is gifted as promoting and defending the Trinity. The Trinity is hardly incoherent or too abstract or anything you may argue by which to depreciate it. It is orthodox doctrine as established by the Church Fathers and by the early councils of the Church.

"I Am" is more than a name--it is experiential for the believer. So every time we are given the notion of who God is, we are struck simultaneously with something called "faith." It is the experience of God that comes from believing in Him and in accepting His word.

And so, the knowledge we acquire from any divine proposal comes from our willingness to obey, and from the spiritual experience that follows. When God describes Himself as "I Am," the believer immediately has it impressed upon him that "God is!" He experiences God, and knows that He is!

This is why the Roman soldiers fell down at Jesus' self-proclamation, making himself known for who he was. It is not a mere name, nor was it trying to determine what that name means. Rather, it is the power that comes from that name, whether the experience is accepted by believers by faith or imposed on unbelievers. In this case, unbelievers had an experience imposed upon them, and the soldiers fell down, as if by forced reverence.

To say there is little distinction among the members of the Trinity does not do justice either to what their different names signify nor to the different ways that we see the members of the Trinity operating separately and distinctly in the Scriptures. There are definite differences, distinguishing them as separate persons, even though they share the one Person of the one Deity, as well.

I was warned that 3 does not equal 1, because it's a contradiction. But when you're talking about a transcendent Deity, then finite forms of that one Deity can be expressed as 3 separate persons. The one transcendent and infinite Deity can utilize His Word to express Himself within the finite world, presenting Himself in different personalities, whether spirit or human.

And that's what the Trinity is, God expressed in 3 persons. He is expressed locally, as the Holy Spirit. And He is also expressed locally, as the man Jesus. In the OT, God expressed Himself in angelic form, as theophanies. God can use His Word to express Himself in any way He sees fit, and it still does not contradict the unity of His Deity.
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
In fact, the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was produced some 150 years before the Birth of Jesus Christ, by the best Hebrew scholars of the day, render the Hebrew text as, “"ego eimi ho on", which is, “I am the Eternal One”. Say to those who ask of you, that “I AM” (’ehyeh), has sent me to you. “God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘The YHWH, 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 thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” (verse 15).
@Randy Kluth
You see, in Exodus 3:14, the profundity of the expression 'I am that I am' is in the latter part of the sentence, as the Greek translation denotes 'ho on' (self-existent one), and not in ego eimi. And this is incontestable as the repeat phrase uses Ho on again.
Exodus 3:14-14
3:14. God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" (ego eimi ho on); and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM (Ho on) has sent me to you.'"

Therefore, the shamefully notorious "I am' statements of the NT, are entirely misappropriated. Like I said previously, almost all other English translations of that term 'ego eimi' are rendered 'I am he', correctly so.

The Hebrew Name of God, “Yahweh”, has its root in the verb, “’ehyeh”, speaking of the “eternal, self-existence” of the God of the Holy Bible, Who is Unique, as He has no equal.
The main Name of the Triune God of the Holy Bible, is “Yahweh”, or, as some use the corrupted form, “Jehovah”. It is this NAME, that Jesus Christ refers to in Matthew 28:19, which is used equally for the Three Persons.
Yes it does as YHWH is an acronym or acrostic of 'I am that I am'. It is to be used for God's name. So now, anytime that Jesus uses the word 'name' in a sentence, he's referring to YHWH??? You see the impetuous, biased and incompetent mishandling of the text?

Don't be enamored by what appears to be BGTF's Greek acumen, for Biblical exegesis requires more than a linguistic technician, it requires wisdom and comprehension. Excuse the disparaging remark, but he has absolutely none, for one of the initial signs of this is an exaggerated use of grammatical tools to make your point. A principle as enigmatic and esoteric, and to some, imperative for salvation, as a god-man, or triune god, should not require a technical analysis to verify, the inspired authors should be shouting it from the roof-tops, using terms as 'trinity', God the son, incarnate, hypostatic union, three-in-one, two-in-one, etc... throughout the entire Bible.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To say there is little distinction among the members of the Trinity does not do justice either to what their different names signify

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have one name, Matthew 28:19.

Peter was not being disobedient in Acts of the Apostles 2:38....therein He baptized in the name of the Father even of the Son even of the Holy Ghost.
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Trinity is hardly incoherent or too abstract or anything you may argue by which to depreciate it. It is orthodox doctrine as established by the Church Fathers and by the early councils of the Church.
But, it is extremely abstract and incoherent, there is not a single trinitarian apologist or theologian, who has ever claimed to understand it throughout history, not one! For, the notion of a god-man is absolutely preposterous: every attribute that defines divinity, is antithetical to those that define humanity. One is immortal, the other mortal, one is immaterial, the other corporeal, one is transcendent, the other secular, one is infallible and holy, the other fallible and corrupt, etc...
I do not hold that the man-made ecumenical councils are either inspired or authoritative, irrespective of the subject matter.

"I Am" is more than a name--it is experiential for the believer.
But, not at all, only the expression as a whole references God (the eternal one). 'I am' is the most common expression in the history of languages, it is not a claim of deity on any level. It is used countless times throughout the Bible in reference to humans.

This is why the Roman soldiers fell down at Jesus' self-proclamation, making himself known for who he was.
But you are assuming why the bowed down, but the full Biblical evidence does not support this. For, shortly after, they beat him to a pulp, and mocked him by taunting him to prophecy as the 'king of the Jews' which he claimed to be, not God. Even at his trial, the Sanhedrin charged him with claiming to be the son of God, not God Himself.

To say there is little distinction among the members of the Trinity does not do justice either to what their different names signify nor to the different ways that we see the members of the Trinity operating separately and distinctly in the Scriptures. There are definite differences, distinguishing them as separate persons, even though they share the one Person of the one Deity, as well.
But there isn't, if each is God, and God is completely perfect in every way, then there is absolutely no distinction whatsoever outside of their names. And, that is regardless as to what roles that they played, for since each is all-powerful, either one could've fulfilled the required duties of the other.
I was warned that 3 does not equal 1, because it's a contradiction. But when you're talking about a transcendent Deity, then finite forms of that one Deity can be expressed as 3 separate persons. The one transcendent and infinite Deity can utilize His Word to express Himself within the finite world, presenting Himself in different personalities, whether spirit or human.
God does have limitations, he is indivisible, unconfused, cannot be quantified, transcendent, cannot die, cannot become sin, nor sin, He cannot be tempted as Jesus was, etc...
It is rather invalid to claim that just because the magnitude of God is somewhat unfathomable, that any other assertions about his ontology, ...and soteriology, regardless of how bizarre and incomprehensible, becomes acceptable.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God the Father Yahweh + God the Son Yeshua + God the Holy Spirit = 3 Gods...in union...in unity...a Godhead.
But not one in will, not one in mind, not one in presence. Three full fledged Gods sitting on three thrones.


Grailhunter’s Corner