Trinity

[Butch5]

Then what are we fighting about? I believe in the Nicene Creed, I'm on board with you the whole time. The only thing I'm against is that "typical expression of it" because it causes confusion, and I don't consider them as three beings, but three manifestations or three presences of the same God.

Ok, so you hold to Modalism. I don't see how you can make that work with the Nicene Creed. The Creed says that Jesus is God out of God. If He is God out of God, how can it be the same being?

 

[Searchingtoo]

The Word's flesh per John 1:14 didn't start out divine. He started out as a Jewish
infant whose origin can be easily traced to David, Abraham, and ultimately to
Adam; so in point of fact: the Word's flesh was as human as any man can possibly
be.

Now if his ancestors Adam, Abraham, and David were all created men, then the
Word's flesh was/is a created man too because created life is the only kind of
human life that those men were able to reproduce.

So then, the question is: How did the Word's flesh go from dust to divine?

It's sort of ironic that the average rank and file pew warmer will readily attest that
the Word's flesh is fully Man and fully God when in reality they only believe he's
fully God because in order to be fully Man, he'd have to be related to not only Adam
but also Noah (Gen 9:19 & Acts 17:26) which raises questions about Jesus relative
to original sin and the so-called fallen nature.
_

This is what I meant when I said Christians (the church) all have different descriptions of what the trinity is. If people would just read the Bible and take it for what it says it would be so simple. I don't see how the Word and Jesus are not the same person. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." If the Word wasn't Jesus who was he?

en arch hn `o logoV kai `o logoV en arche en ho logos kai ho logos in the beginning was the word and the word hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn `o logoV en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos was with the god and god was the word

 

[Butch5]

Yeah (deleted) right, why else would I mention Gen. 18:1-15 multiple times? God appeared to Abraham as a MAN, not a phantom or a hologram, but in flesh and blood, for he ate and rested in Abraham's tent! Paul was not aiming at incarnation, he was teaching the concept in Is. 53, that Jesus Christ the messiah took form of a SERVANT and died for the sin of mankind, instead of a conquering king wiping out the Roman Empire, which most Jews, including Jesus's own disciples, expected.

Paul states plainly that Jesus was in the form of God, emptied Himself of that form, and took the form of man. The was a change in form there. It wasn't a change in roles. It was form. That's substance.

 

[Butch5]

Because as I explained before, the Word was at the beginning, the incarnation was NOT. Paul didn't say Jesus was God and with God at the beginning, he said the WORD was God and with God at the beginning.

John said that. Paul said, speaking of Jesus, He emptied Himself. So, Paul is telling us that Jesus was a "He" before the incarnation. Since He was a "He" before the incarnation it means He wasn't a nature, a concept, thought, or plan. He refers to persons.

Then all of Jesus's parables of the kingdom would be speculation, and all of Paul's teachings about resurrection would be speculation. They both used analogies very often, the purpose of those is to make incomprehensible concepts comprehensible, it's a simple teaching tool, don't you see that?

Not at all. You said it's incomprehensible. Analogies aren't used to explain something that's incomprehensible. How could they be? Something that is incomprehensible can't be explained because it can't be understood. Analogies use word pictures to describe something else. The phrase, "life's a beach" is an analogy. It compares life to a beach. A beach is a pleasant place where people go to have fun and relax. But, life isn't incomprehensible.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Ok, so you hold to Modalism. I don't see how you can make that work with the Nicene Creed. The Creed says that Jesus is God out of God. If He is God out of God, how can it be the same being?

You misunderstand, I do NOT hold to Modalism. Water cannot be ice, vapor and liquid simultaneously, neither can a man be a father, a son and a husband to the same person, but God simultaneously manifested as God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Jesus, therefore He was present in heaven, on earth and in between at the same time. That is not modalism.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Paul states plainly that Jesus was in the form of God, emptied Himself of that form, and took the form of man. The was a change in form there. It wasn't a change in roles. It was form. That's substance.

Isn't that exactly my point? God took form of a man, who is the same being of him. There's this heresy, that Jesus was God dressed up in a skin suit, so he was like a superman and not a mortal man during his life on earth. That fails to explain God's voice from heaven at the baptism and the transfiguration.

John said that. Paul said, speaking of Jesus, He emptied Himself. So, Paul is telling us that Jesus was a "He" before the incarnation. Since He was a "He" before the incarnation it means He wasn't a nature, a concept, thought, or plan. He refers to persons.

You're not going in the direction of pronouns, are you? God had always been a "He", never was he an "it". When was God ever addressed as an "it"? And the "He" as a person, before the incarnation of Jesus, is referring to the theophanies in the OT, such as in Gen. 18:1-15, or his presence with those three Jewish boys in the fire. He himself was not an all consuming fire, but a man, a person with his people. "Emptied himself", as I pointed out before, is referring to him becoming a humble, suffering servant, that never happened in any of those theophany accounts in the OT.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Not at all. You said it's incomprehensible. Analogies aren't used to explain something that's incomprehensible. How could they be? Something that is incomprehensible can't be explained because it can't be understood. Analogies use word pictures to describe something else. The phrase, "life's a beach" is an analogy. It compares life to a beach. A beach is a pleasant place where people go to have fun and relax. But, life isn't incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible to the listeners, but not the speaker. The speaker knows what he's talking about, he uses COMPREHENSIBLE word pictures to explain to his listeners, so they can comprehend what's otherwise incomprehensible. Jesus knew the kingdom of heaven, for he's the creator and lord of the kingdom of heaven, he came from there; nobody else had been to the kingdom, nobody had even had a glimpse of it, but they were surely familiar with weddings and fields, so there were the parables of the the wedding feast and the sower. You make a mistake by speaking in absolute terms.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

This is what I meant when I said Christians (the church) all have different descriptions of what the trinity is. If people would just read the Bible and take it for what it says it would be so simple. I don't see how the Word and Jesus are not the same person. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." If the Word wasn't Jesus who was he?

I did read the Bible and take it for what it says, but I also know that the Bible does not contradict itself. The bible says that the first man was created on Day Six, a person, as in a human being which God formed from the dust, did NOT exist at the beginning on Day One. The Word was at the beginning, man was not, therefore Jesus as a man could not exist at the beginning, but as the Word he did. The Bible doesn't say in the beginning was Jesus as a man, it doesn't say in the beginning was the incarnation of God, it says in the beginning the Word, then the creation by Him, and the Word didn't become flesh until 1:14.

 

[Butch5]

Incomprehensible to the listeners, but not the speaker. The speaker knows what he's talking about, he uses COMPREHENSIBLE word pictures to explain to his listeners, so they can comprehend what's otherwise incomprehensible. Jesus knew the kingdom of heaven, for he's the creator and lord of the kingdom of heaven, he came from there; nobody else had been to the kingdom, nobody had even had a glimpse of it, but they were surely familiar with weddings and fields, so there were the parables of the the wedding feast and the sower. You make a mistake by speaking in absolute terms.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. If something is incomprehensible, then it can't be understood. Word pictures aren't going to help. Word pictures explain what is.

Also, the purpose if parables wasn't to explain what couldn't be comprehended. They were used to disguise what could be understood.

Luke 8:9–10 (KJV 1900): 9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

 

[Butch5]

Isn't that exactly my point? God took form of a man, who is the same being of him. There's this heresy, that Jesus was God dressed up in a skin suit, so he was like a superman and not a mortal man during his life on earth. That fails to explain God's voice from heaven at the baptism and the transfiguration.

It's not. You're argument is that there is a being called God who takes on different roles.

What I'm saying is there is a being called God who brought forth out of Himself another being. Thus we have two different beings, a Father and a Son. Both were of the same form. The one called the Son put off His form of Godhood and took upon Himself the form of man. That was a permanent decision. So now we have One being called God who is the Father. We have another being who is Human and the Son of the Father.

So, it does account for the voice from Heaven. We have the Son on earth being baptised. We have the Father in Heaven soeaking. And, we have the power of the Father, the Breath or Spirit being bestowed on the Son

You're not going in the direction of pronouns, are you? God had always been a "He", never was he an "it". When was God ever addressed as an "it"? And the "He" as a person, before the incarnation of Jesus, is referring to the theophanies in the OT, such as in Gen. 18:1-15, or his presence with those three Jewish boys in the fire. He himself was not an all consuming fire, but a man, a person with his people. "Emptied himself", as I pointed out before, is referring to him becoming a humble, suffering servant, that never happened in any of those theophany accounts in the OT.

You said the Word was the nature or plan of God. A nature or plan is not referred to as He. The are referred to as it.

The emptying isn't referring to being humble. It's stated plainly being in the form of God He emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of the form of God. Paul said, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of the form of God. That Paul calls Him a He, shows us that Paul understood Him to Be person, not a plan or nature.

 

[Butch5]

You misunderstand, I do NOT hold to Modalism. Water cannot be ice, vapor and liquid simultaneously, neither can a man be a father, a son and a husband to the same person, but God simultaneously manifested as God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Jesus, therefore He was present in heaven, on earth and in between at the same time. That is not modalism.

Modalism holds that there is one God who appears as, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's what you said. It's one God playing different roles.

There are problems with that. For one, a person can't be their own son. They can't be their own father. If there is one God who "manifests" as each of the three, he would be his own son and his one father. That is illogical.

Also, the idea that one being manifests as three beings at the same time is also illogical.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. If something is incomprehensible, then it can't be understood. Word pictures aren't going to help. Word pictures explain what is.

Also, the purpose if parables wasn't to explain what couldn't be comprehended. They were used to disguise what could be understood.

Luke 8:9–10 (KJV 1900): 9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? 10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Isn’t that exactly what I said? The kingdom of heaven is incomprehensible to the “others”, but comprehensible to the disciples who get it, obviously it’s not “incomprehensible” to all. If that “makes no sense” then why do you quote this verse?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

It's not. You're argument is that there is a being called God who takes on different roles.

No, my argument is that God communicates - or say, evangelizes - through a mechanism called trinity. You on the other hand seem to be stuck in the traditional “three beings in one” doctrine.

You said the Word was the nature or plan of God. A nature or plan is not referred to as He. The are referred to as it.

The emptying isn't referring to being humble. It's stated plainly being in the form of God He emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of the form of God. Paul said, being in the form of God, He emptied Himself. He emptied Himself of the form of God. That Paul calls Him a He, shows us that Paul understood Him to Be person, not a plan or nature.

Ultimately this depends on your understanding of what “beginning” is referring to - Day One of the creation week? Or the whole creation week? Don’t go to any dictionary, cause it ain’t gonna tell you anything helpful in this specific regard, guaranteed, you have to make a judgement call yourself. If it’s Day One, then a “person” didn’t exist yet. The same Paul, who taught that God emptied himself, also told that Jesus is the second or last Adam. The first Adam was the first man who was created on Day Six, not Day One, and that’s the model for Jesus. All I did is to make a simple distinction, that the Word is not Jesus, the INCARNATED Word is Jesus.

God is addressed as a “He” because the closest figure to God, a provider, protector and teacher is an earthly father, and notice that in the OT he was never addressed as a “father”, only in the NT was he called a father, and only through Jesus the son can we know him as a father.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Modalism holds that there is one God who appears as, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's what you said. It's one God playing different roles.

Wrong, moralism hold that God appears as the Father OR the Son OR the Holy Spirit, that’s a heresy as much as the tritheism you hold on to.

There are problems with that. For one, a person can't be their own son. They can't be their own father. If there is one God who "manifests" as each of the three, he would be his own son and his one father. That is illogical.

The term “son” doesn’t mean a biological son, it’s more like the perfect embodiment or personification of some trait, it applies to the terms “son of thunder” or “son of serpent”, and also his own titles “son of man” and “son of God”, that conveys his true identity, that he’s the living God in human form. The closest analogy to explain that, again, is your player character in a virtual world. That character is your image in a digital setting, which I do not consider as a separate being.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Also, the idea that one being manifests as three beings at the same time is also illogical.

Maybe illogical to you, but not to God, and that’s exactly what took place at the baptism. I admit that I don’t fully comprehend how it worked, but I believe with all my heart that the Lord is God, the Lord is ONE.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Modalism holds that there is one God who appears as, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's what you said. It's one God playing different roles.

There are problems with that. For one, a person can't be their own son. They can't be their own father. If there is one God who "manifests" as each of the three, he would be his own son and his one father. That is illogical.

Also, the idea that one being manifests as three beings at the same time is also illogical.

Ok, to explain how this is logical, there’s another common analogy for it - the ambassador. This is a legitimate one taught in many churches. Jesus is the ambassador of the kingdom of heaven, and he functions as the intermediary between us and God, and that’s also every Christian’s job and purpose on earth. From our point of view, an ambassador and the embassy are extension of a foreign government, no one sees the embassy as a separate, independent entity, it always acts and speaks on behalf of their government. If that’s still illogical to you, then I’ve got nothing else to say, man, only God can penetrate your thick skull and bring you enlightenment.

 

[Butch5]

No, my argument is that God communicates - or say, evangelizes - through a mechanism called trinity. You on the other hand seem to be stuck in the traditional “three beings in one” doctrine.


Ultimately this depends on your understanding of what “beginning” is referring to - Day One of the creation week? Or the whole creation week? Don’t go to any dictionary, cause it ain’t gonna tell you anything helpful in this specific regard, guaranteed, you have to make a judgement call yourself. If it’s Day One, then a “person” didn’t exist yet. The same Paul, who taught that God emptied himself, also told that Jesus is the second or last Adam. The first Adam was the first man who was created on Day Six, not Day One, and that’s the model for Jesus. All I did is to make a simple distinction, that the Word is not Jesus, the INCARNATED Word is Jesus.

Paul speaks in metaphors quite often. Calling Christ the second Adam, has nothing to do with the time of His creation. It has to do with God restoring creation. Paul also said that Christ is the first born of all creation. Thus he preceeded Adam.

God is addressed as a “He” because the closest figure to God, a provider, protector and teacher is an earthly father, and notice that in the OT he was never addressed as a “father”, only in the NT was he called a father, and only through Jesus the son can we know him as a father.

No, God is referred to as He because He is a person. I didn't call my mother He when she provided, protected, and taught me. I called her, her, because she was a person.

You're correct that the Father isn't referred to as the Father in the OT. That doesn't mean He wasn't one. There are references to the Son in the OT.

Psalm 2:1–7 (KJV 1900): Why do the heathen rage,
And the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder,
And cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
The Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath,
And vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king
Upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree:
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; This day have I begotten thee.
Proverbs 30:4Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

So, even though He's not called Fathee in the OT, we see that He was one

Isn’t that exactly what I said? The kingdom of heaven is incomprehensible to the “others”, but comprehensible to the disciples who get it, obviously it’s not “incomprehensible” to all. If that “makes no sense” then why do you quote this verse?

Incomprehensible means something can't be comprehended. Maybe you're looking for a different word.

 

[Beetow]

Both sides of the aisle have convincing arguments in matters relative to the so
called trinity, and both sides are able to support their arguments with scripture. So
then, what this means is: let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind
because trinity debates always end up with quarreling and perpetual debate that
never gets to the bottom of anything.
_

 

[Butch5]

Both sides of the aisle have convincing arguments in matters relative to the so
called trinity, and both sides are able to support their arguments with scripture. So
then, what this means is: let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind
because trinity debates always end up with quarreling and perpetual debate that
never gets to the bottom of anything.
_

I woulcorrect that it's not that both sides are able to support their arguments with Scripture . I would submit that one side is using Scripture wrongly. The Bible doesn't both support and reject the idea of a Trinity. It's one or the other. I would encourage everyone to try and figure out which side is using Scripture correctly.

 

[complete]

'For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.'
(Col 2:9)