Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[Wrangler]

Need to understand that even though He was God incarnate.......He obeyed the will of the Godhead

What verse says this? And why do we need to understand this? What verse says it’s important to believe the trinity?

 

[APAK]

@Johann ..next corrupted meaning in scripture of yours...

(Heb 1:5) For to which of the angels said He at any time: You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again: I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son?
(Heb 1:6) And again, when He brings the firstborn into the world He says: And let all the angels of God worship him.
(Heb 1:7) And of the angels He says: Who makes His angels winds, and His servants a flame a fire.
(Heb 1:8) But of the Son He said: Your throne, O Mighty One, is for ever and ever, and the sceptre of your kingdom is a sceptre of uprightness.
(Heb 1:9) You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.
(Heb 1:10) And: You, Lord, in the beginning did lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands.
(Heb 1:11) They shall perish, but You continue; and they all shall wear out as does a garment,
(Heb 1:12) and like a cloak You shall roll them up as a garment, and they shall be changed; but You are the same and Your years are without end.
(Heb 1:13) But of which of the angels has He said at any time: Sit on my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?
-----------------

These verses and more, constitute a poetic song in scripture by the writer of Hebrews. It's the exchange of praises for YHWH and YHWH to his Son he created into existence after he first created the natural physical world. It's also a message that Jesus was a man and never an angel.
And that YHWH's 'throne' is always there for his Son.


Now the writer in 1:5 until verse 9 speaks about what the Father has done and said to/for his Son. Hebrews 1:10 now turns the focus to the Father, YHWH. It's now about what YHWH, Jesus' Father created in the past. The Lord presented here is YHWH alone, not Jesus at all! YHWH does not present his Son as Lord! This is not a secret place where you find Jesus = God I'm afraid. So there is no need to explain anything away, as you are doing here yourself, and that the Son here is not the Lord is quite evident.

The world and heavens he created will eventually decay and perish whilst he himself will live on into eternity. As YHWH is the same for eternity.

----and you are still confused I gather ?----

 

[Wrangler]

He was a human being and his human frailties and his sufferings and sorrows were natural human traits, as for any son of man. And to impersonally disregard this as a fact and only regard his frailly and suffering and sorrows as IDEAS and IDENTIFICATIONS as showing so-called human traits (humanity) of some type of non-authentic attributes, as an unnatural human being, is atrocious and cold.

You got that right!

This atrocious and coldness is how Jesus is portrayed in many films, ‘above it all.’ This is a far cry from the compassionate man adored in Scripture.

 

[IronMaiden]

What verse says this? And why do we need to understand this? What verse says it’s important to believe the trinity?

…because if there’s no Trinity, there’s no Christianity.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Jesus didn't have divine nature

If Jesus did not have God's divine nature... that would make Him not of God and like the devil

Jesus is God's Word manifest in the flesh and God's divine nature is in His Word

It's too bad that anyone would believe Jesus is not of God and has the nature of satan and not of God

 

[Wrangler]

…because if there’s no Trinity, there’s no Christianity.

Not really an answer to my question. Rather, you are making an assertion that contradicts Scripture. Sad.

 

[IronMaiden]

Not really an answer to my question. Rather, you are making an assertion that contradicts Scripture. Sad.

How so?

 

[Wrangler]

If Jesus did not have God's divine nature... that would make Him not of God and like the devil

Woah! We are containers who have empty ourselves of self to make room for God’s Spirit. Being a container, we are OF God. This preposition is not equal to the verb ‘is.’

 

[Johann]

Not really an answer to my question. Rather, you are making an assertion that contradicts Scripture. Sad.

Simple biblical assertion-yet profound.

J.

 

[IronMaiden]

Is Jesus Christ the Savior of the world?

 

[Wrangler]

How so?

Try answering my question.

It’s so odd that the complete absence of the doctrine of the trinity in Scripture does not cause you to question its validity. Nothing in Scripture says what you assert, ‘without the trinity’ there is no Christianity.’ Therefore, per Scripture Christ followers exist outside the burden of the trinity. Romans 10:9.

 

[Johann]

Try answering my question.

It’s so odd that the complete absence of the doctrine of the trinity in Scripture does not cause you to question its validity. Nothing in Scripture says what you assert, ‘without the trinity’ there is no Christianity.’ Therefore, per Scripture Christ followers exist outside the burden of the trinity. Romans 10:9.

With thy mouth Jesus as Lord (en tōi stomati sou Kurion Iēsoun). This is the reading of nearly all the MSS. But B 71 Clem of Alex. read to rēma en tōi stomati sou hoti Kurios Iēsous (the word in thy mouth that Jesus is Lord).

The idea is the same, the confession of Jesus as Lord as in 1Co_12:3; Php_2:11.

No Jew would do this who had not really trusted Christ, for Kurios in the lxx is used of God.

No Gentile would do it who had not ceased worshipping the emperor as Kurios. The word Kurios was and is the touchstone of faith.

in the Septuagint (LXX), κύριος (kurios, meaning "Lord") is consistently used to translate the divine name YHWH (יהוה) from the Hebrew Scriptures. This reflects the Jewish practice of avoiding the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and substituting it with the word Adonai (אדני), meaning "Lord," during readings. The translators of the LXX rendered YHWH as κύριος, emphasizing God’s sovereignty and authority.

Examples of κύριος for God in the LXX:
Genesis 2:4:

Hebrew: "בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וּשָׁמָיִם"
LXX: "ἡμέρᾳ ποιῆσαι κύριος ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν"
English: "...in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth."

Exodus 3:14-15:

In the burning bush narrative, the divine name YHWH is translated as κύριος, showing the identification of God as "Lord."
LXX: "εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν... ὁ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν."
Psalm 110:1 (LXX 109:1):

Hebrew: "נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי"
LXX: "Εἶπεν ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου"

English: "The Lord said to my Lord..."
The use of κύριος in these contexts unequivocally identifies the term with the God of Israel, translating and referring to YHWH, the covenant name of God.

Implications:
The New Testament authors, writing in Greek, frequently use κύριος to refer to Jesus Christ, applying to Him Old Testament passages where κύριος is used for YHWH (e.g., Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32; Philippians 2:10-11 references Isaiah 45:23).

This consistent application demonstrates their understanding of Jesus as fully divine, identifying Him with the Lord of the Old Testament.

Thanks for coming to the truth.

J.

 

[IronMaiden]

Try answering my question.

It’s so odd that the complete absence of the doctrine of the trinity in Scripture does not cause you to question its validity. Nothing in Scripture says what you assert, ‘without the trinity’ there is no Christianity.’ Therefore, per Scripture Christ followers exist outside the burden of the trinity. Romans 10:9.

The doctrine of the Trinity is written about in many places. You just can’t “see“ it. …and that’s more than sad. Do you call yourself a Christian? Was Christ to you just a man?

 

[marks]

You are correct, brother-this feels more like an intellectual contest, if it can even be called that, with pride ever lurking, even within me, and little to no edification.

Keep the faith Marks-I am tired.

Johann.

I pray the Lord give you sweet rest my brother!

Much love!

 

[Johann]

I pray the Lord give you sweet rest my brother!

Much love!

Spiritually tired, as if I'm drained, groping at thin air.

J.

 

[APAK]

@Lizbeth ,,have written to you for a bit now..

Here's a philosophical question for you...how can someone exist (again) before they exist? Not a trick question. Hint: existing is a life of actually being in the present and future, with only one designed nature and with a one spirit to animate or 'drive it.'

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not entirely true-


Trinitarian theology maintains a crucial distinction: while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine essence (ousia), they are distinct in personhood (hypostases).

You don't see that as a problem? I do. The idea that they are distinct in personhood, contradicts the idea that they are of one essence.

The Incarnation pertains to the person of the Son, not the essence shared by all three persons.

If the three persons are of one essence, there can be no "father", "son" distinction.

This means that the Word (the Son) could take on human nature without this action being attributed to the Father or the Holy Spirit. This distinction avoids the confusion of conflating essence with personhood.

The unity of the three persons into a single entity means that whatever happens to one person happens to them all. Otherwise the idea of a single entity is a meaningless concept.

The Word can not take on human nature apart from the others.

Scriptural Affirmation of Distinctions:

Scriptural affirmation of distinctions disproves the Trinity Doctrine.

The Kenosis and the Son’s Humility:
Philippians 2:6-8 explains that the Son, "being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant." This passage highlights that the Incarnation was a voluntary act of the Son, who added a human nature to His divine nature. The essence of God remains unchanged, as the Son's action does not alter or involve the Father or Spirit in becoming flesh.

As I argued earlier. Paul did not teach the doctrine of Kenosis.

Orthodox Theological Terminology:
The hypostatic union explains that the Son took on human nature, uniting it with His divine nature in one person.

I understand. But the hypostatic union isn't possible because all three persons are one entity.

This does not mean the divine essence itself was altered or that all persons of the Trinity participated in the Incarnation.

On the contrary, if the divine essence isn't altered, then the word didn't become flesh. And we know that the divine essence can't be altered because God is immutable.

The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) affirmed that Christ is fully God and fully man, with two natures united in one person.

I don't accept the premise that the Council is authoritative.

I say again, the Deity of the Lord Christ Jesus is under attack like never before.

Johann.

If the deity of Christ is a philosophical fiction, then why does it matter?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Here's a philosophical question

There's a mistake the devil has successfully gotten some in to... following philosophy rather than what God says.

Philosophy is nothing more than man kind rejecting the Lord while groping in the dark trying to find truth

It's no wonder so many reject the Truth found in God's Word that tell us He is three and yet He is one all at the same time.

 

[Johann]

You don't see that as a problem? I do. The idea that they are distinct in personhood, contradicts the idea that they are of one essence.

In Latin terms, essence is often translated as "substantia", while personhood is rendered as "persona".

Would "persona" suffice?

In Trinitarian theology:

Substantia (Essence) refers to the one divine nature that is fully possessed by each of the three persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). All three persons share the same substantia, which means they are all fully and completely God.

Persona (Personhood) refers to the distinct personal identities within the one divine substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct personae, yet each person possesses the fullness of the divine substantia.

To explain this in a theological context:

Unum in substantia, tres in personis: One in essence (substantia), three in persons (personae).

This Latin phrase encapsulates the paradox of the Trinity. The substantia (essence) is indivisible, shared fully by the three distinct personae (persons).

Despite the distinction in personhood, the three are united in one divine essence, with no division in God's being.

Key Theological Clarification:
Substantia divina: The divine essence, which is indivisible and shared by all three persons.

Personae divinae: The three divine persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-who are distinct in their relational properties but share the same substantia.

This distinction between substantia and persona is central to understanding the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as it affirms both the unity of God and the distinction of persons without division in the divine essence.

Makes perfect sense to me--but--

If the deity of Christ is a philosophical fiction, then why does it matter?

Since when did the Deity become a philosophical fiction? Is this really your belief?

I've noticed that you tend to disregard the Early Church Fathers, yet I believe I have adequately explained the doctrine of the Triune Godhead.

Also, if you’ve observed, I don’t use the term "Trinity," but rather refer to the Triune Godhead.

I have send you links, did you open them, or do you just want to pontificate?

J.

 

[Wrangler]

On the contrary, if the divine essence isn't altered, then the word didn't become flesh. And we know that the divine essence can't be altered because God is immutable.

Very well put! I look forward to the mental pretzel Trinitarians contort themselves to respond to this one!