The Trinity

If God is not triune then scripture would be wrong

read 1 john 5:7 in the King James Bible ( yes that verse should be there) and then read this verse, one of the most powerful sections about the Tri untiy f the Godhead

"
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.

15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.

16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

17 Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God"

Notice that the Lord is peaking of the Lord God and His Spirit sending him. The one speaking is "the Lord, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the Lord thy God..."

notice also the unusual wording like, "I, even I, have spoken; yeah I have called him..."

and notice also the Lord says that the Lord God and His Spirit hath SENT ME. Jesus said in John that the Father sent him

this is one of the most powerful tri unity verses I have found

razzelflabben said:

.

Click to expand...

Okay, so we both agree, Jesus is the first born from the dead.

And what Paul is talking about in this passage, is inheritance. And Jesus is the first born form the dead, so he inherited all of the works of Gods hands, as Hebrews 1 also speaks of, and others. Being the first born, and inheriting all things, they are all his. And being the first born (I'm still referring to first born from the dead), He is before all, because no one can be before the first born. No angel is a first born. And Jesus being the first born, he is over all, and higher then all, except the Father who put all things under him.

And not only that, but verse 13 says, hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.

So, for sure, the context of Colossians 1:15-17 is after his resurrection. So, there is no reason to take it out of that context, we have to keep it in that context. And this is what he says, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, which all refer to authorities. Which could not be talking about creating the persons, but the positions. So, if he wants to remove one from a position, and install another, he will do so, or, if he chose to create a new position, he will do so. He also had the right to put Satan out of his place (as a side note: Satan wants to ascend again).

Then, as we can see, verse 19 and 20 are still in this context.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him (Jesus) to reconcile all things unto himself (Father); by him (Jesus), I say, whether they be things in (on) earth, or things in heaven.

He brought peace through his blood, he is referring to putting everything right, dividing the good from the bad. Right now we don't see that on earth yet, as it speaks in Revelation 12:10,12, but we do see this in heaven in Revelation 12:12 “Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.”, because Satan lost his authority in heaven.

7xlightray said:

That is what I said! I said, He is the first born from the dead, It's in the last sentence that you quoted from my post. But it seems you are having a hard time focusing on reading, because I said First Born from the Dead. I don't mean that in a negative way, it's just because of what you are going through. Again, that's why I am suggesting, we try to stick to one passage at a time.

...or...

So, if you want to take some time off, to grieve over your father, or spend time with family, and friends, that's fine.

Click to expand...

first, I am not even grieving...long story...I did get exposed to an allergen that should have put me in the hospital and for that reason, I am not always following as clearly as I should which is why I said I would be asking for more clarifications than usual...so no need to take a break in fact, keeping at it helps to clear the mind after such a massive attack.

But let's get back to the issue at hand....let's say that you are right, that I am not "following" what you are saying, that you are saying that Jesus is God in the flesh and that you are saying that this passage is talking about Jesus being the first born from the dead....then, why, if I am the one not listening and you are listening, are you saying the exact same things I am but insist that I am wrong on all of this while you are right? That is illogical if I am thinking clearly or not. So for the sake of clarification for my foggy brain, why is it that you feel justified to say I am not listening and following you when you say the same thing I am but claim that I am saying something different and that I am wrong when you are right? Just clarify for me how that works.....

As to the topic at hand....I think there is more that we agree on then what we disagree, the problem is in some smaller detail that in my head you seem to be missing, according to your posts, in your head I'm not willing to listen enough to figure it out or am too brainwashed to follow.

So, let's start with a simple question that scripture tells us to start with...who do you say Jesus is? Clean, simple, easy question. No need for passages at the moment, just a simple, straight forward answer, who do YOU say Jesus is?

7xlightray said:

Okay, so we both agree, Jesus is the first born from the dead.

And what Paul is talking about in this passage, is inheritance. And Jesus is the first born form the dead, so he inherited all of the works of Gods hands, as Hebrews 1 also speaks of, and others. Being the first born, and inheriting all things, they are all his. And being the first born (I'm still referring to first born from the dead), He is before all, because no one can be before the first born. No angel is a first born. And Jesus being the first born, he is over all, and higher then all, except the Father who put all things under him

Click to expand...

as shown in the post above, not in the context of the totality of scripture it is not talking about inheritance. But just for the sake of stirring our thought neurons as bit, when we are talking about Jesus inheritance, consider this passage...Romans 8:17 and if children, also heirs--heirs of God and coheirs with Christ--seeing that we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

CO heirs with Christ...so apparently we inherit these things as well? Not sure I can go along with that, but it is worthy of our thought and attention for the moment.

And not only that, but verse 13 says, hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.

So, for sure, the context of Colossians 1:15-17 is after his resurrection. So, there is no reason to take it out of that context, we have to keep it in that context. And this is what he says, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, which all refer to authorities. Which could not be talking about creating the persons, but the positions. So, if he wants to remove one from a position, and install another, he will do so, or, if he chose to create a new position, he will do so. He also had the right to put Satan out of his place (as a side note: Satan wants to ascend again).

Click to expand...

oh, so according to you, Jesus had a creation created for Him way way way before He was even planned to exist....and what is more, according to you, we are co inheritors of the same things, which limits Jesus to what exactly? Like I said, I think we would be wise to eliminate all the circular talk and go right to the heart...who do YOU say Jesus is?

Then, as we can see, verse 19 and 20 are still in this context.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him (Jesus) to reconcile all things unto himself (Father); by him (Jesus), I say, whether they be things in (on) earth, or things in heaven.

He brought peace through his blood, he is referring to putting everything right, dividing the good from the bad. Right now we don't see that on earth yet, as it speaks in Revelation 12:10,12, but we do see this in heaven in Revelation 12:12 “Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.”, because Satan lost his authority in heaven.

Click to expand...

the earth needs reconciled to God/Christ...amen and amen, this concept is important to our understanding of how suffering and Love are related as well.

7xlightray said:

I said hard times, and your not thinking clearly, because that's what you said.

You said...

“I am preparing to sit with my father as he dies”
“my responses might be intermittent for a few days, as I am sure you can understand.”
“remember (I am not thinking as clear as I should”
“I am about ready to head out the door to bury my father ”

This why I thought it best to just focus on one passage.

Click to expand...

apparently I shouldn't have explained why I am asking for so much clarification, cause you are twisting that into something it is not.

razzelflabben said:

...not sure why you want to argue about it as if is proves you right and everyone else wrong, cause it simply doesn't do that.

Click to expand...

I argue the point because the word "begotten" implies that Jesus had a beginning. So I don't care what Thayer says. The ancient translations had it right. The word "monogenes" in ancient times meant "only" or "unique" without any reference to being begotten at all. The Septuagint ALWAYS translated the Hebrew "yachid" (only) with the the Greek "monogenes."

The Boxer said:

I argue the point because the word "begotten" implies that Jesus had a beginning. So I don't care what Thayer says. The ancient translations had it right. The word "monogenes" in ancient times meant "only" or "unique" without any reference to being begotten at all. The Septuagint ALWAYS translated the Hebrew "yachid" (only) with the the Greek "monogenes."

Click to expand...

and....it doesn't change what I said to you at all nor does it change the passage that I presented along with it. Seriously, if it doesn't change anything and you don't care what one of the leading translation expert sources say, why keep going on and on as if you have some special revelation that we should all bow down to? Your opinion does not change our understanding of 1. scripture, 2. what I said about that scripture, 3. what one of the leading sources of translation says about it, 4. what God says about it, or 5. what the truth is, yet despite all that, you insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong and we have to bow to your opinion because your stuck on the word meaning, all the while ignoring the scriptural meaning that started the discussion. I just don't get it, and since you can't show a valid reason to keep going on about it, you and I are done with that part of this discussion. Oh, just for the record, notice I gave you 5 different reasons that continuing is meaningless debate like scripture tells us to avoid.

7xlightray said:

Then God did not die, His shell did, then that would mean we don't die either, only our house was destroyed.

Click to expand...

That's what you say. But that's NOT what the scripture says. Jesus likened his death to the seed which dies. It is the outer shell alone that dies. The germ remains ALIVE and receives nutrients from the soil. Yet Jesus viewed the seed as a single whole saying, "The seed dies."

I can say "I injured my hand." Or I can say "I injured myself" because my self is united to my hand. The person of God was united to his body which died. Therefore, God died. He tasted death by being united to a body of flesh.

The Boxer said:

That's what you say. But that's NOT what the scripture says. Jesus likened his death to the seed which dies. It is the outer shell alone that dies. The germ remains ALIVE and receives nutrients from the soil. Yet Jesus viewed the seed as a single whole saying, "The seed dies."

I can say "I injured my hand." Or I can say "I injured myself" because my self is united to my hand. The person of God was united to his body which died. Therefore, God died. He tasted death by being united to a body of flesh.

Click to expand...

huh? I quoted the scripture used it's wording, pointed out that the body is raised, but we still call it death. Maybe you need reminded that we too will have our fleshly bodies raised in God's time?

razzelflabben said:

huh? I quoted the scripture used it's wording, pointed out that the body is raised, but we still call it death. Maybe you need reminded that we too will have our fleshly bodies raised in God's time?

Click to expand...

I was replying to 7xlightray. But since you mention it I will say that we will NOT have fleshly bodies in the resurrection. Paul said that flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God. Paul said that we will be raised in a SPIRITUAL body. Our fleshy body will be recycled. This is the scientific fact. Your interpretation does NOT harmonize with empirical science. Therefore, your faith in a resurrected fleshly body is a blind faith.

Jesus put off his fleshly body when he ascended into heaven. He has his spiritual body now

The Boxer said:

I was replying to 7xlightray. But since you mention it I will say that we will NOT have fleshly bodies in the resurrection. Paul said that flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God. Paul said that we will be raised in a SPIRITUAL body. Our fleshy body will be recycled. This is the scientific fact. Your interpretation does NOT harmonize with empirical science. Therefore, your faith in a resurrected fleshly body is a blind faith.

Jesus put off his fleshly body when he ascended into heaven. He has his spiritual body now

Click to expand...

yep...kind of what I said...but hey, who am I to respond to people who quote me and respond to what I wrote

The Boxer said:

That's what you say. But that's NOT what the scripture says. Jesus likened his death to the seed which dies. It is the outer shell alone that dies. The germ remains ALIVE and receives nutrients from the soil. Yet Jesus viewed the seed as a single whole saying, "The seed dies."

I can say "I injured my hand." Or I can say "I injured myself" because my self is united to my hand. The person of God was united to his body which died. Therefore, God died. He tasted death by being united to a body of flesh.

Click to expand...

Then therefore, whether He is united to flesh, or not, you are saying God did not actually die, but only His shell, which is flesh, which is His creation, and God is not His creation, therefore a man died for the sins of the world, not God. Only in word (semantics) is it taught that God died for the sins of the world, for God did not really die. And it does not take the God to die for the sins of the world, but it takes a man, a perfect man, a man without sin, to die for the sins of the world, as it is stated Rom 5:15.

By using this same logic, if I died, when I became a believer, and God now dwells in me, and is united with my shell, then God has died many times over since the beginning of the church, every time a believer dies, and breaths is last breath.

7xlightray said:

Then therefore, whether He is united to flesh, or not, you are saying God did not actually die, but only His shell, which is flesh, which is His creation, and God is not His creation, therefore a man died for the sins of the world, not God. Only in word (semantics) is it taught that God died for the sins of the world, for God did not really die. And it does not take the God to die for the sins of the world, but it takes a man, a perfect man, a man without sin, to die for the sins of the world, as it is stated Rom 5:15.

By using this same logic, if I died, when I became a believer, and God now dwells in me, and is united with my shell, then God has died many times over since the beginning of the church, every time a believer dies, and breaths is last breath.

Click to expand...

amen...Hebrews 6:6 and who have fallen away, because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.

Heb. 10:29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Just saying, scripture confirms that the idea of repeatedly crucifying the Christ is not cool.

And that's my point, God did not need to come and die for the sins of the world. All it needed, was a righteous man without sin.

Because many teach, God had to come, and pay for the sins of the whole world, because a man could not pay for the sins of the whole world. So, if God created a new man, a spiritual man, that had the law written within his heart, this man could pay for the sins of the whole world. All this man would need is the full measure of God dwelling in him, but the man himself, need not be God. Therefore no need of a second person of a Trinity, to exist before a incarnation. In other words, all God had to do was create a new man, and put His law in his heart (spiritual man).

You can say, well this scripture says this, or that, and that's fin, we will get to them, I'm just trying to show it was not necessary for God to come and die, and no need, towards this understanding, that Jesus needed to preexist. That's all.

7xlightray said:

And that's my point, God did not need to come and die for the sins of the world. All it needed, was a righteous man without sin.

Because many teach, God had to come, and pay for the sins of the whole world, because a man could not pay for the sins of the whole world. So, if God created a new man, a spiritual man, that had the law written within his heart, this man could pay for the sins of the whole world. All this man would need is the full measure of God dwelling in him, but the man himself, need not be God. Therefore no need of a second person of a Trinity, to exist before a incarnation. In other words, all God had to do was create a new man, and put His law in his heart (spiritual man).

You can say, well this scripture says this, or that, and that's fin, we will get to them, I'm just trying to show it was not necessary for God to come and die, and no need, towards this understanding, that Jesus needed to preexist. That's all.

Click to expand...

but what your ideas here fail to grasp is that for that man to be without sin, He would by the very nature of mankind need to be "greater" than man. IOW's this MAN that you claim needs only to be a man has to be not man in order to be without sin, because we know that man by his very nature is full of sin.

Not the second issue with your logic here is that you are trying to rely on logic of the flesh rather than logic and trust of the spirit. This is equally a problem and people including myself have been trying to show you this. There are huge flaws to your opinions on the matter.

Now for a third flaw, Heb. tells us that a better sacrifice was needed. A sacrifice that could carry the weight of the worlds sin. I don't know any mere human who is capable of such a weight.

three glaring flaws but we are to believe you no matter.

razzelflabben said:

but what your ideas here fail to grasp is that for that man to be without sin, He would by the very nature of mankind need to be "greater" than man. IOW's this MAN that you claim needs only to be a man has to be not man in order to be without sin, because we know that man by his very nature is full of sin.

Click to expand...

Do you want some time to think about that?

7xlightray said:

Do you want some time to think about that?

Click to expand...

not from the standpoint of what I said or intend....maybe from the standpoint of what you read, I mean I really can't follow what you read into things nor assume what you think they mean. So if you tell me specifically what you aren't following, maybe I can fill in some of the blanks or misunderstandings you are reading into the text.

Let me assume that you 7xlightray are not following along in what I am telling you and see if I can further explain this comment to you

I said....
but what your ideas here fail to grasp is that for that man to be without sin, He would by the very nature of mankind need to be "greater" than man. IOW's this MAN that you claim needs only to be a man has to be not man in order to be without sin, because we know that man by his very nature is full of sin.

First remember that I showed you that Jesus is both fully man and fully God. This is necessary for a man to be the spotless Lamb needed to take away the sins of the world. Why? You see, in the OT, the HS was not dwelling in man, that only came after pentecost. In order for a man to be without sin at all, it is necessary for him to live in the power of the indwelling HS. Now, look at Matt. 3 where the dove of the HS decended upon Jesus. Jesus was powered by the HS, the same HS man received at pentecost but was only randomly at work in the OT as to the lives of mankind. Jesus needed to be fully God and fully man in order to be able to be without sin.

But wait you might say, we have that HS the HS is the only thing necessary...wrong, without a blood sacrifice to cover our sins, the HS cannot make His dwelling within us. So you see, it was necessary for Jesus to be both fully man and fully God not just man alone or God alone. Thus, as scripture says, God in the form of a man.

7xlightray said:

Only in word (semantics) is it taught that God died for the sins of the world, for God did not really die.

Click to expand...

The outer shell of the seed "dies" by becoming separated from the germ of the seed. The germ of the seed "dies" by descending into the earth. But the germ descends into the earth ALIVE. Likewise, God's body died by becoming separated from God. And God "died" when he descended into the earth. As the germ of the seed he descended into the earth ALIVE.

Jesus likened his death to the seed which dies. Ignore it all you want but the fact remains that the germ after it is separated from its body descends into the earth ALIVE.

Notify me when you are ready to face the fact that the death of Jesus was as the seed which dies.

razzelflabben said:

Let me assume that you 7xlightray are not following along in what I am telling you and see if I can further explain this comment to you

I said....
but what your ideas here fail to grasp is that for that man to be without sin, He would by the very nature of mankind need to be "greater" than man. IOW's this MAN that you claim needs only to be a man has to be not man in order to be without sin, because we know that man by his very nature is full of sin.

First remember that I showed you that Jesus is both fully man and fully God. This is necessary for a man to be the spotless Lamb needed to take away the sins of the world. Why? You see, in the OT, the HS was not dwelling in man, that only came after pentecost. In order for a man to be without sin at all, it is necessary for him to live in the power of the indwelling HS. Now, look at Matt. 3 where the dove of the HS decended upon Jesus. Jesus was powered by the HS, the same HS man received at pentecost but was only randomly at work in the OT as to the lives of mankind. Jesus needed to be fully God and fully man in order to be able to be without sin.

But wait you might say, we have that HS the HS is the only thing necessary...wrong, without a blood sacrifice to cover our sins, the HS cannot make His dwelling within us. So you see, it was necessary for Jesus to be both fully man and fully God not just man alone or God alone. Thus, as scripture says, God in the form of a man.

Click to expand...

Adam, and Eve were made very good, and means: exceedingly good. They had no knowledge of good and evil, they did not even have that knowledge, and were made natural, not spiritual.

I did not say Jesus was man alone. Jesus had the fulness of God the Father, without measure, dwelling in him. What does scripture say, God the Father dwelt in Jesus, doing His works in Jesus. Adam and Eve did not have that, they were natural, Jesus was spiritual. Adam and Eve had no sin, until Satan came along.