What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity?

[Butch5]

Well, if you really want me to start pointing out those things in your posts, I'll accommodate you.

I'm kinda lazy now but I can get fired up.

Have at it!

 

[Butch5]

When do you think he became his only begotten son?
I will give you a hint…..it wasn’t until he resurrected that he became his only begotten

Are you saying He wasn't the Son of God at the incarnation?

 

[Charlie24]

Have at it!

LOL, OK. I will begin addressing your posts in detail, fresh start.

 

[Charlie24]

Are you saying He wasn't the Son of God at the incarnation?

There's going to be a difference of opinion on when the Son of God became the Son of God. It's clear to me, but to some others it's not that clear cut.

Lets' look at the Scripture.

Psalms 2:6-7
"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

We see here that during the time David wrote this Psalm, God had already made the decree " You are My Son."

Some will say this actually happened at the incarnation, others will say He became the Son at the decree which was before the foundation of the world.

All through the Psalms, David is a type of Christ. David is speaking by the Holy Sprit in the place of Christ. As of course we all know that Christ is present but hidden in the Old Testament.

 

[lentz]

Are you saying He wasn't the Son of God at the incarnation?

I thought you knew scripture.
And you don’t know this?
God referred to him as “My beloved son “ throughout the gospels.
After the resurrection he became the first begotten.
Find a good bible teacher. And pay attention to him. He can teach you about the begotten son of God,as well as explain the trinity to you.
You’re not doing so hot studying on your own.
I don’t mean that as a put down,but you are still a babe in Christ and need milk

 

[lentz]

Have at it!

When God said let “us” make man,who was he speaking too?

 

[Butch5]

I thought you knew scripture.
And you don’t know this?
God referred to him as “My beloved son “ throughout the gospels.
After the resurrection he became the first begotten.
Find a good bible teacher. And pay attention to him. He can teach you about the begotten son of God,as well as explain the trinity to you.
You’re not doing so hot studying on your own.
I don’t mean that as a put down,but you are still a babe in Christ and need milk

Well, firstly, when the ad hominems start that's usually the first sign that the argument is lost and the debater is sending up the white flag. That's inevitable when defending the indefensible.

That's an interesting concept, except I don't recall the Gospels speaking of God's beloved Son to be.

After the Rescurrection Paul called Him the first begotten of the dead.

The Lord said to me, ‘My son you are;
today I have begotten you. Ps 2:7.

Seems to me He was the begotten Son long before the Resurrection. But then again, what do I know? Now, let me go see if I can find a good Bible teacher.

 

[Butch5]

When God said let “us” make man,who was he speaking too?

HIs Son.

 

[Butch5]

There's going to be a difference of opinion on when the Son of God became the Son of God. It's clear to me, but to some others it's not that clear cut.

Lets' look at the Scripture.

Psalms 2:6-7
"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

We see here that during the time David wrote this Psalm, God had already made the decree " You are My Son."

Some will say this actually happened at the incarnation, others will say He became the Son at the decree which was before the foundation of the world.

All through the Psalms, David is a type of Christ. David is speaking by the Holy Sprit in the place of Christ. As of course we all know that Christ is present but hidden in the Old Testament.

Both of those conclusions are not possible. All we have to do is look at the text. The passage says the Lord said to me. The word said is past tense. The Greek text uses an aorist (past tense) verb. That requires that the begetting took place prior to David's prophesy. The Lord had to have been begotten before the God said anything to Him.

 

[Charlie24]

Both of those conclusions are not possible. All we have to do is look at the text. The passage says the Lord said to me. The word said is past tense. The Greek text uses an aorist (past tense) verb. That requires that the begetting took place prior to David's prophesy. The Lord had to have been begotten before the God said anything to Him.

Christ was with God the Father in the beginning, as John has said. This beginning is not the beginning of creation, it's the beginning into past infinity that has no beginning. This is a concept we must accept though it's beyond our capacity of understanding. If we can't accept this, then we limit ourselves to the truth of Scripture. It will follow us through the Scripture and we will be blinded to the truth.

John 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

If you can't accept this as truth, then the argument of when the Father/Son relationship began is a waste of time.

 

[lentz]

Well, firstly, when the ad hominems start that's usually the first sign that the argument is lost and the debater is sending up the white flag. That's inevitable when defending the indefensible.

That's an interesting concept, except I don't recall the Gospels speaking of God's beloved Son to be.

After the Rescurrection Paul called Him the first begotten of the dead.

The Lord said to me, ‘My son you are;
today I have begotten you. Ps 2:7.

Seems to me He was the begotten Son long before the Resurrection. But then again, what do I know? Now, let me go see if I can find a good Bible teacher.

When Christ was baptized,God said,this is my beloved son . I believe on the Mount of transfiguration he said thi is my beloved son,hear ye him

And you are correct,Christ is the first begotten of the resurrection.
That is how and why he became the first begotten son of God.

 

[Butch5]

Christ was with God the Father in the beginning, as John has said. This beginning is not the beginning of creation, it's the beginning into past infinity that has no beginning. This is a concept we must accept though it's beyond our capacity of understanding. If we can't accept this, then we limit ourselves to the truth of Scripture. It will follow us through the Scripture and we will be blinded to the truth.

John 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

If you can't accept this as truth, then the argument of when the Father/Son relationship began is a waste of time.

No. If was accept that we open ourselves up to all kinds of error. Why in the world would we look at God's word, the one who is Truth, the one who created Logic and Reason and then believe any old nonsensical things people say? There's one thing you can be certain of. That is, if something is illogical, God didn't say it.

Why in the world would you believe this, "This beginning is not the beginning of creation, it's the beginning into past infinity that has no beginning."

God created all that exists. Don't you think He is capable of explaining things to us? If there is something we have to know, isn't God capable of either explaining it so that we can understand it or making our brains in such a way that we can undemand it? If we have to believe statements like that it's telling us we have errors in our reasoning and/or theology.

 

[Butch5]

When Christ was baptized,God said,this is my beloved son . I believe on the Mount of transfiguration he said thi is my beloved son,hear ye him

And you are correct,Christ is the first begotten of the resurrection.
That is how and why he became the first begotten son of God.

Scripture says He was the begotten Son long Before the Resurrection.

 

[Charlie24]

No. If was accept that we open ourselves up to all kinds of error. Why in the world would we look at God's word, the one who is Truth, the one who created Logic and Reason and then believe any old nonsensical things people say? There's one thing you can be certain of. That is, if something is illogical, God didn't say it.

Why in the world would you believe this, "This beginning is not the beginning of creation, it's the beginning into past infinity that has no beginning."

God created all that exists. Don't you think He is capable of explaining things to us? If there is something we have to know, isn't God capable of either explaining it so that we can understand it or making our brains in such a way that we can undemand it? If we have to believe statements like that it's telling us we have errors in our reasoning and/or theology.

Ok, I'll show you something that I'm afraid will go right over the top of your head, but I will try anyway. I'm not putting you down, I'm just saying that these things are hard to be understood if you haven't completed a thorough study of Scripture.

Hebrews 7:3
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

This is speaking of Melchizedek who is represented in Scripture purposely as a type of Christ. He is the first priest found in Scripture, the one whom Abraham paid a tenth of al he had honoring him as the priest of God. Christ is being compared to him, no beginning and no end.

It's uncertain as to who Melchizedek was but we do know he was a man, and human being who was chosen by God to represent Christ is the Old Testament as "The Priest." There's much more detail to this verse, but the point I want to make is that Christ as the Father, has no beginning and no end.

 

[Butch5]

Ok, I'll show you something that I'm afraid will go right over the top of your head, but I will try anyway. I'm not putting you down, I'm just saying that these things are hard to be understood if you haven't completed a thorough study of Scripture.

Hebrews 7:3
"Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."

This is speaking of Melchizedek who is represented in Scripture purposely as a type of Christ. He is the first priest found in Scripture, the one whom Abraham paid a tenth of al he had honoring him as the priest of God. Christ is being compared to him, no beginning and no end.

It's uncertain as to who Melchizedek was but we do know he was a man, and human being who was chosen by God to represent Christ is the Old Testament as "The Priest." There's much more detail to this verse, but the point I want to make is that Christ as the Father, has no beginning and no end.

This is what I mean. When we allow contradictions in our theology we can believe anything. You said, "Christ as the Father." Yet, they're also supposedly two separate persons. So, you've jumped from Trinitarianism to Modalism. You have Christ as the Father. That means you have one being who is both his own son and his own father. But, we don't have to worry about whether or not I makes sense. We can just simply say we can't understand it. Like I said in another post. We could say God is a chocolate bar. It doesn't have to make sense and we can't understanding it.

It's amazing how many will say we "can't" understand and how few will say we "don't understand.

It's easy to say we can't understand, it requires nothing. However, if we say we don't understand then we're required to search the Scriptures. And that requires a huge investment.

 

[lentz]

Scripture says He was the begotten Son long Before the Resurrection.

Where

 

[Butch5]

Where

Pslam 2:7

 

[Charlie24]

This is what I mean. When we allow contradictions in our theology we can believe anything. You said, "Christ as the Father." Yet, they're also supposedly two separate persons. So, you've jumped from Trinitarianism to Modalism. You have Christ as the Father. That means you have one being who is both his own son and his own father. But, we don't have to worry about whether or not I makes sense. We can just simply say we can't understand it. Like I said in another post. We could say God is a chocolate bar. It doesn't have to make sense and we can't understanding it.

It's amazing how many will say we "can't" understand and how few will say we "don't understand.

It's easy to say we can't understand, it requires nothing. However, if we say we don't understand then we're required to search the Scriptures. And that requires a huge investment.

Awwww man! Butch, you have taken that statement totally the wrong way and ran with it.

"Just as the Father" is saying just as the Father has no beginning and no end, so is Christ with no beginning and no end.

I'm not saying they are the same person as you have ridiculously assumed.

Look, we are not on the same level here, not even close. So anything I say will be confused by you.

I'm sorry, but this is like a NBA player trying to teach a 5th grader how slam dunk.

Just count me out of the conversation, I like my lazy life and don't need this tutoring job for the unteachable.

 

[lentz]

Pslam 2:7

That is prophecy. Talking about his future sacrifice and resurrection.

John 3:16
“Gave” is speaking of prophetic.
We have not attained yet.

 

[lentz]

Awwww man! Butch, you have taken that statement totally the wrong way and ran with it.

"Just as the Father" is saying just as the Father has no beginning and no end, so is Christ with no beginning and no end.

I'm not saying they are the same person as you have ridiculously assumed.

Look, we are not on the same level here, not even close. So anything I say will be confused by you.

I'm sorry, but this is like a NBA player trying to teach a 5th grader how slam dunk.

Just count me out of the conversation, I like my lazy life and don't need this tutoring job for the unteachable.

I’m with you.
Sometimes it’s best to just turn mothers picture to the wall and move on