Is God One or is He Three?

[First and the Last]

As long as God the Father has existed so has God the Son existed from eternity past.

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature. “Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural. The death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say “God the Son” died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because “Son” refers to humanity.

If we could justify the use of the phrase “God the Son” at all, it would be by pointing out, as we have done, that “Son of God” encompasses not only the humanity of Jesus but also the deity as resident in the humanity. However, John 1:18 uses “Son” to refer to the humanity, for it says the Father (the deity of Jesus) is revealed through the Son. This verse of Scripture does not mean that God is revealed by God but that God is revealed in flesh through the humanity of the Son. "Son of God” refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of eternal existence in past, present, and future only with respect to God. Since “Son of God” refers to humanity or to deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son (God's Humanity) of God had a beginning.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Nick, don't be absurd. Please.
YOU stated that there was a Hierarchy in the Godhead. I didn't. Don't make me waste my time to go back and quote you.

And even though I don't believe in the Trinity, it doesn't mean that I don't know what elements compose the doctrine. I can read, ya know.

THREE PERSONS - CO-ETERNAL - CO-EQUAL

Anything else BY DEFINITION is not the Trinity, but something else. Go ask a theologian you trust (an actual well educated theologian).

I was merely pointing out that you can't believe in the Trinity, because what YOU posted contradicts that doctrine. Pick up any rudimentary text book on the Trinity, whether written by a Trinitarian or not, and they will tell you there is no element of Hierarchy in the doctrine.

C'mon,

Rhema

The phrase 1 person in 3 is rejected by the Doctrine of the Trinity. (PLEASE, go find a very good Trinitarian theologian.)

Rhema

Your disagreement and misunderstanding of my words can lead to confusion and is the reason I asked you to not to speak for me. (Your words that I take issue with below.)

I do not believe in the Trinity.

And from what I can tell, @Christ4Ever doesn't either, given his assertion that there is a Hierarchy in the Godhead - a view that contradicts the aspect of co-equal - a stipulation of the Trinity by definition,... (although I haven't yet read a post where he clarifies his position).

That is precisely why I ask you not to speak on my behalf. You lack understanding.

Please do not fail to do what I ask in this.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Charlie24]

That's what the High Priest said to Jesus.

Rhema, it's people like you that brings discord among the Brethren.

it's always negative, it's always striving against another.

 

[Curtis]

That doesn't even make sense, Curtis.
It's just a nonsensical claim of religious jargon.

Yep, that is what the natural man says.

 

[Curtis]

The definitive verse is this -

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.​

(Exodus 3:14 KJV)​

It doesn't say "We are" Curtis. It just doesn't. The verb is singular.

Rhema

There is that natural man again.

 

[Rhema]

Your disagreement and misunderstanding of my words...

Your words were very clear, as stated here:

The problem which won't be resolved between us with any satisfaction on your part, is that you do not believe in a Hierarchy of the Godhead.

If there's confusion, then you need explain yourself better. I've not once misrepresented what you yourself actually wrote.

That is precisely why I ask you not to speak on my behalf. You lack understanding.

Anyone who thinks that the Doctrine of the TRINITY supports any concept of "Hierarchy in the Godhead" whatsoever, lacks understanding. That's why I politely suggested that you consult an actual Trinitarian theologian. (A smart and well educated one.)

As far as the Hierarchy goes and my use of it, you'll have to blame the Holy Spirit for me using that. Even though I'm sure you see "hierarchy" throughout all of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation as does everyone else who reads the word, if they take the time to look, in prayerful consideration to seeing it. Of course you can ask Him yourself, but what you do with that is up to you.

Okay, so you personally believe that "hierarchy" is obvious "throughout all of Scripture." Fine, but that's not the point. You seem to be conflating your personal belief with the long established Doctrine of the Trinity. Look at it this way, ... you have 3 horses and 3 cows, ... and call the horses cows. How many cows do you have? Find me ONE Trinitarian scholar who stipulates that there is a hierarchy expressed in the Doctrine of the Trinity. Just one. One reference from an accredited theologian, because what you are describing as the Trinity does not conform with the principles of the actual Doctrine of the Trinity, by definition. The specific principle is that of the CO-EQUALITY of the persons in the Godhead. Now you can believe whatever you want, Nick, that's not the issue. Just don't call it the Trinity. (Maybe the Revised Trinity Version? )

(Your words that I take issue with below.)

Don't get your hackles up. I never misrepresented what you actually posted. So I'm not going to apologize. What I will ask is that you clarify what you mean by Hierarchy and why you think the Doctrine of the Trinity (the actual one) teaches this.

Rhema

You lack understanding.

Well then, here's your chance, brother. Enlighten me.

 

[Rhema]

Rhema, it's people like you that brings discord among the Brethren.

it's always negative, it's always striving against another.

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.​

(Matthew 11:6 KJV)​

​

Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.​

(Matthew 13:21 KJV)​

I'm not the one espousing heresies, Charlie. And I'm not here to sing Kum by ya during a big group hug.

Doesn't your own scripture read:

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.​

(Proverbs 27:17 KJV)​

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.​

(1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV)​

So state your case, explain your position, but don't get your nose bent out of shape when you realize that you've failed. Just try harder.

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.​

(Luke 13:24 KJV)​

Rhema
There's no participation trophy in heaven.

 

[Rhema]

Yep, that is what the natural man says.

Yep that is what the religiously delusional say.

 

[Rhema]

There is that natural man again.

There is that delusion again.

 

[Curtis]

Yep that is what the religiously delusional say.

There’s ,s that child mindset again that says “same to you, but more it”

 

[Charlie24]

And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.​

(Matthew 11:6 KJV)​

​

Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.​

(Matthew 13:21 KJV)​

I'm not the one espousing heresies, Charlie. And I'm not here to sing Kum by ya during a big group hug.

Doesn't your own scripture read:

Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.​

(Proverbs 27:17 KJV)​

For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.​

(1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV)​

So state your case, explain your position, but don't get your nose bent out of shape when you realize that you've failed. Just try harder.

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.​

(Luke 13:24 KJV)​

Rhema
There's no participation trophy in heaven.

If you disagree in the statement of faith on any given talk forum, then there's a problem.

Makes me wonder if you came here for the purpose to cause strife and discord.

 

[B-A-C]

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time.

But it does use the "Son of God" many times.

John 10:36; do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God

I would say the Bible uses the phrases the "Son of man" to emphasize Jesus's humanity. What title did Jesus call Himself more than any other? ( over 85 times in my Bible )

 

[First and the Last]

But it does use the "Son of God" many times.

John 10:36; do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?


I would say the Bible uses the phrases the "Son of man" to emphasize Jesus's humanity. What title did Jesus call Himself more than any other? ( over 85 times in my Bible )

The titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" reflect the dual nature of Jesus Christ—His divinity and humanity. The term "Son of God" emphasizes Jesus's divine nature and His unique relationship with the Father. It signifies that Jesus is the manifestation of God in the flesh, fully embodying the divine essence. This title highlights His role in the divine plan of salvation, being conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:35), thus making Him the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). As the "Son of God," Jesus possesses all the attributes of deity, including omnipotence, omniscience, and eternal existence, and He has the authority to forgive sins and grant eternal life, underscoring His divine identity.

The title "Son of Man" underscores Jesus's humanity and His identification with humankind. This term, used frequently by Jesus Himself, originates from the Old Testament, particularly in Daniel 7:13-14, where it describes a figure given authority, glory, and sovereign power by God. In the New Testament, "Son of Man" conveys Jesus's role as the representative human being who fully participates in the human experience, including suffering, death, and resurrection. It reflects His humility and servanthood, as well as His mission to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10). This title also points to His future role as the judge of all humanity, who will return in glory to establish God's kingdom.

These titles do not indicate separate persons within the Godhead but rather two aspects of the one true God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. The "Son of God" and the "Son of Man" are not distinct individuals but rather express the profound mystery of the Incarnation—God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Jesus is fully God and fully man, a single divine person who possesses both a divine nature and a human nature. This understanding emphasizes the absolute oneness of God and the complete unity of Jesus's divine and human natures, fulfilling the scriptural affirmation that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

 

[First and the Last]

When engaging in biblical discussions, it is essential to maintain a clear distinction between productive, respectful dialogue and unproductive, secular bickering. Biblical discussions should focus on understanding and interpreting scripture, aiming to edify and build each other up in faith. This means presenting your perspective with humility and respect, even when you disagree with someone else's interpretation. Instead of resorting to personal attacks or harsh criticism, address the interpretation directly, offering scriptural evidence and sound theological reasoning to support your viewpoint. By keeping the conversation centered on the Bible and its teachings, you ensure that the discussion remains fruitful and honors the principles of Christian fellowship.

Secular discussions (which is what I am finding here for the most part) often devolve into personal attacks and bickering, which can be counterproductive and damaging. In such environments, the goal often shifts from seeking truth to winning an argument. This approach not only undermines the integrity of the conversation but also fails to reflect the love and grace that should characterize Christian interactions. When you encounter someone you believe is in error, approach the situation with a spirit of gentleness and patience. Use biblical sound rebuttals to address their interpretation, providing a thoughtful and respectful counter-argument. This method not only fosters a more meaningful and respectful dialogue but also reflects the teachings of Christ, who instructed us to correct others with kindness and compassion. By prioritizing biblical principles over personal victory, you create an environment where truth can be pursued and shared in a manner that glorifies God.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Okay, so you personally believe that "hierarchy" is obvious "throughout all of Scripture." Fine, but that's not the point. You seem to be conflating your personal belief with the long established Doctrine of the Trinity. Look at it this way, ... you have 3 horses and 3 cows, ... and call the horses cows. How many cows do you have? Find me ONE Trinitarian scholar who stipulates that there is a hierarchy expressed in the Doctrine of the Trinity. Just one. One reference from an accredited theologian, because what you are describing as the Trinity does not conform with the principles of the actual Doctrine of the Trinity, by definition. The specific principle is that of the CO-EQUALITY of the persons in the Godhead. Now you can believe whatever you want, Nick, that's not the issue. Just don't call it the Trinity. (Maybe the Revised Trinity Version? )

Zacharias Ursinus for one. Oh, since I do try to be gracious, here is another Benedict Pictet. Yet, before I came to understand hierarchy does not preclude the Trinity, co-equal in essence, and co-eternal as being so, I knew nothing of these men and others.

So far, I have been gracious to those who do not believe in the Trinity, or you'd be pecking away at your keyboard on another site. So, please don't go telling me what I should say or not. It is rude.

Feel free to ask me questions, although I suspect you might not appreciate my answers. After all, you are the anti-trinitarian, not I.

Anyone who thinks that the Doctrine of the TRINITY supports any concept of "Hierarchy in the Godhead" whatsoever, lacks understanding. That's why I politely suggested that you consult an actual Trinitarian theologian. (A smart and well educated one.)

Hopefully, you as an anti-Trinitarian, should not take the position of all knowing as it pertains to what the Trinity is or is not and what they who do believe regard it as it pertains to God.

Seeking "a smart and well-educated one" evidently hasn't been beneficial for you, or perhaps you haven't heeded your own counsel in that regard.

If there's confusion, then you need explain yourself better. I've not once misrepresented what you yourself actually wrote.

You should have asked questions, if you didn't understand what I was saying which by your own words you do not. Sadly, without your question, I have no idea what you don't understand as it pertains to "hierarchy".

Anyway, how you answer at times, as another has noticed "breeds discord", and by stating what I believe without understanding it only compounds the error.

I will repeat and add if you don't change your attitude, you will be clicking your keys on another site.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Rhema]

In all of the passages from John cobbled together to form an illusion for Jesus being the Word and hence eternal God himself, I've always wondered why the purpose that the author of the Gospel named John gave for why he wrote the book doesn't say that it was to show that Jesus was the Word.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

(John 20:31 KJV)​

Why wouldn't John have written... that Jesus is the Christ, the WORD of God?

For that matter, why wouldn't John have written... that Jesus is the Christ, God the Son? It's the perfect place to declare this. (And yet John doesn't.)

Rhema
BTW, for my fan club out there, I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the SON of God.

 

[Rhema]

If you disagree in the statement of faith on any given talk forum, then there's a problem.

That's why the priests and Sadducees tried to shut up Jesus as well, Charlie. They couldn't stand to hear any rational discourse that contradicted their indoctrination. Most all Christians are nasty enough to STOMP on anybody who disagrees with their beliefs. This even led Martin Luther and John Calvin to commit murder. If you wish to do the digital equivalent of murder, go ahead. (It hurts a lot less.) Doesn't this forum have the equivalent of an "ignore" button somewhere? You never need to be challenged by my words again.

I was banned for a year last July because I emphatically rebuked another brother here on the forum to Not Change The Text of Scripture to support a pet doctrine (It's somewhat obvious, then, that the problem doesn't lie with me.)

Makes me wonder if you came here for the purpose to cause strife and discord.

If you read back through the discourse, it wasn't I who caused strife and discord. If you believe differently, then follow the command of Jesus by sending me a PM explaining otherwise.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.​

(Matthew 18:15 KJV)​

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)​

But this makes me wonder what you think the following verse means:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.​

(Matthew 10:34-35 KJV)​

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

There’s ,s that child mindset again that says “same to you, but more it”

And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
(Matthew 18:5-6 KJV)

 

[Rhema]

These titles do not indicate separate persons within the Godhead but rather two aspects of the one true God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

At the end of all of this, then, Jesus is just a meat-puppet-robot for your essence of God. (And by essence, you mean person-hood.)

Rhema

 

[Charlie24]

That's why the priests and Sadducees tried to shut up Jesus as well, Charlie. They couldn't stand to hear any rational discourse that contradicted their indoctrination. Most all Christians are nasty enough to STOMP on anybody who disagrees with their beliefs. This even led Martin Luther and John Calvin to commit murder. If you wish to do the digital equivalent of murder, go ahead. (It hurts a lot less.) Doesn't this forum have the equivalent of an "ignore" button somewhere? You never need to be challenged by my words again.

I was banned for a year last July because I emphatically rebuked another brother here on the forum to Not Change The Text of Scripture to support a pet doctrine (It's somewhat obvious, then, that the problem doesn't lie with me.)


If you read back through the discourse, it wasn't I who caused strife and discord. If you believe differently, then follow the command of Jesus by sending me a PM explaining otherwise.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.​

(Matthew 18:15 KJV)​

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?​

(Luke 6:46 KJV)​

But this makes me wonder what you think the following verse means:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.​

(Matthew 10:34-35 KJV)​

Rhema

I'm not a moderator so I'll have to stop here. Just making you aware of the hole you're digging for yourself.