The Trinity is NO lie.

[101G]

See posts #1-#4 of the following thread:

Trinity vs. Tritheism: Understanding the Trinity.

Now here there is one God, and a Lord separate from Him, if the Lord isn't God (the Father). However, we have already seen that the Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29) and that the Father is the Lord of heaven and earth. This one Lord is the God who created us, Jesus Christ; and I contend here faithfully that He is the Father.

that statement makes no sense. so again my question, "how is the Lord separate from himself?"
PICJAG.

 

[justbyfaith]

Now here there is one God, and a Lord separate from Him, if the Lord isn't God (the Father). However, we have already seen that the Lord our God is one Lord (Mark 12:29) and that the Father is the Lord of heaven and earth. This one Lord is the God who created us, Jesus Christ; and I contend here faithfully that He is the Father.

that statement makes no sense. so again my question, "how is the Lord separate from himself?"
PICJAG.

I was not saying that the Lord is separate from Himself in that statement. Obviously there is one Lord; and He is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21). And of course I am speaking by the Holy Ghost when I say to you truly that Jesus is the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3). He is the Father, come in human flesh.

The Father who inhabits eternity is distinct from the Father come in human flesh; to the point that they are distinct Persons; while I also have determined that they are the same Person; both of them being the Father. The distinction is that one dwells in human flesh and is subject to human thinking; while the other is a Spirit apart from flesh with no humanity, and is not subject to human thinking. Therefore, do you think that their personalities might be slightly different? One thinks like a Man; the other thinks like God alone as a Spirit.

It is also important to look carefully at the context of the statement that you have quoted from me to understand what I was saying in the whole.

 

[101G]

The Father who inhabits eternity is distinct from the Father come in human flesh; to the point that they are distinct Persons; while I also have determined that they are the same Person; both of them being the Father.

Another ERROR on your Part. scripture, Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?". well that just put an end to any TWO Fathers error.

PICJAG.

 

[justbyfaith]

Another ERROR on your Part. scripture, Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?". well that just put an end to any TWO Fathers error.

PICJAG.

Of course, there is no contradiction.

Jesus is the same Father as He who inhabits eternity; He is the continuation of the life of the first.

Think about it. The Father became flesh and dwelt among us. And He also dwells in eternity. In descending, He cannot cease to exist in His eternal state; there is that "imprint" of Himself that stays behind (for lack of better terminoligy).

 

[101G]

Of course, there is no contradiction.

Jesus is the same Father as He who inhabits eternity; He is the continuation of the life of the first.

Think about it. The Father became flesh and dwelt among us. And He also dwells in eternity. In descending, He cannot cease to exist in His eternal state; there is that "imprint" of Himself that stays behind (for lack of better terminoligy).

that statement makes no sence, "Jesus is the same Father as He who inhabits eternity". with that, see you.
PICJAG.

 

[justbyfaith]

that statement makes no sence, "Jesus is the same Father as He who inhabits eternity". with that, see you.
PICJAG.

Okay. You don't want to think about it, that's on you.

 

[justbyfaith]

****bump****

 

[The wind]

As one who has been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, but who did not (physically) continue with the Oneness Pentecostals to be indoctrinated by them, I nevertheless hold to a view of the Godhead that emphasizes His Oneness (although I do not deny the plurality within the Godhead).

I believe that, according to Isaiah 9:6-7, the son that was given shall be given the name of the everlasting Father; and that it is the zeal of the LORD of hosts that shall do this at a specific moment in history; which I believe is yet future (as I write this).

The Father did not vacate eternity when He descended to become the Son,

Eph 3:11, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

And thus, while the Father in flesh (Jesus Christ of Nazareth the Son of God) was on earth, He also remained behind in eternity and answered all of Jesus' prayers from that standpoint.

Isa 57:15, For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

This would tell us that the Father dwells outside of time. He lived one eternal "moment" and then descended to become the Son.

Since One who dwells in eternity cannot vacate eternity (because He is not subject to time and therefore His existence in eternity cannot be spatially removed); therefore, when He descended to become the Son, the imprint of His nature remained behind in eternity; and this imprint is actually the Person of the pre-incarnate Jesus (the Father); while He also descended to take on human flesh; and that this Person in flesh, being the same Spirit and therefore the same Person, nevertheless assumed upon Himself human flesh which by necessity makes Him a different Person. Thus I speak forth the words of truth and soberness, that the Father is not the Son; but that the Son is the Father.

The one Spirit (see Ephesians 4:4) that dwells in the Son is the same Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:4-6) that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15); even the Father.

Now comes the test...of whether you are willing to look at the scriptures that back up my pov.

Consider that John 4:23-24 tells us that the Father is a Spirit; that Ephesians 4:4 tells us that there is one Spirit; and that John 14:7-11 tells us that the Spirit that dwelt/dwelleth in Jesus Christ is the Father.

Therefore, it is clear to me from the holy scriptures, that Jesus Christ, in His Spirit, is the Father; but that He also left behind in eternity the distinct imprint of Himself (who is the Father, even a Person who is not only an imprint but the Person of the Father).

This is the One that Jesus prayed to. I have used terminology that is inadequate to explain my position; in all reality God the Father is not an imprint of God's nature but is God Himself. He both went forward to become the Son; and also stayed behind as the One who inhabiteth eternity. In this, the Father exists in eternity while the Son simultaneously exists on earth.

Now when Jesus rose from the dead, He rose to fill all things (Ephesians 4:10); while He continued to exist in a finite human body (1 John 4:1-3 (kjv), 2 John 1:7 (kjv)), which I believe is not subject to time. He ascended to exist outside of time, side-by-side with His pre-incarnate self. Thus, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1).

The Holy Ghost, who is also that one Spirit who dwelt/dwelleth in Christ, was also released by Christ back to the Father (Luke 23:46) into eternity. He is the same Spirit as the Father, and also has the experience behind Him of living the life of Jesus; and therefore He is the perfect One to come and dwell within us and to make intercession for the saints according to the will of God. He understands humanity; for He has been human.

Now there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4). That Spirit is the Father (John 4:23-24). But that Spirit is also the Holy Ghost (John 7:37-39).

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (John 15:26); but He is also the same Spirit as the Father (1 Corinthians 12:4-6; also consider that there is one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4) and that this Spirit is both the Father (John 4:23-24) and the Holy Ghost (John 7:37-39).

All of this is in no way saying that God puts on hats or masks and puts on a different hat or mask for any occasion.

It is saying, however, that there is one God; even as the scripture teaches we would do well to believe (James 2:19).

The opposing viewpoint has the problem of being Tritheistic to a certain degree; in other words, you cannot get around the fact that they are preaching three Gods rather than the same God being all three members of the Trinity.

Why should it be surprising to you that I would make the statement that God is a Person?

The doctrine of the Trinity preaches that He is three-in-one; and the concepts that I place before you do not contradict this understanding.

Therefore, if you have a problem with what I am saying, go to the Lord about it. Seek Him. Ask Him if what I am saying is the case or not. And by all means, be a Berean (Acts 17:10-11).

For more of my understanding on this issue, go to the following thread (especially the first four posts):

Trinity vs. Tritheism: Understanding the Trinity.

Godhead is referring to the image of God which is the image of Jesus Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

****bump****

 

[tigger 2]

As one who has been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, but who did not (physically) continue with the Oneness Pentecostals to be indoctrinated by them, I nevertheless hold to a view of the Godhead that emphasizes His Oneness (although I do not deny the plurality within the Godhead).

I believe that, according to Isaiah 9:6-7, the son that was given shall be given the name of the everlasting Father; and that it is the zeal of the LORD of hosts that shall do this at a specific moment in history; which I believe is yet future (as I write this). ....

Isaiah 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept the son of Is. 9:6 as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.”


But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

(1) In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even the respected Biblical Hebrew language expert, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)

In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father” as “father of progress,” and the New English Bible translates it: “father of a wide realm.”

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

(2) Another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it does not apply directly to the Messiah himself.


This is the same way that many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names (e.g. Abijah, Elijah, Isaiah, Joab, etc.) were meant to apply to something or someone other than themselves. Often these personal names are praising or recognizing the Almighty God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3

Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.



And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name has been honestly translated in the footnote for Is. 9:6 as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

Of course it could also honestly be translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”


But since nearly all translators and recognized Bible scholars (and their churches, publishers, and readers) are trinitarians, it is really telling that any of them would recognize a non-trinitarian translation of Is. 9:6 as found above!!

 

[justbyfaith]

The above post brings up my normal contention that we do not need to go to the original Greek and Hebrew in order to find the unadulterated message of God's word.

For if that were the case, then only the educated, Greek and Hebrew scholars would have access to its unadulterated message.

This would mean that the common people are excluded from being able to know the unadulterated message of the gospel.

Yet it was not the educated who received Christ when He came; but it was the common people who unequivocally received His message.

The educated scribes and Pharisees rejected the Messiah when He came; and crucified Him.

I would say then, that God desires that the common people know His unadulterated message.

And therefore we can know the truth simply by reading the kjv, without having to go back and pervert things with someone's teaching on what the scripture really says because of this or that Greek or Hebrew word.

it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘God’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].”

Indeed. It is written,

Jhn 5:23, That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

This indicates that we ought to honour the Son even as we honour the Father.

Therefore since we honour the Father as God, we ought to honour the Son as ___.

 

[justbyfaith]

It begins as "everlasting Father" then is changed to "Eternal Father" so that it can be changed from there to fit the mold of those who reject sound doctrine that Jesus Christ is God.

It should be clear that the Pharisees understood that Jesus claimed to be God in John 8:58...for they picked up stones to stone Him in John 8:59.

A while later (John 10:31-33), they picked up stones to stone Him again. When He asked them what good work they were stoning Him for, they responded, "For a good work we stone thee not; but because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Jesus broke normal grammatical usage (moving from past to present tense) in John 8:58, in order to make a claim. This claim referred back to Exodus 3:14 (kjv).

Jesus had previously made this a doctrine essential to salvation in John 8:24.

The kjv also makes it clear, in Hebrews 1:8-9, that the Son (Jesus Christ) is God.

I know that there will be someone who wants to take it back to the original language and declare that the Bible does not mean what it says; but my previous argument concerning this holds true; that the common people have access to the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) and that therefore we do not have to be an educated Greek or Hebrew scholar in order to be able to know the real truth.

My God is a God of love; and I believe that He made it easy to access the truth of His unadulterated message.

 

[farouk]

It begins as "everlasting Father" then is changed to "Eternal Father" so that it can be changed from there to fit the mold of those who reject sound doctrine that Jesus Christ is God.

It should be clear that the Pharisees understood that Jesus claimed to be God in John 8:58...for they picked up stones to stone Him in John 8:59.

A while later (John 10:31-33), they picked up stones to stone Him again. When He asked them what good work they were stoning Him for, they responded, "For a good work we stone thee not; but because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Jesus broke normal grammatical usage (moving from past to present tense) in John 8:58, in order to make a claim. This claim referred back to Exodus 3:14 (kjv).

Jesus had previously made this a doctrine essential to salvation in John 8:24.

The kjv also makes it clear, in Hebrews 1:8-9, that the Son (Jesus Christ) is God.

I know that there will be someone who wants to take it back to the original language and declare that the Bible does not mean what it says; but my previous argument concerning this holds true; that the common people have access to the unadulterated message of the gospel (the whole counsel of God) and that therefore we do not have to be an educated Greek or Hebrew scholar in order to be able to know the real truth.

My God is a God of love; and I believe that He made it easy to access the truth of His unadulterated message.

Such an important doctrine, indeed.

From an English language perspective, I don't understand the difference between the words 'eternal' and 'everlasting'.

 

[justbyfaith]

Such an important doctrine, indeed.

From an English language perspective, I don't understand the difference between the words 'eternal' and 'everlasting'.

Eternal is more of a state of being, while everlasting would refer to a duration of time.

Therefore, the eternal Father (or, eternal Spirit), is the Father who inhabiteth eternity;

While the everlasting Father is the One who descended and ascended and who will live forever as King of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[farouk]

Isaiah 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept the son of Is. 9:6 as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words “Mighty God, Eternal Father,” then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.”


But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

(1) In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as “God/god” as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of “Mighty God,” Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as “a divine hero;” Byington has “Divine Champion;” The New English Bible has “In Battle Godlike;” The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it “God-Hero;” and the REB says “Mighty Hero.” Even the respected Biblical Hebrew language expert, Gesenius, translated it “mighty hero” - p. 45, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

“In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his ‘splendor and majesty’ (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called ‘god’ as a title of honor [cf. Isa 9:6].” (Bracketed information included in original footnote.)

In addition, Rotherham has rendered “Eternal Father” as “father of progress,” and the New English Bible translates it: “father of a wide realm.”

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

(2) Another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it does not apply directly to the Messiah himself.


This is the same way that many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names (e.g. Abijah, Elijah, Isaiah, Joab, etc.) were meant to apply to something or someone other than themselves. Often these personal names are praising or recognizing the Almighty God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3

Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.



And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name has been honestly translated in the footnote for Is. 9:6 as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

Of course it could also honestly be translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”


But since nearly all translators and recognized Bible scholars (and their churches, publishers, and readers) are trinitarians, it is really telling that any of them would recognize a non-trinitarian translation of Is. 9:6 as found above!!

There is plenty of Biblical evidence for the Lord Jesus being in eternal equality with the Father.

 

[farouk]

Philippians 2 and Hebrews 1 — as well as much of John's Gospel and John's First Epistle — are passages in which the truth of God in Three Persons comes across so strongly indeed.