The Trinity

[TEXBOW]

I believe that understanding the Trinity, future prophecy, old earth, new earth, Gap or no Gap and a bunch of other things we debate is not critical for salvation. Love, Faith, and Obedience is the important message of our time. It's fun to debate our understandings of scripture but not to the point it diminishes love for our brothers and sisters who by God's grace have faith and believe, who love and walk in the Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

Except that Jesus always existed.

This is your doctrine. John 3:16 tells us he is a created being and he is called the Son, which comes after their fathers.

 

[marks]

Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel

That's always a red flag to me . . . "Yes, I know it Says that, but what it. . ." and I always seem to know what's going to follow.

Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”? No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Can we avoid debating truth and doctrine from the Living Bible?

Regardless. Jesus was called Immanuel, which means, God with us, as He was in fact God with us.

Gabriel did not name himself God with you, and neither did Zacharias name his son God Visiting His People. Gabriel truthfully told Mary the Lord was with her, and He was. Zacharias truthfully said that God has come to visit His people, while not making John that.

But Gabriel DID tell them this Son is Immanuel.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Moses was not.
Saul was not.
David was not.

NO ONE else was.

We Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Otherwise, he's just another guy.
And a crazy one at that.

Jesus is the only One Who returned from the dead on His Own. And He was the first to rise eternal. No one else did. No one else could! No one else has that kind of power! Only almight God.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

Except that Jesus always existed.
HE IS THE WORD OF GOD.
The WORD was with God from eternity past.
The WORD became flesh.
This flesh was called Jesus.

Think about it.
John 1:1

@GodsGrace The eternal Sonship of Christ is a most glorious truth.....

 

[Cooper]

It's accepted Christian theology that God was, in effect, speaking to Himself.
But Himself still was 3 Persons.
The Holy Ghost always existed.
And Jesus always existed but as the 2nd Person, OR as THE WORD, as John described Him
in John 1...IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD (Jesus is the Word)
AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD
AND THE WORD WAS GOD

In the O.T. some words for GOD, Elohim, are actually plural.


The following might be helpful to you:

Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22? | GotQuestions.org

Correct, and all the time He (God) is ONE.

So who was Jesus? He was THE ONE GOD, not one of three gods, made visible in the form of man.
.

 

[Cooper]

Angels were not made in God's image. Please.

Who do YOU think God was talking to in heaven? I see only angels.
.

 

[Cooper]

It's accepted Christian theology that God was, in effect, speaking to Himself.
But Himself still was 3 Persons.
The Holy Ghost always existed.
And Jesus always existed but as the 2nd Person, OR as THE WORD, as John described Him
in John 1...IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD (Jesus is the Word)
AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD
AND THE WORD WAS GOD

In the O.T. some words for GOD, Elohim, are actually plural.


The following might be helpful to you:

Why does God refer to Himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26 and 3:22? | GotQuestions.org

This, in my view, is where the error creeps in, when we say the ONE God is three persons.

I have a friend who is a triathlete. She is a runner, a swimmer, and a cyclist. Some Biblical people based on their definition of God would say she is three persons, but she is not, she is one athlete and like her, God is One supreme being. If we say God is three persons, people understandably think we believe in three Gods. That, is idol worshipping heresy and people who say that are sending out the wrong signals.
.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I understand your derision. That's what I understand. You make fun of what you do not understand, and ridicule what I believe describes God. Bravo!

"Ridicule"? "Derision"? "What I don't understand"? That is the point....no one can "understand" the trinity because it makes no logical sense. Who gave us our sense of logic?
Would Jehovah refer to his relationship with his son in familial terms if that were not the relationship he was presenting? Father and son......simple....unless you want to mess it all up by insisting that its not what is plainly stated.

The trinity is not found in the Bible in any direct quote from either God or his son.
That is a fact. To point out to people the absurdity of their claims about the very nature of God is not talking about what I do not understand...it is because I DO understand that I find it so disturbing that such a lie can be perpetuated for so long without most people questioning its biblical validity. It is impossible to prove the trinity scripturally without interpreting it into a text...but that is assumption being passed off as doctrine.

And, the question you run from as though it were the plague . . .

How many True Gods are there in your view??

It was answered several times but apparently you just read right over it because it probably wasn't what you wanted to hear.

I run from nothing.....if I did I would not be following the lead of the Master. I can defend everything I hold to be true because a lot of study and research has gone into my long held beliefs.

You seem to be saying exactly opposite to what you think.

Do you, or do you not, consider Jesus Christ to have been created? That there was a time He did not exist, and then He came into being because God caused that to be so? Is that what you think?

What does the Bible say?

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV)

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God". (ASV)

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (KJV)

"14 · kai “ To the ho angel angelos of the ho church ekklēsia in en Laodicea Laodikeia write graphō: The ho Amen amēn, the ho faithful pistos and kai true alēthinos Witness martys, · ho the ho Beginning archē of ho God’ s theos creation ktisis, · ho has legō this hode to say legō".

Only those who have an agenda will translate it otherwise....."archē" means "the beginning"...not "the beginner" or "the ruler" but the original.....the first.

Looking at theos, then, would you describe yourself as "polytheistic", that is, believing there are more than One True God?

You can't see that the trinity is polytheistic?.....hiding behind a word (godhead) that was never in the Bible in the first place?

If you have "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" then you have three gods......that is polytheism.

 

[Cooper]

Except that Jesus always existed. Think about it.

I am thinking about it, and have been for years, and still I am only seeing One God with three titles. Harry Web is Cliff Richard and we do not say he is two persons just because he is known by two names. We compound the error when we say God is three persons, rather than one omnipresent God in three environments at one and the same time. So guard your thought's everyone, your tongue, and what you write on the internet for God knows our innermost thoughts and He knows his own also John 10:14.
.

 

[marks]

the trinity because it makes no logical sense. Who gave us our sense of logic?

To me this is a terribly poor argument, and also accounts for your lack of manners.

It was answered several times but apparently you just read right over it because it probably wasn't what you wanted to hear.

You only give a answer that deflect from the question. You could tell me the truth, that you believe in at least 2 true gods, and that you define one differently from the other, and use language, like, You can be divine but not God.

Theos. How many true Theos? Is this so very complicated? How Many Creator Gods? There is One. In the OT, His Name is given as YHWH, in the NT His Name is Iesous, which we translate Jesus. And to Him, EVERY knee will bow, and every tongue confess that He is LORD, and that salvation is found in none other.

You have a mental difficulty trying to logically analyze Who God is, is that such a surprise?

If you have "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" then you have three gods......that is polytheism.

Not so fast, that only goes towards your rejection of what Triune God means. Here is another sort of a logical argument you may consider.

The Eternal Father eternally loves the Eternal Son. In this way, the truth of the Scripture is preserved, "I YHWH change not". If the Eternal God did not yet have a Son, His is not a Father, but when He comes to have a Son, then He comes to be a Father. Rather than an eternally Fatherly God, He would have become that. He would have changed.

John wrote, "God is love". If YHWH existed alone, whom did He love? He would have come to be loving when He came to be a Father. And why would He "become a Father" or "become loving", were He already full and complete in Himself? To become something "more" is to fill in a lack, and I cannot fathom God lacking anything.

Another side of this aspect that God does not change is our sonship in Christ, and how we understand how this question defines our relationship with God. Are we sharing in the Sonship of the Eternal Son? Or are we sharing with another created being? That goes deep fast.

Much love!

 

[marks]

“And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV)

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God". (ASV)

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (KJV)

I'd think you would know better than to hang your argument on this.



This is "arche", this does not prove Jesus to be the first created thing.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

To me this is a terribly poor argument, and also accounts for your lack of manners.


You only give a answer that deflect from the question. You could tell me the truth, that you believe in at least 2 true gods, and that you define one differently from the other, and use language, like, You can be divine but not God.

Theos. How many true Theos? Is this so very complicated? How Many Creator Gods? There is One. In the OT, His Name is given as YHWH, in the NT His Name is Iesous, which we translate Jesus. And to Him, EVERY knee will bow, and every tongue confess that He is LORD, and that salvation is found in none other.

You have a mental difficulty trying to logically analyze Who God is, is that such a surprise?



Not so fast, that only goes towards your rejection of what Triune God means. Here is another sort of a logical argument you may consider.

The Eternal Father eternally loves the Eternal Son. In this way, the truth of the Scripture is preserved, "I YHWH change not". If the Eternal God did not yet have a Son, His is not a Father, but when He comes to have a Son, then He comes to be a Father. Rather than an eternally Fatherly God, He would have become that. He would have changed.

John wrote, "God is love". If YHWH existed alone, whom did He love? He would have come to be loving when He came to be a Father. And why would He "become a Father" or "become loving", were He already full and complete in Himself? To become something "more" is to fill in a lack, and I cannot fathom God lacking anything.

Another side of this aspect that God does not change is our sonship in Christ, and how we understand how this question defines our relationship with God. Are we sharing in the Sonship of the Eternal Son? Or are we sharing with another created being? That goes deep fast.

Much love!

@marks I think it can be good for ppl to start with the statements of Scripture; John 17 and John's First Epistle say a great deal about the Divine Persons...

 

[marks]

Only those who have an agenda will translate it otherwise....."archē" means "the beginning"...not "the beginner" or "the ruler" but the original.....the first.

You are realizing the word is used in the plural as well, the archons? It's not the word for, say, "The Ordinal first in a sequence", which seems to be how you are applying it.

"If the archons of this world had known, they would not have crucified Jesus".

Much love!

 

[marks]

That is a fact. To point out to people the absurdity of their claims about the very nature of God is not talking about what I do not understand...it is because I DO understand that I find it so disturbing that such a lie can be perpetuated for so long without most people questioning its biblical validity. It is impossible to prove the trinity scripturally without interpreting it into a text...but that is assumption being passed off as doctrine.

What I find to be unreasonable is the need to redefine words apart from what they really mean. Having studied both in school and on my own, I find it unreasonable to interpret John 1:1 as anything other than what it plainly says, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, John's Greek is really very simple.

No . . . the word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible. But the fact of 3 Persons Who are One God does. Pick out a different descriptive word if that pleases you. But you won't find me being convinced by anything less than a real valid argument that does not conflict with plainly stated passages.

Much love!

 

[Gregory]

I'd think you would know better than to hang your argument on this.

View attachment 19224

This is "arche", this does not prove Jesus to be the first created thing.

Much love!

‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV)


1) who is the Amen, the faithful and true witness?
2) what do you think "the beginning of God's creation" means?
3) one of the definitions of "arche" is "the first", or "the beginning". How many other definitions do you know?

 

[marks]

‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV)


1) who is the Amen, the faithful and true witness?
2) what do you think "the beginning of God's creation" means?
3) one of the definitions of "arche" is "the first", or "the beginning". How many other definitions do you know?

Hi Gregory,

Have you done word studies in the NT on these questions? Personally I think that may be the best source of an answer for you.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

What I find to be unreasonable is the need to redefine words apart from what they really mean. Having studied both in school and on my own, I find it unreasonable to interpret John 1:1 as anything other than what it plainly says, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, John's Greek is really very simple.

No . . . the word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible. But the fact of 3 Persons Who are One God does. Pick out a different descriptive word if that pleases you. But you won't find me being convinced by anything less than a real valid argument that does not conflict with plainly stated passages.

Much love!

@marks What the word 'Trinity' refers to is very much in the Bible, even if the word itself is not in the Bible. God in Three Persons is indeed overwhelmingly Scriptural.

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace The eternal Sonship of Christ is a most glorious truth.....

I wonder sometimes why someone can accept the Trinity - however they might be able to understand it -
and some deny it outright.

They say it's from reading the bible and not seeing it represented there...but it IS there.
So maybe it's a church teaching from some denomination?
That would be my bet....

 

[farouk]

I wonder sometimes why someone can accept the Trinity - however they might be able to understand it -
and some deny it outright.

They say it's from reading the bible and not seeing it represented there...but it IS there.
So maybe it's a church teaching from some denomination?
That would be my bet....

@GodsGrace I guess in summary it can be said that the word itself is not in the Bible but what the word 'Trinity' refers to - God in Three Persons - is indeed very much in the Bible....