Genesis : Trinity

[ScottA]

Fixated on the Trinity? When I just said the Trinity has nothing to do with it?

Let’s eliminate all talk of the Trinity from our conversation.

God created Jesus Christ.

I meant that your defense against the idea of a Trinity is getting in the way. So I agree.

And it is obviously true--because you went straight to the Trinity and did not address the bulk of what I posted. That is, I only used the word Trinity to point out what you too have now stated--that we need to get off of it.

So, yes, let's do get off of it. Please. Which leaves the rest of what I said:

The real issue is was Jesus before creation (as it is written)? Yes.
And did He share in the same glory as the Father before creation as it is written? Yes.
And besides being created to be born in the flesh to be a man to answer for the problem of sin regarding mankind, was He also before creation and only "became flesh?" as it is written? Yes.​

By definition, therefore, Jesus can only be...

 

[farouk]

Fixated on the Trinity? When I just said the Trinity has nothing to do with it?

Let’s eliminate all talk of the Trinity from our conversation.

God created Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus is God; He is not a created being. "The same was in the beginning with God" (John 1). "Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Hebrews 1). "Christ Jesus...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 1).

 

[Matthias]

I meant that your defense against the idea of a Trinity is getting in the way. So I agree.

The day is coming when no one will ever speak of it again.

it is obviously true--because you went straight to the Trinity and did not address the bulk of what I posted. That is, I only used the word Trinity to point out what you too have now stated--that we need to get off of it.

It’s not true. As for the bulk of your post, I didn’t and still don’t have any questions about it.

So, yes, let's do get off of it. Please. Which leaves the rest of what I said:

The real issue is was Jesus before creation (as it is written)? Yes.
And did He share in the same glory as the Father before creation as it is written? Yes.
And besides being created to be born in the flesh to be a man to answer for the problem of sin regarding mankind, was He also before creation and only "became flesh?" as it is written? Yes.​

By definition, therefore, Jesus can only be...

See ideal preexistence.

By definition, Jesus is a unitarian.

 

[Matthias]

The Lord Jesus is God; He is not a created being. "The same was in the beginning with God" (John 1). "Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever" (Hebrews 1). "Christ Jesus...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Philippians 1).

The Lord God is Jesus’ God.

@ScottA and I have been able to agree that God created Jesus. I’d like to see the two of you discuss it.

 

[farouk]

The Lord God is Jesus’ God.

@ScottA and I have been able to agree that God created Jesus. I’d like to see the two of you discuss it.

I don't think you are open to the Scriptures quoted. I am going to use a particular button now.

 

[Matthias]

I don't think you are open to the Scriptures quoted.

I’m open to all scripture.

I am going to use a particular button now.

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

I have no idea what Moses believed about the Trinity, as this Theological concept came along thousands of years after Moses died.

If i could interview Moses, im sure He would agree that God is the Father, Christ is the Word made flesh, and the Holy Spirit is them both.
He might not call this the "Trinity", but im certain He would agree that those 3 are One.

If i asked him..>"do you believe Jesus was telling the truth when He said...>"If you've SEEN ME.... you've SEEN the Father"......Moses would say... Ive seen them both.... and they are indeed 2 who are ONE.

A.) "let US make man in OUR image"..

You'd be wrong to assume Moses would agree with you, because Jhn 1 is very clear on the fact that before Jesus revealed the Father's existence in His ministry, nobody in the entire OT record was aware that He existed. That chapter alone contradicts the trinitarians' laughable claim that the OT proves the trinity doctrine. In order for that claim to have any validity, Moses would've had to be aware of the Father's existence when he wrote Genesis. And as Jhn 1 clearly establishes as an irrefutable fact right in verse 18, he did not.

Not only would Moses disagree with you, he would flat out tell you himself that the concept of a triune god was completely foreign to the way he understood God. If God was a trinity, the time to establish that was in the preamble of His law so there would be absolutely no confusion, and yet there is nothing about Him being triune in it:

“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

This statement clearly doesn't show God calling Himself a triune Being. Anyone with good enough reading comprehension skills should be able to see that it doesn't say that. As Paul illustrates in his recollection of that event throughout 1 Cor. 10, he didn't support the foolish idea that a triune god rescued the Israelites neither. He taught that the Israelites were rescued, protected, and nourished by 1 God.

So again, in order for Moses to have supported trinitarianism, it would've been reflected in Paul's recollection of the Israelites being rescued from slavery and their journey through the desert. But it isn't. Why? Because Moses didn't subscribe to a doctrine that is as absurd and laughable as the idea that God is 3 Persons playing different roles.

If that were biblical, trinitarians would universally be able to agree or explain on how such a being functions, but they can't even do that much. The closest thing they provide in regards to providing a logical answer is saying "it's a mystery that a Christian is supposed to take on faith", even though the Bible commands that Christians are not supposed to accept anything on blind faith and fact check everything.

The trinity doctrine is nothing less than doctrinal slop for the intellectually lazy who can't be bothered to fact check, study, or research anything.

 

[ScottA]

The day is coming when no one will ever speak of it again.



It’s not true. As for the bulk of your post, I didn’t and still don’t have any questions about it.



See ideal preexistence.

By definition, Jesus is a unitarian.

I know this thread is about the Trinity...but again you return to that context, when the question that should be answered first, and that has been raised, is not whether or not there is a Trinity, but rather:

*"What" is Jesus since it is written that He was before creation, shared the same glory with the Father before creation, and therefore only "became" flesh to fulfill the identity that many would say makes Him a second "person?"​

As for the "second" person idea or theory, or that of the Trinity...I only honor those because of the way God Himself has presented them--referring to each as if they were different while the same and One. Even so, what I have just said is a conclusive statement, meaning that God is "all in all"--again, just as it is written.

 

[Matthias]

I know this thread is about the Trinity...but again you return to that context, when the question that should be answered first, and that has been raised, is not whether or not there is a Trinity, but rather:

"What" is Jesus since it is written that He was before creation, shared the same glory with the Father before creation, and therefore only "became" flesh to fulfill the identity that many would say makes Him a second "person?"​

As for the "second" person idea or theory, or that of the Trinity...I only honor those because of the way God Himself has presented them--referring to each as if they were different while the same and One. Even so, what I have just said is a conclusive statement, meaning that God is "all in all"--again, just as it is written.

Strict Jewish unitary monotheism is my answer. (There’s no need to even mention the ******* when we stick with that.)

 

[ScottA]

Strict Jewish unitary monotheism is my answer. (There’s no need to even mention the ******* when we stick with that.)

But the specifics of the question (above*) you didn't answer.

 

[Matthias]

But the specifics of the question (above*) you didn't answer.

See Jewish monotheism for the specifics. I’ll go back and look but I’m pretty sure I already mentioned ideal preexistence to you.

P.S.

I did. See post #123.

 

[ScottA]

See Jewish monotheism for the specifics. I’ll go back and look but I’m pretty sure I already mentioned ideal preexistence to you.

P.S.

I did. See post #123.

Well, no, you just mentioned it and to "see" it. Which is a term I am not familiar with.

But that is not what is occurring here...​

Why would I go look at the explanation of a manmade term, seeking men rather than God, when the question on the table can be answered with one word?

 

[Matthias]

Well, no, you just mentioned it and to "see" it. Which is a term I am not familiar with.

But that is not what is occurring here...​

How do you know it isn’t occurring here when you don’t even know what it is? The only explanation I can think of is that you’ve already decided what is going on here and alternatives aren’t possible.

Why would I go look at the explanation of a manmade term, seeking men rather than God, when the question on the table can be answered with one word?

In order to understand what Jewish monotheism is we have to understand what ideal preexistence is. You show no interest in understanding it.

It appears to me that my answer is simply out of the question, as far as you’re concerned.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

But the specifics of the question (above*) you didn't answer.

He has a habit of that.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You'd be wrong to assume Moses would agree with you, because Jhn 1 is very clear on the fact that before Jesus revealed the Father's existence in His ministry, nobody in the entire OT record was aware that He existed. That chapter alone contradicts the trinitarians' laughable claim that the OT proves the trinity doctrine. In order for that claim to have any validity, Moses would've had to be aware of the Father's existence when he wrote Genesis. And as Jhn 1 clearly establishes as an irrefutable fact right in verse 18, he did not.

Not only would Moses disagree with you, he would flat out tell you himself that the concept of a triune god was completely foreign to the way he understood God. If God was a trinity, the time to establish that was in the preamble of His law so there would be absolutely no confusion, and yet there is nothing about Him being triune in it:



This statement clearly doesn't show God calling Himself a triune Being. Anyone with good enough reading comprehension skills should be able to see that it doesn't say that. As Paul illustrates in his recollection of that event throughout 1 Cor. 10, he didn't support the foolish idea that a triune god rescued the Israelites neither. He taught that the Israelites were rescued, protected, and nourished by 1 God.

So again, in order for Moses to have supported trinitarianism, it would've been reflected in Paul's recollection of the Israelites being rescued from slavery and their journey through the desert. But it isn't. Why? Because Moses didn't subscribe to a doctrine that is as absurd and laughable as the idea that God is 3 Persons playing different roles.

If that were biblical, trinitarians would universally be able to agree or explain on how such a being functions, but they can't even do that much. The closest thing they provide in regards to providing a logical answer is saying "it's a mystery that a Christian is supposed to take on faith", even though the Bible commands that Christians are not supposed to accept anything on blind faith and fact check everything.

The trinity doctrine is nothing less than doctrinal slop for the intellectually lazy who can't be bothered to fact check, study, or research anything.

This whole post is only applicable if the father freed them from Egypt. The father did not. It was The God of Israel. Who created the heaven, and the earth. Who was sent by the father and the spirit..

 

[ScottA]

How do you know it isn’t occurring here when you don’t even know what it is? The only explanation I can think of is that you’ve already decided what is going on here and alternatives aren’t possible.



In order to understand what Jewish monotheism is we have to understand what ideal preexistence is. You show no interest in understanding it.

It appears to me that my answer is simply out of the question, as far as you’re concerned.

A classic example of this Jewish ideal pre-existence taken right out of this Second Temple rabbinic commentary and used as a Biblical example concerns the tabernacle that Moses built in the wilderness. Moses was instructed to build the tabernacle according to a “pattern” that God showed him on the mount. The heavenly blueprint was to be followed. The priests and the tabernacle serve as “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Once again, the idea is that the literal on earth pre-existed beforehand in Heaven in the mind and purposes of God.​

Okay...and your answer of "what" Jesus is from before the creation of the world?

Enough already.

 

[Matthias]

A classic example of this Jewish ideal pre-existence taken right out of this Second Temple rabbinic commentary and used as a Biblical example concerns the tabernacle that Moses built in the wilderness. Moses was instructed to build the tabernacle according to a “pattern” that God showed him on the mount. The heavenly blueprint was to be followed. The priests and the tabernacle serve as “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” Once again, the idea is that the literal on earth pre-existed beforehand in Heaven in the mind and purposes of God.​

Okay...and your answer of "what" Jesus is from before the creation of the world?

My answer of “what” Jesus is from before the creation of the world is …

Enough already.

… of no interest to you.

 

[ScottA]

My answer of “what” Jesus is from before the creation of the world is …



… of no interest to you.

You have said nothing, answered nothing. That is not an explanation, nor is it a discussion, or of any edification. What are you even doing here?

 

[Matthias]

You have said nothing, answered nothing. That is not an explanation, nor is it a discussion, or of any edification. What are you even doing here?

I’ve told you that I believe Jesus’ preexistence was ideal, in the mind of God. Jesus is a human person. He had, and still has, a God.

What I was doing here was listening to you.

 

[ScottA]

I’ve told you that I believe Jesus’ preexistence was ideal, in the mind of God. Jesus is a human person. He had, and still has, a God.

What I was doing here was listening to you.

Okay...and thank you!

However, since you have said "a God", it should be clear that just as is modeled in marriage (that "the two become one flesh"), the Oneness that these things portray is that of God and that Oneness that did and does again exist with the Father and Jesus. But I should think that since you also mentioned Jesus' pre-existence where He shared the same glory as the Father, that you know this.

All of which says two things:

1. That Jesus' pre-existence of, and now again sharing the same glory, refers to them being One God.
2. And, that Jesus' short time as having "become flesh" and separated from God (as we also are for a time), does not make Him not God, but rather [in addition to] being God, also makes Him a man...because, for the sake of salvation He was [also] a man for a time. Which definition of Oneness is confirmed in the scriptures as God being "all in all"--that is, that all is "in Christ, in God", meaning all in God.