Who’s up to tackling the Trinity in depth?

[timothyu]

People forget...
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

We have no idea how many creations the Father has made that have no relation to us and our universe. Jesus was specifically made for us and His Kingdom to come.

 

[Der Alte]

Okay, Joseph wasn't allowed to play the role of Jesus' father!
Because of his DNA?
But, Mary was allowed to pass her DNA along?
So, Jesus received only 1/2 of the normal DNA passed along from parents?
So then, how was He fully human?

God created Adam and Eve's DNA. Creating the other part of Jesus' DNA should have been no problem for Him.

 

[BCsenior]

God created Adam and Eve's DNA.
Creating the other part of Jesus' DNA should have been no problem for Him.

Yes, and perhaps the Holy Spirit provided God's DNA when Mary conceived.
So, Jesus had Mary's DNA and God's DNA.
And, man has a sin nature because his DNA is all human DNA.

Gee, I wonder if the early churches figured this out?

 

[BCsenior]

I should have warned everyone in the OP ... this ain't for the faint of heart.

 

[His student]

I don't even know what "incarnate" means.

"Carne" = meat (as in carne asada in Spanish).

Roughly - God incarnate = God with meat.

Does my understanding of the Trinity line up with yours?

The forum doesn't allow us to talk about it in depth.

But in my later years - I have come to doubt the entire eternal Trinity concept as accepted by most of the Church.

I have come to have questions as to whether the Son/Father relationship has any validity before the instant of the incarnation.

E.g. - "Thou art my Son - today I have begotten thee." vs. "eternally begotten of the Father" in the Nicene Creed.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Nope, sorry!
1 John 3:9 is talking about continuing to sin (see the Greek), as in habitual sinning!
Jesus did not sin at all ... never ever did He sin!
IMO ... being fully God, Jesus could resist all sin and be sinless!

You are wrong, sorry. 1 John 3:9 is "commit" sin. That is even once. As in I could not commit murder even once. I'm surprised at you. It is other denominations who say what you did and say "practice" sin, the same connotation that you used.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I may get a lot of flak over this, but IMHO, any study of the Trinity in depth must account for the Seven Spirits of God as mentioned in the Revelation.

 

[BCsenior]

Mary conceived in her womb.
Conception means something specific.
Mary's body supplied the humanity of Christ.
The Word became united to flesh through Mary,
by the grace and work of the Holy Spirit.
And the Word became Man.
Hence, Christ Jesus.

Yes, this has some substance, doesn't it. Thank you, sister.
I could never figure out: the Word + the Holy Spirit + Mary = Jesus

 

[hedrick]

My questions from all of the above
● Where does “the Word became flesh” fit in with the Holy Spirit causing Mary to conceive?
A possible explanation … In John 14:23, Jesus says “We” will come to be with the believer.
IMO, this is another example of, “When/where you have One, you have all Three.”

"flesh" in this case is a poetic way of saying human. In traditional theology, all three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are involved in every act of God. The Bible speaks of the Spirit in this case, but it was all three.

● Did the Holy Spirit cause Mary to conceive by placing a fetus in Her womb?
(If this is the case, then wasn’t this fetus a created being?)
● Was Mary’s DNA involved when the Holy Spirit miraculously caused Mary to conceive?

There have been lots of discussions in CF about this, and in my opinion no real resolution. The Bible doesn't talk about DNA. God could certainly have created someone completely new and put it in Mary's womb. But the Bible talks about Jesus' genealogy. I think it means that Jesus is physically descended from David (though you could also say that it's legal descent that matters). So I think at least Mary's egg with its DNA was used. Either God created half the DNA himself, or he used Joseph's DNA. I think it's most likely that he used Joseph's, but almost no one else agrees. At any rate, the Bible doesn't talk about any of this, so it's really a guess. (Or the whole thing isn't meant literally, but CF is committed to a literal virgin birth.)

● Who’s in heaven now? … the Father, Jesus (the Word)? …or… the Father, the Word, Jesus?

I think God is in heaven in a different sense from the human in heaven. God is a spiritual being. Jesus was resurrected, and ascended, and Paul tells us that he has a resurrection body. So in my opinion, the Son is now in two forms: the eternal divine nature, and resurrected human. Both forms (natures) are one Person. I'm not sure they're "in heaven" in quite the same sense. I don't think God has a body, not even Paul's resurrection body. But the resurrected Son does. I just don't think we should imagine the Word and Jesus as standing side by side.

● Who’s the Trinity now? … the Father, Jesus (the Word), the Holy Spirit?

The Trinity can't change. God doesn't change. The Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as always. But the Son now has two natures, so in addition to the form he always had, he has the resurrected human form.

 

[BCsenior]

You are wrong, sorry. 1 John 3:9 is "commit" sin. That is even once. As in I could not commit murder even once. I'm surprised at you. It is other denominations who say what you did and say "practice" sin, the same connotation that you used.

NKJV, NASB, AMP, etc. say "practices" sin.
My best NT commentary (charismatic) says the Greek has "continues to sin".

 

[BCsenior]

In traditional theology, all three Persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are involved in every act of God. The Bible speaks of the Spirit in this case, but it was all three.
... I think at least Mary's egg with its DNA was used. Either God created half the DNA himself,
or he used Joseph's DNA.
... The Trinity can't change. God doesn't change. The Trinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as always.
But the Son now has two natures, so in addition to the form he always had, he has the resurrected human form.

Many thanks for your input.
But, I'm not sure how you will be received ... not believing in the virgin birth!

 

[anna ~ grace]

Yes, this has some substance, doesn't it. Thank you, sister.
I could never figure out: the Word + the Holy Spirit + Mary = Jesus

Essentially. The Messiah has always existed as the Eternal Word and Eternal Son of God, begotten of the Father, from eternity. Yet He did not always have flesh / was not always Man. This came about at and through the incarnation. Yet while a Man, He was still fully God.

 

[BCsenior]

Essentially. The Messiah has always existed as the Eternal Word and Eternal Son of God, begotten of the Father, from eternity. Yet He did not always have flesh / was not always Man. This came about at and through the incarnation. Yet while a Man, He was still fully God.

Yes, He surely always existed as the Word.
But, as the eternal Son of God?
But, as the Messiah?

Do you agree that "only begotten" means "one and only"?
Many non-BACs think it means "created".

 

[BCsenior]

I may get a lot of flak over this, but IMHO, any study of the Trinity in depth
must account for the Seven Spirits of God as mentioned in the Revelation.

Would you like your flak with mustard and relish, or some other heathen way?

 

[CharismaticLady]

NKJV, NASB, AMP, etc. say "practices" sin.
My best NT commentary (charismatic) says the Greek has "continues to sin".

Still wrong.

I always go with Young's Literal Translation when in doubt.

NKJV 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. (Note you said the NKJV says "practice." Not true.)

YLT every one who hath been begotten of God, sin he doth not, because his seed in him doth remain, and he is not able to sin, because of God he hath been begotten.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Yes, He surely always existed as the Word.
But, as the eternal Son of God?
But, as the Messiah?

Do you agree that "only begotten" means "one and only"?
Many non-BACs think it means "created".

No, friend, it doesn't mean created. It means both unique, and uniquely brought forth, of one being with the Father.

The Son bears withness that He has existed in relation to the Father, before creation.

John 17:5

And Messiah means "annointed". Surely from the beginning, the Word who would someday become flesh was this.

 

[BCsenior]

The Son bears witness that He has existed in relation to the Father, before creation. John 17:5
And Messiah means "annointed".
Surely from the beginning, the Word who would someday become flesh was this.

Aaaah, sister ...

The titles/names "Jesus" and "Son of God" (given by Gabriel) began at the Incarnation.

Jesus was called "the Son of God" because ...
He was "fathered" by God the Word and/or God the Holy Spirit.

John 17:5 is Jesus praying to the Father (nothing about the Son of God).

Many people today have been called and anointed by God.
Christ (Greek) = Messiah (Hebrew).

 

[anna ~ grace]

Aaaah, sister ...

The titles/names "Jesus" and "Son of God" (given by Gabriel) began at the Incarnation.
John 17:5 is Jesus praying to the Father (nothing about the Son of God).

Many people today have been called and anointed by God.
IMO, Messiah means Christ, and vice versa.

And yet, Scripture references the Son prior to the incarnation, too.

Proverbs 30:4

At least, this is how I read it.

 

[hedrick]

NKJV, NASB, AMP, etc. say "practices" sin.
My best NT commentary (charismatic) says the Greek has "continues to sin".

I think they're wrong. I have two commentaries, neither of which takes this approach.

I believe they're concerned about the apparent contradiction with John's realization elsewhere that Christians do sin, and they try to resolve it by giving a shade to the meaning that isn't necessarily there. As far as I can tell from the interlinear, "sin" is an ordinary active verb. It can mean continuing action, but I think these translations are pressing that.

The context makes it pretty clear that to John, someone who is in Christ can't sin, so it would be odd for him to shade that meaning.

I suggest that what's really going on is that John understands that no one in this life is completely and always in Christ. So he really does say no one in Christ sins, but we're to understand it as being in effect "to the extent that we are in Christ, we don't sin."

Note verse 3:3, which implies that we're not yet pure.

 

[BCsenior]

And yet, Scripture references the Son prior to the incarnation, too.
Proverbs 30:4
At least, this is how I read it.

I'll check it, but IMO any OT reference is in a future sense.
Yes, Proverbs 30:4 is impressive.