Trinity

[Jonathan_Gale]

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

No, that's precisely the word used in the bible. "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not COMPREHEND it." So the Light can't be comprehended by the darkness (of the pagan world), but can it be comprehended by us? If it's absolutely incomprehensible to everyone, then how can we be the light of the world?

 

[Searchingtoo]

Someone said there were rules against discussing the trinity, but there is a lot of it going on. I checked the rules and I don't see any such rule. If there is would someone point me to it?

 

[Butch5]

God - Definition: The Supreme being, whose distinctive name is Jehovah [not Jesus, the Word or holy spirit]. The Hebrew language uses terms for "God" that convey the idea of strength, also of majesty, dignity, and excellence. In contrast to the true God, there are false gods. Some of these have set themselves up as gods: others have been made of objects of worship by those who serve them.

This is how the Bentons Septuagint (LXX) reads, which agrees with KJV in Psalms 83:18 except it uses Jehovah instead of Yahweh which is the name mostly used today. 83:18 That [men] may know°° that° thou,° whose name° alone° [is] YAHWEH,° [art] Elyon° over° all° the earth.° No mention of HS or Jesus/Word/Michael or anyone else. Just Jehovah or Yahweh if you prefer.

The Jews did not believe in a trinity nor did the first century Christians, nor did Jesus, but 400 years later suddenly people thought they knew better. I don't think so.

I think the word "God" is a title. Here's where people equivovate. One time they use it of an individual person and the next time they use it collectively of three persons. So, they're equivocating which is a logical fallacy. Thus, there is an error in their reasoning. I would submit that the Word "god" is title th as the people use to denote a deity. The pagans had their God or gods who were deities to them. Christians also have a God. According to Paul, Christians only have one God, the Father.

The problem with saying someone is the true God because they are called god is this. They say Jesus is the true God because He is referred to as God in a few places. Thus being called God mmakes one the true God. He's the flaw in that argument. Baal and Molech are also called gods. So, using that argument one has to conclude that Baal and Molech would be the true God.l also. We know absolutely that that is not the case. Thus, simply being called God doesn't make one the true God.

 

[Butch5]

No, that's precisely the word used in the bible. "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not COMPREHEND it." So the Light can't be comprehended by the darkness (of the pagan world), but can it be comprehended by us? If it's absolutely incomprehensible to everyone, then how can we be the light of the world?

Notice the two word before comprehend. They Re "did not", not cannot. To say I didn't understand something doesn't mean I can't understand it. Maybe it wasn't explained well.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I remember it. The problem is that people equivocate on the meaning of the word God. Just ask people to define what they mean by the word God. I've asked people this again and again and they usually just beat around the bush and never give a straight answer. If we can't even define the word how are we to form doctrine based on it?

God - Definition: The Supreme being, whose distinctive name is Jehovah [not Jesus, the Word or holy spirit]. The Hebrew language uses terms for "God" that convey the idea of strength, also of majesty, dignity, and excellence. In contrast to the true God, there are false gods. Some of these have set themselves up as gods: others have been made of objects of worship by those who serve them.

Bzzz, wrong! God is the ETERNAL CREATOR of heavens and earth, that's the unequivocable definition in the bible. The "supreme being" you're thinking is deity, not God. Any pagan deity is a "supreme being", they govern or control a certain designated aspect of nature, but none of them created that aspect of nature, God did. God is beyond nature, he is outside of nature, and he created nature and all those deities to govern nature, hence the "council of God". That's a straight answer, straight from the first line of the entire bible. Most people couldn't give a straight answer because they either rely on the word of dictionary as the eternaltruth instead of the holy word of God, or they skip forward to John 1:1 and based all of their understanding and worldview from there.

 

[Butch5]

Even if that's true, from human perspective He wasn't known as the father yet, neither Moses, David or any prophet addressed him as the Father, and none of them regard themselves as the son in these verses you quote, they were rulers appointed by God, the only intermediary between man and God by then was the high priest who went to the temple once a year on the day of atonement to communicate with God and pray for forgiveness. That arrangement was superceded by Christ, our eternal and exalted high priest. Therefore, whether God was a person or not, there's no way to know, we were not there at the beginning, we were not Levite high priest. We can only know Him and relate to him as the Father with absolute certainty through Christ the son. Maybe you have a different definition of "person" or "personhood", all I can tell you is that, the only "person" or "personhood" is a human being of fresh and blood, and that took place on Day Six.

Actually, early in Genesis we have people being called the sons of God.

Genesis 6:1–2 (NKJV): Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

God calls Israel His son.

Exodus 4:21–23 (KJV 1900): 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.


Malachi 1:6 (KJV 1900): A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master:
If then I be a father, where is mine honour?
And if I be a master, where is my fear?
Saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name.

Psalm 2:7–8 (KJV 1900): 7 I will declare the decree:
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
This day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me,
And I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

I think the idea of God as a Father can be found in the OT

Person denotes a being, not necessarily flesh. The Father has personhood. We give name to those personhood. Angles and demons get names because they have personhood.

 

[Searchingtoo]

I think the word "God" is a title. Here's where people equivovate. One time they use it of an individual person and the next time they use it collectively of three persons. So, they're equivocating which is a logical fallacy. Thus, there is an error in their reasoning. I would submit that the Word "god" is title th as the people use to denote a deity. The pagans had their God or gods who were deities to them. Christians also have a God. According to Paul, Christians only have one God, the Father.

The problem with saying someone is the true God because they are called god is this. They say Jesus is the true God because He is referred to as God in a few places. Thus being called God mmakes one the true God. He's the flaw in that argument. Baal and Molech are also called gods. So, using that argument one has to conclude that Baal and Molech would be the true God.l also. We know absolutely that that is not the case. Thus, simply being called God doesn't make one the true God.

Just because you or I call someone God or a god (same word) doesn't mean much but when the Bible says that Jehovah is the most high over all the earth and Jesus says he is the only true God I don't see how you can rationally argue with that, unless you don't believe the Bible or Jesus. Far too many scripture show that Jehovah is superior to Jesus in power, knowledge and omnipresence both now and even when Jesus sets down at the right hand of God, his God. If you want to say Jesus is god in a sense, like men and angels are called gods, ok, but never the true Almighty God. Those are the words of Jesus. As you said we only have one God and as Jesus said it is " I am going to the one who is my Father and my God, as well as your Father and your God.” I can't comprehend how this is hard to understand.

 

[Butch5]

If he didn't incarnate at the beginning, then he was NOT a person - yet. He didn't empty himself as a humble servant, a son of a carpenter from Nazereth - until he did.

Yes, He was person. That's why Paul calls Him He before He became incarnate.

No, it's not. Your DNA is not the same thing as the fully grown person of you, my DNA is not the same thing as the fully grown person of me. The God I believe in is a God of distinction, not a god of confusion or conflation.

Huh? Umm, "the fully grown person of you" has DNA in every sell. What do you mean it's not the full grown person

 

[Butch5]

Just because you or I call someone God or a god (same word) doesn't mean much but when the Bible says that Jehovah is the most high over all the earth and Jesus says he is the only true God I don't see how you can rationally argue with that, unless you don't believe the Bible or Jesus.

Totally agree

Far too many scripture show that Jehovah is superior to Jesus in power, knowledge and omnipresence both now and even when Jesus sets down at the right hand of God, his God.

Agreed

If you want to say Jesus is god in a sense, like men and angels are called gods, ok, but never the true Almighty God. Those are the words of Jesus. As you said we only have one God and as Jesus said it is " I am going to the one who is my Father and my God, as well as your Father and your God.” I can't comprehend how this is hard to understand.

I agree. I would say that Jesus is God in the sense that He is the offspring of God the Father. Let me explain it like this. A king is royalty so his son the prince is also royalty. However, the prince, the Son, is in now way the king. So, Jesus before the incarnation was birthed from the Father. That same being changed form and became human. However, He was still birthed out of the Father. So, in title, Jesus can be called Deity. However, He is, has been, and always will be, subject to the Father. The Father is the one and only "True God". He alone is God Almighty. That how I understand it.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Notice the two word before comprehend. They Re "did not", not cannot. To say I didn't understand something doesn't mean I can't understand it. Maybe it wasn't explained well.

No, friend. It also says in John 3:19-20 on this matter: "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." As long as men hide in darkness from the light, there's no possibility for them to "comprehend" the light since there's no encounter with the light in the first place. In your own analogy, no matter how well that something is explained to you, as long as you choose to not listen, as long as you focus on how to refute, deny or distort it instead of absorb, medidate and digest it, it's incomprehensible to you. "Comprehensibility" is not inherent to that something itself, but dependent on the listener.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I agree. I would say that Jesus is God in the sense that He is the offspring of God the Father. Let me explain it like this. A king is royalty so his son the prince is also royalty. However, the prince, the Son, is in now way the king. So, Jesus before the incarnation was birthed from the Father. That same being changed form and became human. However, He was still birthed out of the Father. So, in title, Jesus can be called Deity. However, He is, has been, and always will be, subject to the Father. The Father is the one and only "True God". He alone is God Almighty. That how I understand it.

You fail to take one critical component in consideration, that Jesus is the only WAY - or "interface" with God. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -John 14:6. A prince is not necessarily the only access to the king, Jesus is necessarily the only access to God. Therefore, from our perspective, the only visible, conceivable and accessible outlet of God is Jesus and nobody else, he and God are ONE, not two. I explained this in my analogy of the ambassador, that he or she is an outlet of the foreign government they represent, it's NOT a separate entity.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Huh? Umm, "the fully grown person of you" has DNA in every sell. What do you mean it's not the full grown person

What do you mean it IS the full grown person? DNA is a sequence of code, the literal book of life which God knew before he knitted me in my mother's womb, am I a fully grown person already in my mother's womb? That's "word", not "person" yet.

Person denotes a being, not necessarily flesh. The Father has personhood. We give name to those personhood. Angles and demons get names because they have personhood.

A person is a HUMAN BEING, which God formed from the dust in his own image. Angels and demons can appear as human beings, but without human form, they're just beings, not persons. Six winged seraphim and four faced cherubim are beings, not persons.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Actually, early in Genesis we have people being called the sons of God.

Genesis 6:1–2 (NKJV): Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

God calls Israel His son.

Exodus 4:21–23 (KJV 1900): 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.


Malachi 1:6 (KJV 1900): A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master:
If then I be a father, where is mine honour?
And if I be a master, where is my fear?
Saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name.

Psalm 2:7–8 (KJV 1900): 7 I will declare the decree:
The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
This day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me,
And I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

I think the idea of God as a Father can be found in the OT

You conveniently overlooked one key word in your own quote: "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master." Since God has had all of those "sons", why did he call Jesus the ONLY begotten son? Doesn't that contradict all of these verses? The answer is the fifth commandment - "Honor your mother and father", that the only positive commandment among the ten commandments. In the OT, neither did those pre-flood "sons of God" nor Israel truly honor God; those "sons of God" were flooded for their wickedness, and Israel was led to captivity for their disobedience; in Psalm 2:7-8 that was referring to Jesus, not David. Only Jesus honored God with full obedience, and through him, we are adopted as sons and daughters.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, and the beat goes on.
_

What the Scripture says is one thing, "who do you say that I am" is another. We're reading the exact same verse of John 17:3, I see that as proof of Jesus being God, others weaponize that to deny Jesus as God.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

It only makes sense that the Bible can't be supporting to opposing ideas. If the Bible is without error, then one of the idea must be wrong.

Because the Bible can't be supporting to opposing ideas, it does not contradict itself. When you deny Jesus based on your reading of this one single term "one true God" in one single verse, and yet the divinity and lordship of Jesus is taught in everywhere else, there must be something wrong with your understanding and not the bible. Likewise, when the bible is crystal clear, that "the Lord is ONE", there's only one Creator of the heavens and the earth instead of two or multiple co-creators, and yet somehow you read two or more "beings" of God, chances are, there must be something wrong with your understanding and not the bible.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

My friend, did you read what I posted about this when you mentioned Jesus' baptism? I said there is the Father and there is the Son. That's two, not three. I said the Holy Breath was the power of the Father. How am I supporting a Trinity when I'm claiming there are only two?

"Ditheism", is that's a word, is as heretical as tritheism.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Yes, He was person. That's why Paul calls Him He before He became incarnate.

Yes, that's called theophany - appearance of God in human form, in many occasions in the OT! It wasn't a separate being who appeared to Abraham, it was God himself! That is a biblical fact, and you and the OP are repeatedly putting God in a box by denying that.

 

[Searchingtoo]

No, friend. It also says in John 3:19-20 on this matter: "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." As long as men hide in darkness from the light, there's no possibility for them to "comprehend" the light since there's no encounter with the light in the first place. In your own analogy, no matter how well that something is explained to you, as long as you choose to not listen, as long as you focus on how to refute, deny or distort it instead of absorb, medidate and digest it, it's incomprehensible to you. "Comprehensibility" is not inherent to that something itself, but dependent on the listener.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Some of these have set themselves up as gods: others have been made of objects of worship by those who serve them.

Dear Member Searchingtoo,
Are you saying that Jesus who accepted the worship of others, set Himself up as a false God, because He accepted the worship of others?
I ask because we know that the Jews were told not to worship any other gods and yet it is plain to see that Jews in the NT did worship Jesus, and He accepted their worship. All the while Peter who was the instrument used to heal others, did not accept the worship of others, though they did try to.

On another note: I'm just curious who do you think was being spoken of in Isaiah 9:6? Was it Yeshua or someone who previously appeared or one who has yet to appear?

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

 

[Waggles]

Isaiah 43:11 I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no saviour.
12 I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and I am God.

1John 4:14 And we have beheld and witness that the Father hath sent the Son as Saviour of the world.
15 Whoso shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.