The Source of the Trinity

Revelationswon said:

I was always under the understanding that the gospel of Jesus Christ was plain and simple and could be clearly understood by anyone. I do not know of any requirement that one be a theologian to obtain a fullness of salvation.

In studying the trinity view presented in the third century it does not appear that this was given by the revelations of God, but was determined by ones reasoning alone. My question is, how does this place the trinity theory on an equal plane with holy scripture? If it is viewed as scriptural doctrine, does not this constitute "adding to scripture"?

Click to expand...

No, because the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly explained in John 1:1-17, and later in John (that they may be one just as you and I are one...). ... (I will send you the Paraclete), and is then referended explicitly in Matthew 28:19, and implicitly in 1 John 5:7-8 (even without the Comma Johanneum, there can be no doubt that sentance was triadological).

Basically, the doctrine of the Trinity is contained in the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, and alluded to in the other Gospels, most specifically, in Matthew 28:19. It is impossible to read objectively the four Gospels and Acts, and not come away with an understanding, which is further expounded upon in the epistles, that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are discrete persons who comprise one singular God, and are coequal, coeternal and consubstantial.

I contend that all opposition to the Trinity, including Arius, begins with someone starting from an a priori assumption that the doctrine is wrong; in the case of Arius, it was because he subscribed to the Greek philosophical idea of the Logos as a divine emanation, which predates Christianity and which a Hebraic-Aramaic analysis of the equivalent word refutes; in calling our Lord the Logos, St. John did not intend to invoke, nor did he, for all practical purposes, neo-Platonism, except by way of a very vague allusion, and Arius was driven to force that allusion as the Gospel.

Likewise, the Muslims, Unitarians et al rejected the Trinity a priori because they could not understand how it was not polytheism.

Non-Trinitarians then, I believe, read the Gospels with a confirmation bias, looking for any verses which appear on the surface to undermine the Trinitarian theology and recast Jesus as an emanation of God, a mere enlightened man, a creature, or what have you.

But these arguments are not compelling, which is why the doctrine is accepted vast majority of Christians who have had access to the sacred scripture and thus cannot be accused of having been indoctrinated by the Roman Catholic Church having withheld a vernacular Bible for some centuries (a canard anyway, given that the Orthodox churches read and still read most or all of the New Testament, and much of the Old, in the annual liturgical cycle, and have always tended towards a vernacular or semi-vernacular liturgy).

Note that the preceding paragraph is an appeal to authority, technically fallacious, but, in the case of the Trinity, I believe it to be so obvious, and it is so widely accepted in the Christian faith, that denying it is like trying to claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

And the actual proof for it is contained in John.

One more thing: the 27 book New Testament canon was compiled by St. Athanasius the Great, and communicated to the members of the Church of Alexandria in his 39th Paschal Encyclical. Prior to that, there was no universal consensus about which NT books were or were not scripture; some people included the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, 1 Barnabas or 1 Clement, many omitted Revelations, Hebrews Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John and the Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul; the only parts of the New Testament to be universally recognized as scripture before St. Athanasius settled the matter were the four Gospels, Acts, and the epistles of St. Paul to the churches (excluding the Pastoral Epistles 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and also excluding Hebrews, which has never been universally accepted as part of the Pauline corpus).

So whenever you read the New Testament, you are reading an anthology compiled by St. Athanasius, who was the most devoted defender of the Trinity in the face of Arian heresy, and whose book, On the Incarnation, readily available online, plainly explains the doctrine from Scripture, although I would also argue strictly speaking the work is supererrogatory, because the Gospels explain the Trinity perfectly by themselves. But the work of St. Athanasius is brilliant, and it is very useful in dispelling doubts some people might start to form about the Trinity, and as a work of apologetocs against the non-Trinitarians; it also sets out the Trinitarian doctrine in precise detail and is frankly quite superior to St. Augustine's book on the Trinity.

In a sense, St. Athanasius explains, for those who still have not grasped it, how scripture attests to the Trinity plainly, and thus by extension, why the majority or Christians accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. It does not deal extensively with the Holy Spirit because the attack on the divinity and separate personality of the Spirit began just a few years before the death of St. Athanasius, led by the semi-Arian Macedonius (hence the movement being called Macedonianism or Pneumatomacchianism), who St. Athanasius regarded as having fallen to become a heresiarch.

Here is a post from another forum by AMR (who is a member here) concerning the subject matter of this thread. I offer this with his permission for your consideration. He writes concerning the Members of the Godhead, their "Source", and makes several excellent arguments for the Filioque, which I believe you will find both interesting and valuable.

Please forgive me for dropping this in the thread blindly. He's what he has to say:

Yours and His,
David

St_Worm2 said:

Here is a post from another forum by AMR (who is a member here) concerning the subject matter of this thread. I offer this with his permission for your consideration. He writes concerning the Members of the Godhead, their "Source", and makes several excellent arguments for the Filioque, which I believe you will find both interesting and valuable.

Please forgive me for dropping this in the thread blindly. He's what he has to say:

We are entering deep waters here of the mysteries of God, so let's approach the subject with much fear and trembling.

Think of the phrase, "In the unity of the Godhead."

Western theology begins at this point. One God possessing full Godhead.

I think using the word "source" opens up too many distractions based upon modern notions that require much qualifications to prevent misunderstandings. The Father is unbegotten. As such God the Father is the ever-flowing fountain of the divine essence. He communicates this essence to the Son. He with the Son communicates this essence to the Spirit. The communication is eternal. It did not happen one time and then stop.

The first communication is called begetting; the second communication is called procession. Call the communication whatever one pleases, it is the communication itself which is important. So we say the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son. The begetting is also often termed generation. The procession is also sometimes called spiration.

Berkhof writes:

This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called spiration, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however:

(1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son.
(2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power.
(3) In logical order generation precedes spiration.
​

It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son.

In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of the divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son.

The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. Spiration may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation or change.

When one begins with the unity of God these personal properties are the means by which Godhead is understood to belong to a distinct mode of subsistence within the undivided substance.​

Altering the personal properties so as to deny the filioque (fill-ee-oh-qwee) serves to create a new "stream" (using the above analogy of "fountain").

Once the filioque is denied, there is now no longer one stream
--> Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A second stream has been created
--> Father, Son; Father, Holy Spirit.

There is no longer an unity of three but two unities of two.

Accordingly, the unity of God is maintained in the western theological tradition by what is called the communication of Godhead—begetting and procession. "Person" or "subsistence" depends on personal properties, i.e., properties which are unique to a person in relation to other persons. In the words of our Larger Catechism, there is something "proper" in these relations, that is, "divinely proper." To detract from any property of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is to make Him inferior to the Father.

The EO objection in relation to the Holy Spirit is removed by a simple acknowledgement that the unique person of the Holy Spirit also consists in a unique property, and that property is to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

If this were not accepted as the Holy Spirit's distinct property He would not be the third person of the Trinity but would be a second second person. This means He would be a second Son. His very name, Spirit, is suggestive of an altogether unique relation in union with Father and Son which nullifies the objection. The Holy Spirit is the person upon whom the communication of Godhead finally terminates. In this capacity the Spirit is Himself the bond of union and communion between Father and Son. Likewise, in the ad extra works (works outside the Goddhead) of the Trinity, this unique relation finds expression in His distinctive function in connection with the creation of, providence over, and redemption of, the world— He is the Spirit of life and communion. ~by AMR​

Yours and His,
David

Click to expand...

Thank you for a considered and careful contribution to this discussion.

There really are two separate and related issues here - one is the theology of Procession of the Holy Spirit, and the second is the matter of the Filioque as a matter of the procedure by which the Church establishes the faith we hold in common(communion).

Berkhof does not really fully embrace what Augustine said on the matter of the theology or procession.


Augustine does not hold that the Holy Spirit can only proceed from the Son, but that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Augustine holds that where the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, he proceeds in the first instance from the Son. The iconographic representation of the Holy Trinity has always been Triangular, not a column. If you adopt a tiered description of the Holy Trinity you are exposed to a sense of a hierarchical Trinity which does risk undoing the egalitarian nature of the Trinity.

My view is that this is a position that Aquinas also held. Rather than paste it, (great slabs of text) it can be read in Summa Theologica - First Part - The Blessed Trinity. The issue he addressed particularly was against those who said the the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son. There is a clear witness in scripture where it would seem a plain reading is that the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son. see John 20:22.

My point is not that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, nor that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Son, but rather that the Holy Spirit does proceed always from the Father, and also that the Holy Spirit proceeds from (though perhaps for sake of clarity I would rather say through) the Son.

I come from the land down under, where the arrival of the Gospel of Jesus was accompanied by men in chains. The Holy Spirit breathed through this land for centuries before in this land of the black swan.

In terms of our understanding, the Father is the alpha point of all things. This alpha point is the assurance that we believe in one God, the Father, Almighty. The Son and the Holy Spirit are rooted in origin in the Father, three persons and one God. The Father creates, the Son Redeems, and the Holy Spirit leads us to the Father through Jesus the Son.

I believe that the filioque, however well meant, at best gives poor expression to the truth, and at worst is a hook to cause distress in the Body of Christ - with too much politics and to little piety.

John 16:20-22

Constantine the Sinner said:

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

Click to expand...

Hi there constantine,

The Western Church commonly uses a version of the Nicene creed which has the Latin word filioque ("and the Son") added after the declaration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son."

These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes throughthe Son. However, some Eastern Orthodox insist that to equate "through the Son" with "from the Son" is a departure from the true faith.

The expression "from the Father through the Son" is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence: "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in faith. If they expressed themselves differently, their meanings must substantially agree. . . . Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin), the issue was settled (May 29). The Greek Fathers necessarily meant the same; the faiths of the two churches were identical; union was not only possible but obligatory (June 3); and on June 8 the Latin cedula [statements of belief] on the procession [of the Spirit] was accepted by the Greek synod" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:972–3).

Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).

However, union is still possible on the filioque issue through the recognition that the formulas "and the Son" and "through the Son" mean the same thing. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "This legitimate complementarity [of expressions], provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (CCC 248).

Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioquedoctrine, states: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences" (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).



Tertullian

"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son" (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).



Origen

"We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ" (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).



Maximus the Confessor

"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).



Gregory the Wonderworker

"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).



Hilary of Poitiers

"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).



Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).



Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).



Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).



Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

Gregory of Nyssa

"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).



The Athanasian Creed

"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).



Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).



Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).



Council of Toledo

"We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible.
. . . The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447]).



Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).

John Damascene

"Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life . . . God existing and addressed along with Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not under any lord; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; sharing in, not shared in; sanctifying, not sanctified; the intercessor, receiving the supplications of all; in all things like to the Father and Son; proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son" (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 8 [A.D. 712]).

"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (ibid., 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).



Council of Nicaea II

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Catholic Answers

I'm non trinitarian, the Bible only points to One God. As for the Holy Spirit He is the power and emanation of God the Father working through the Son Jesus Christ. There are numerous scriptures to support this.

Constantine the Sinner said:

Do you believe that heaven and earth were created by the Son?

Click to expand...

I believe the Earth was created by The Father / Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ always existed yes but He only received flesh and became the Son until He was born on this Earth in my opinion but I do not claim to be a theologian etc.

The Bible says that all things were created through Him and by Him, so we can conclude that the Father is in / is Jesus Christ.

I do not deny Jesus always existed the Bible mentions that but I do not believe they all were 3 separate persons. I think God Himself came down in the form of Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

KawaiiChristianGal said:

I believe the Earth was created by The Father / Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ always existed yes but He only received flesh and became the Son until He was born on this Earth in my opinion but I do not claim to be a theologian etc.

The Bible says that all things were created through Him and by Him, so we can conclude that the Father is in / is Jesus Christ.

I do not deny Jesus always existed the Bible mentions that but I do not believe they all were 3 separate persons. I think God Himself came down in the form of Jesus Christ to die for our sins.

Click to expand...

"...and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God' (John 1).

Unto the Son he saith: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Hebrews 1).

Constantine the Sinner said:

So you believe Jesus Christ is God the Father, and not the Wisdom of God as spoken of in Proverbs 8 and 9?

Click to expand...

Is that even talking about Jesus? I don't think it is??? As for do I believe Jesus Christ is God the Father? No, I believe God the Father after He to earth Is Jesus Christ. Jesus always existed I do not deny that, I like how servetus puts it;

Servetism refers to the theology of Michael Servetus, which affirms that Christ was God manifested in the flesh, yet not as part of a tri-personal God, and that he did not exist previously as the Son, but as the divine Logos (the manifestation of God, or the Word of God) that became the Son after incarnation.

Servetus believed strongly in the unity of God and in the Divinity of Christ, but denied that the doctrine of the trinity of persons was the way to support these two essentials of Christian doctrine. He looked to the study of the Bible for answers, and he did not find the traditional Trinitarian doctrine affirmed there. Rather than seeing a traditional Trinitarian view reflected in the Bible, he saw confirmation of the idea that God manifested Himself in the human form of Jesus Christ.

In the preamble to his book, Christianismi Restitutio (1553), he says, "There is nothing greater, reader, than to recognize that God has been manifested as substance, and that His divine nature has been truly communicated to mankind. It is in Christ alone that we shall fully apprehend the manifestation of God Himself through the Word, and His communication to mankind through the spirit."

KawaiiChristianGal said:

Is that even talking about Jesus? I don't think it is??? As for do I believe Jesus Christ is God the Father? No, I believe God the Father after He to earth Is Jesus Christ. Jesus always existed I do not deny that, I like how servetus puts it;

Servetism refers to the theology of Michael Servetus, which affirms that Christ was God manifested in the flesh, yet not as part of a tri-personal God, and that he did not exist previously as the Son, but as the divine Logos (the manifestation of God, or the Word of God) that became the Son after incarnation.

Servetus believed strongly in the unity of God and in the Divinity of Christ, but denied that the doctrine of the trinity of persons was the way to support these two essentials of Christian doctrine. He looked to the study of the Bible for answers, and he did not find the traditional Trinitarian doctrine affirmed there. Rather than seeing a traditional Trinitarian view reflected in the Bible, he saw confirmation of the idea that God manifested Himself in the human form of Jesus Christ.

In the preamble to his book, Christianismi Restitutio (1553), he says, "There is nothing greater, reader, than to recognize that God has been manifested as substance, and that His divine nature has been truly communicated to mankind. It is in Christ alone that we shall fully apprehend the manifestation of God Himself through the Word, and His communication to mankind through the spirit."

Click to expand...

I have to say that for centuries Servetus has not been regarded by Biblical Christians as representing the truth of God in Three Persons.

faroukfarouk said:

"...and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God' (John 1).

Unto the Son he saith: 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Hebrews 1).

Click to expand...

I don't deny that, I never denied that. I just don't believe in 3 distinct individuals floating around in heaven. I just believe the verse where it says the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ.

faroukfarouk said:

I have to say that for centuries Servetus has not been regarded by Biblical Christians as representing the truth of God in Three Persons.

Click to expand...

A god in 3 persons equal 3 gods.

KawaiiChristianGal said:

I don't deny that, I never denied that. I just don't believe in 3 distinct individuals floating around in heaven. I just believe the verse where it says the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

...and this verse in Colossians means the Lord Jesus is fully God. The Son is begotten of the Father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; John's Gospel has many verses about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

KawaiiChristianGal said:

A god in 3 persons equal 3 gods.

Click to expand...

Not logical.

faroukfarouk said:

...and this verse in Colossians means the Lord Jesus is fully God. The Son is begotten of the Father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; John's Gospel has many verses about Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

I don't deny the father the son or the Holy Ghost.

faroukfarouk said:

Not logical.

Click to expand...

That's okay if you see it that way.