Does God have a God? Explaining John 20:17 in Defense of the Trinity.

[Bible Highlighter]

your problem is not in the trinity but in the nature of christ.

How so? Please explain.

Anyways, for your information, I believe Jesus is God (Second person of the Godhead) who is eternal and uncreated.
Jesus had power of His own (that He used) as God during His Earthly ministry and also did miracles by the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I also believe Jesus was a man, too.

For Christ's Omniscience (i.e. to have all knowledge) was merely suppressed during the Incarnation so as to be like a man (limited in knowledge) (Philippians 2:6-9). For Christ was that like figure (type) of Adam (Romans 5:14), and both Adam and Jesus were limited in knowledge as a part of God's design for a certain amount of time.

Jesus said and did everything the Father told him to say and do. Jesus always pleased his Father. So He could be like a man who served God perfectly so as to be our substitute.

Yet, Jesus was not only just a man who was limited in knowledge, could feel pain, get tired, and get hungry, -- Jesus was also the Son of God (Second person of the Godhead) who was Holy and perfect in everything He did. He quoted a Psalm of David (Psalms 22) not because He was speaking from some human side of Himself. The body was just a shell. For He said so Himself. It was a temple. Jesus was speaking as God but limited in knowledge because His divine attribute of Omniscience was suppressed in the Incarnation. When Christ had achieved His mission, there would have been no reason for Him not to have His Omniscience back. This mission was paying the penalty for sin on the cross, then conquering sin and death with his resurrection, then ascending to the Father (After He told Mary to touch Him not) so as to be our mediator and Heavenly High Priest.

...

 

[Deadworm]

Readers seem to freeze like Bambi in the headlights when exposed to these 4 issues arising from texts quoted below:

(1) One of the first facts that is demonstrated in any good seminary NT course is the fact that Mark is our earliest Gospel (c. 66-70 AD and serves as a source for both Matthew and Luke. With this in mind, consider this Matthean cover-up:

Mark 10:17-18: "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
Matthew 19:16-17: "Teacher, what good deed must I perform to have eternal life?" And He said to him; "Why do you ask me concerning what is good? One there is only one who is good."

Matthew takes offence at the obvious implication that Jesus is denying both that He is good and that He is God. So Matthew changes "good teacher" to "teacher" and alters the question, "Why do you call me good?" to read "Why do you ask me concerning what is good?"

(2) In John, Jesus claim "The Father and I are one (John 10:20)" implies a mystical unity that in itself falls short of claiming full divinity, especially given that Jesus follows up this claim by denying His equality with God: "The Father is greater than I (14:28)."

(3) Jesus' cry of abandonment on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (citing Psalm 22:1)" implies a separation of His essence from "my God."

(3) Keep in mind that in Palestine the Messianic title "Son of God" makes no claims of divinity, but merely affirms messianic descent from David based on 2 Samuel 7:14).

(4) The NT teaches that Jesus is limited in knowledge, wisdom, power, and favor with God. So given (1)-(3) above, what does it mean to claim that Jesus is "fully divine?" "He emptied Himself (Philippians 2:6)."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You address one TINY aspect in your opening defense of 'trinity'. While there are others much more capable of offering proper understanding.

Not only did Jesus refer to His Father as God, But Paul makes it perfectly clear in the opening of almost every epistle by offering something like this: The God and Father of Christ. Well, let's just see how it's 'quoted':

Ephesians 1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: ...

This certainly doesn't 'fit' your explanation.

Paul STATES that Christ has 'a God'. Stated quite simply in fact.

In your extensive list, reading it it appeared to be created by someone very limited in Biblical 'knowledge'. For even a 'simpleton' such as myself could dispel well over 'half' of them by simply quoting 'scripture' that denies such possibility.

Christ has 'no beginning' so far as 'days' are concerned. Both God and His Son are limited to 'days' so far as existence is concerned.

But the Bible 'does offer' that Christ was 'created'. You and many many others have simply refused to acknowledge it by 'altering' the definition of words to 'fit' what you want to believe.

Begotten. In every use of this word throughout the entire Bible it means to 'sire''. Like, 'to have a child through one's seed.

Yet when the term is used in reference to Christ, those that wanted to 'create' Christ as God altered the very definition of the word Begotten. And then added to the 'new' definition a completely inane statement or 'concept' never offered in the Bible; 'eternally begotten'. And then 'act' like this has some specific 'meaning'. The likes of which not a single 'trinitarian' has EVER been able to explain to me in any manner that makes 'any sense'.

So, why does the word mean to 'sire' in every use in the Bible 'except' as it concerns "God's Son"?

Blessings,

MEC

There are 160 reasons given in my OP so as to defend how Jesus is God. There is really nothing left to discuss after a long list of verses like that. As I said before, I provided a one time explanation for someone, and it was not my intention to endlessly debate this topic.

But if you need a verse that talks about how Jesus is eternal or uncreated, here ya go:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Readers seem to freeze like Bambi in the headlights when exposed to these 4 issues arising from texts quoted below:

(1) One of the first facts that is demonstrated in any good seminary NT course is the fact that Mark is our earliest Gospel (c. 66-70 AD and serves as a source for both Matthew and Luke. With this in mind, consider this Matthean cover-up:

Mark 10:17-18: "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
Matthew 19:16-17: "Teacher, what good deed must I perform to have eternal life?" And He said to him; "Why do you ask me concerning what is good? One there is only one who is good."

Matthew takes offence at the obvious implication that Jesus is denying both that He is good and that He is God. So Matthew changes "good teacher" to "teacher" and alters the question, "Why do you call me good?" to read "Why do you ask me concerning what is good?"

(2) In John, Jesus claim "The Father and I are one (John 10:20)" implies a mystical unity that in itself falls short of claiming full divinity, especially given that Jesus follows up this claim by denying His equality with God: "The Father is greater than I (14:28)."

(3) Jesus' cry of abandonment on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (citing Psalm 22:1)" implies a separation of His essence from "my God."

(3) Keep in mind that in Palestine the Messianic title "Son of God" makes no claims of divinity, but merely affirms messianic descent from David based on 2 Samuel 7:14).

(4) the NT teaches that Jesus is limited in knowledge, wisdom, power, and favor with God. So given (1)-(3) above, what does it mean to claim that Jesus is "fully divine?"

But Jesus said elsewhere that He is the GOOD Shepherd. So that pretty much destroys your argument here, my friend.


...

 

[Deadworm]

But Jesus said elsewhere that He is the GOOD Shepherd. So that pretty much destroys your argument here, my friend.

Irrelevant! Jesus thinks His (and our) goodness derives from God, from whom He distinguishes Himself as Matthew recognizes and covers up. You really must avoid parallelomania and deal with the texts presented.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Irrelevant! Jesus thinks His (and our) goodness derives from God, from whom He distinguishes Himself as Matthew recognizes and covers up. You really must avoid parallelomania and deal with the texts presented.

But wait. There is more.

“That the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.”
‭‭(Philemon 1:6)

“He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;” (Matthew 13:37)

“I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”
‭‭(John 15:5-6).

“Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”‭‭ (Matthew 7:17-19).

In addition, Jesus was sinless, too.

1 Peter 2:22
WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

1 John 3:5
You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.


...

 

[Deadworm]

Again, irrelevant! I affirm the sinlessness of Christ, but as I said, God is the source of goodness, and that is His point. Now actually shed your Bambi persona and engage the texts in question.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

However, the Bible has to be read as a whole, dear sir.


...

 

[Neogaia777]

Jesus is YHWH in the OT, He is/was also one of the persons in the plural "Elohim" that means "God", Plural means, and where it says of Elohim in the very beginning, "Let "US" make/create/do this or that... The Son is/was an aspect of God/Elohim in the very beginning, The Son is also YHWH, Which YHWH had the the spirit of The Father, and the Holy Spirit, in him, inside of him, the Son, which is who what walked and talked with Adam & Eve, that is the Son, the Son as YHWH was not completely omniscient like his Father, the Spirit of the Father, that was in him was/is, No one has heard the Father's voice, or seen him at any time, man or angel, they only saw the Son as God, the spirit of the Father, that was in the Son, only spoke to him, alone, no one else...

If you examine YHWH in the OT, I think it is pretty evident that he was not completely omniscient, but was partially, which is much more than can be said of us, YHWH is the Son, and if you examine the OT, he acts much like a man does, but he is God, YHWH/the Son is love, and his acts in the OT, and as a man in the NT, by which we can see his growth and development and learning process, He has always been trying to "save" us, and what we see of him as a man was one final act to try and do this, and after that, he would not try to do it anymore, or do anything more, his final act, presented us with a choice, to believe in and follow him and believe in what he says and be doing it, or not... He knew that some would, and some would not, for he gave-up on trying to force them all (in the OT, probably because it was driving him crazy)...

Jesus was "The" Son of Man before he was baptized, after he was baptized, "The" Son of God, after he died, and was resurrected and ascended, He went to where the Father, His Father is, The Son is destined to become and take the place of The Father, at some point between his ascension and his returning to us, point being, by the time he gets back, He will be like the Father is and probably is like he is now, which no one knows, no men or angels, but him (The Son, who became/becomes as the Father is)...

"No one can come to the Father, except through me..." Jesus said this, by "No one can come to" that is "know" the Father, except through, that is, first knowing him, who he is now, by first knowing, who he was (God in the OT) and then, first knowing that first, coming to know who he is now (which is still a mystery, for he is like the Father now) Knowing "all" of this is the one and only way to know who the Father truly is and always was... For he, (The Son) is like the Father now...

If you want the short answer: God is, always has been and "is" Love... If you truly know what this is and means and if your honest and admit you don't fully yet, you/I can only come to know this through him (Christ, God in the OT, God/Man in the NT) First and by and only "after" knowing who the Son is, can you come to know who the Father is and always was, that is, What Christ is now...

The Father wanted the Son to be God, and so, let him be God, for this was the Father's desire and job, to let the Son be God and "teach" him and show him what he (The Father) is like through his (The Sons experience as God and also as a man) and by his (The Sons) experience, showing the Son, who he (The Father) once was before he became The Father, perhaps in another creation with his Father, when he was a Son, before he became a Father... Christ will take the Father's place one day, if it hasn't already happened, when this happens, The Father will move on and go to another place, that probably only he alone knows about, Like his Father before him did, when he took his place and finished that creation, and then began a new creation with his own Son, and showed his Son what he once had to go through when he was a Son with his Father before him, and ect., ect., so on and so forth, cycle of life... And our God, the Son, when this creation ends, will create a new one with his own Son, and ect. ect., so on, and so forth...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

nothing but utter 'opinions' that have no basis in 'proof'. Just 'ideas' of your own, (and maybe some others). But not backed by scripture in the least.

Blessings,

MEC

Check and see if I'm right then... If/and since you seems to believe that "my opinion" supposedly is "wrong" (for it is not mine, but belongs to him), I ask you to please, prove it...? Or, present something (scripture perhaps) or "anything" else that will put one pinhole even in this... I think if your reading the scriptures in honesty and truth and your not blind, you will see that this is right...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Exactly. Yet those that profess 'trinity' ignore all that it offered that refutes even such possibility.

If we compare 'all' lines of scripture pertaining to the 'identity' of Christ, there is 'no' trinity presented. The word doesn't even exist in scripture. Now how strange is that?

Christ came to reveal Himself as God's Son and to reveal His Father: God. Yet not one mention of 'trinity'. Not one mention of three persons in one God. Doesn't that raise 'any' suspicion in your understanding? That something 'so' important to those that profess to believe it, yet not one mention of it in the entire New Testament.

And think about this: A doctrine that took three hundred years to produce and produced by the very people that had Christ nailed to the cross? Why not the apostles? Why wasn't this idea of 'trinity' introduced by Paul, or Peter? Why choose men that can't even be proven to be disciples, much less apostles, to deliver a doctrine SO important. Just doesn't 'add up' nor make 'any sense'.

And then there is Christ Himself. Corrects a man for simply calling Him 'good'. Corrects the man in pointing out that 'only God' is good.

And over and over again, He refers to what He does as being done for the 'glory' of God, not Himself.

Openly admits that there are 'things' that 'only the Father knows'. So how does one suppose that The Father and The Son are equal in knowledge when Christ openly states that they are 'not' equal in any such manner?

Blessings,

MEC

Denial isn't a river in Egypt...

I'm not going to waste my time trying to correct you or teach you the truth...

God Bless!

 

[Deadworm]

However, the Bible has to be read as a whole, dear sir.

Readers, please notice that Jason and other evangelicals will do practically anything to avoid the hard work of critical engagement with the relevant texts (in this case (1)-(4) in post #62 above. Hence, the aptness of my comment about freezing like Bambi in the headlights.

Imagician: "Mark wasn't even an apostle. So the idea you present is to 'pretend' that the Bible is 'not' the inspired Word of God. If that is your premise, it would be quite difficult to discuss the Bible with you."

Not only are you and your ilk ducking the 4 posted relevant questions; you are imputing to me a view I never expressed and don't accept. It is the standard view of almost every NT Introduction that Mark is a source for both Matthew and Luke. Papias has connections with John the Elder, a disciple of Jesus; and Papias explains that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome. When Peter was martyred Mark put together the Gospel of Mark on the basis of Peter's teaching and notes. So when you read Mark, you are in effect reading Peter.

 

[Neogaia777]

The 'opinion' you offered began with your first statement and ended with your last.

You said, "Jesus is YHWH in the OT, He is/was also one of the persons in the plural "Elohim" that means "God", Plural means, and where it says of Elohim in the very beginning, "Let "US" make/create/do this or that...

Yet nothing in the Bible offers what you have stated. It is merely 'your opinion'.

Genesis 1:26...

Here is mine. "Let us................" offers absolutely 'no' indication that the 'us' is more than ONE that is God. It offers 'nothing' to indicate that there are 'two persons' that make up 'one God'. Not one shred of evidence to support 'your opinion'.

How does "us" not mean more than one? Your being very illogical, sir...

Let us also consider that The Father and the Son, God and His Son, were the 'us'. Not 'two' making up 'one God'. But God and His Son. That is more evident than 'your opinion'.

"Us" is being used to refer to "one" God, How is that not two in one? Your being highly illogical, sir...

The Son if stated to have been in existence before the beginning. But God is offered as 'eternal' going 'backwards'. The Son only as being in existence prior to the beginning.

Not following you, sir... God eternal going backwards??? Huh? I think your confused...? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "One God" that existed before anything was created... Do you Believe the Gospel of John?

The Bible states that Christ is the 'firstborn' of every 'creature'.

In Revelation 3 we are offered this by the mouth of Christ:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Hmmmm.....................do you 'see'? Do you 'comprehend'? Or does your 'opinion' mean more than the words of Christ Himself?

For here He calls Himself: "the beginning of the Creation of God"

Again, do you believe the gospel of John? Creation began by the "Word" of God, the "Word" is Christ...

How can Christ be the 'beginning of the 'creation' of God if He existed before the beginning of 'creation'? This one line of 'scripture' clearly shows that Christ was 'created' by God. And I don't believe that I need to quote all the places the states that Christ was 'begotten'.

Blessings,

MEC

OK, see if you can accept this: From before anything was created or brought into existence, was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these were "in" the Son, the Son spoke the "Word" at that point "became" the "Word" which was taking one tiny step down from the Father, The "Word" of God, was the beginning of the creation of God, which is the faithful and true witness that you speak of, the "Word" was the very, very first thing created/made, and by it, all other things were made...

I'll try to make this short, God, the Son, kept taking steps down, taking steps down from originally being "all things" like his Father is/was.... The Son kept taking steps down, "away from" being "all" things, like he originally was before anything was created, he kept taking steps down and away from this... and, over time, eventually becoming like an earthling man, even a baby man, the end of his "decent" then he, before he was baptized, started to climb back up, before he was baptized, and right before he was baptized, he became "everything" that "all men" were, knowing them all, due to this, known as "THE Son of Man", after he was baptized, became "a" Son of God, climbing up that ladder progressively, eventually becoming and encompassing "all" that every single "Son of God" is/was, becoming "THE Son of God", When he was cruxified, now, this is where I don't know, but, he went back to the Father to climb and go up even farther, until he was restored to being and becoming "all" and "everything" that the Father is, which is "everything", his former glory that he had with his Father before anything was created... Which is what he will be when he returns...

God Bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus is YHWH in the OT, He is/was also one of the persons in the plural "Elohim" that means "God", Plural means, and where it says of Elohim in the very beginning, "Let "US" make/create/do this or that... The Son is/was an aspect of God/Elohim in the very beginning, The Son is also YHWH, Which YHWH had the the spirit of The Father, and the Holy Spirit, in him, inside of him, the Son, which is who what walked and talked with Adam & Eve, that is the Son, the Son as YHWH was not completely omniscient like his Father, the Spirit of the Father, that was in him was/is, No one has heard the Father's voice, or seen him at any time, man or angel, they only saw the Son as God, the spirit of the Father, that was in the Son, only spoke to him, alone, no one else...

If you examine YHWH in the OT, I think it is pretty evident that he was not completely omniscient, but was partially, which is much more than can be said of us, YHWH is the Son, and if you examine the OT, he acts much like a man does, but he is God, YHWH/the Son is love, and his acts in the OT, and as a man in the NT, by which we can see his growth and development and learning process, He has always been trying to "save" us, and what we see of him as a man was one final act to try and do this, and after that, he would not try to do it anymore, or do anything more, his final act, presented us with a choice, to believe in and follow him and believe in what he says and be doing it, or not... He knew that some would, and some would not, for he gave-up on trying to force them all (in the OT, probably because it was driving him crazy)...

Jesus was "The" Son of Man before he was baptized, after he was baptized, "The" Son of God, after he died, and was resurrected and ascended, He went to where the Father, His Father is, The Son is destined to become and take the place of The Father, at some point between his ascension and his returning to us, point being, by the time he gets back, He will be like the Father is and probably is like he is now, which no one knows, no men or angels, but him (The Son, who became/becomes as the Father is)...

"No one can come to the Father, except through me..." Jesus said this, by "No one can come to" that is "know" the Father, except through, that is, first knowing him, who he is now, by first knowing, who he was (God in the OT) and then, first knowing that first, coming to know who he is now (which is still a mystery, for he is like the Father now) Knowing "all" of this is the one and only way to know who the Father truly is and always was... For he, (The Son) is like the Father now...

If you want the short answer: God is, always has been and "is" Love... If you truly know what this is and means and if your honest and admit you don't fully yet, you/I can only come to know this through him (Christ, God in the OT, God/Man in the NT) First and by and only "after" knowing who the Son is, can you come to know who the Father is and always was, that is, What Christ is now...

The Father wanted the Son to be God, and so, let him be God, for this was the Father's desire and job, to let the Son be God and "teach" him and show him what he (The Father) is like through his (The Sons experience as God and also as a man) and by his (The Sons) experience, showing the Son, who he (The Father) once was before he became The Father, perhaps in another creation with his Father, when he was a Son, before he became a Father... Christ will take the Father's place one day, if it hasn't already happened, when this happens, The Father will move on and go to another place, that probably only he alone knows about, Like his Father before him did, when he took his place and finished that creation, and then began a new creation with his own Son, and showed his Son what he once had to go through when he was a Son with his Father before him, and ect., ect., so on and so forth, cycle of life... And our God, the Son, when this creation ends, will create a new one with his own Son, and ect. ect., so on, and so forth...

God Bless!

The Son of God (Who is the second person of the Godhead) actually makes many pre-incarnate appearances in the Old Testament.
Here is a thread with a list of His various appearances in the OT.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ger-of-the-lord-in-the-old-testament.7908284/


...

 

[Neogaia777]

The Son of God (Who is the second person of the Godhead) actually makes many pre-incarnate appearances in the Old Testament.
Here is a thread with a list of His various appearances in the OT.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ger-of-the-lord-in-the-old-testament.7908284/


...

That's very cool, thanks for sharing that...

I also think since he is "all" of them, he can be or appear as "any" of them... Take Revelation for example, He (Christ) speaks to the "angels" (notice he addresses the "angels" primarily) anyways, the angels that are over the seven congregations, He speaks to them as different, a different being, to each one of them, I find that interesting...

God Bless!

 

[sparow]

That's a misleading question. It's actually, "Does God the Son, Jesus Christ, have a God he worships?"
The answer is Yes and it doesn't affect that the Trinity is the Father, Son and HS. The Father is the "first person" of the Trinity for a reason

The answer is also misleading; if the trinity was the Father, the son and the Holy spirit there wouldn't be a big problem but the trinity doctrine (which appears to be evolving) is a very weird thing; I believe a part of it's definition is, "no body can understand it"

 

[sparow]

I believe in the Trinity because the Bible clearly teaches it.
The Lord our God is one God.
Yet, the Bible also says there are distinctions of persons within the Godhead.
In fact, the Bible uses the word "Godhead." (Which is another way of saying "Trinity.").


...

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying; if you are not talking about Nicene doctrine, found in the Nicene Creed; which doesn't simply acknowledge the three but defines a non-Biblical relationship between them, then why use the word trinity.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Jason. You had many confusing replies, may I try and complain it simply? God is Ghost and God is everywhere. Part of God`s Ghost is Jesus God`s Son, Jesus became Man and died for us, and paid for all our sins.
The third part is the Holy Ghost, He lives on Earth and guides and helps us to Know Christ and follow Christ.
Those three parts of Ghost are also called God, God-Father, God-Son- the Christ,and God Holy- Spirit, who lives in the world to help and guide us. I say this with love, Jason. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

,

 

[Neogaia777]

Dear Jason. You had many confusing replies, may I try and complain it simply? God is Ghost and God is everywhere. Part of God`s Ghost is Jesus God`s Son, Jesus became Man and died for us, and paid for all our sins.
The third part is the Holy Ghost, He lives on Earth and guides and helps us to Know Christ and follow Christ.
Those three parts of Ghost are also called God, God-Father, God-Son- the Christ,and God Holy- Spirit, who lives in the world to help and guide us. I say this with love, Jason. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

,

Yes, Ghost, or "Spirit", his spirit, their spirit (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit's, "spirit") is literally "everywhere" at once, and is "one" spirit, the Son's will is the Father's will, and the Father's will is the Son's will, their thoughts and intentions of the heart are the one in the same, emotions the same, and the Holy Spirits, will, thoughts, intentions of the heart, emotions are theirs, they share this relationship, they are of "one" spirit in this manner, Omnipresent, very, very near and close to us, and very, very far away and everywhere up, down, in front, behind, and everywhere in between...

God Bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying; if you are not talking about Nicene doctrine, found in the Nicene Creed; which doesn't simply acknowledge the three but defines a non-Biblical relationship between them, then why use the word trinity.

In what way do you think my view of the Trinity is unbiblical?
I do not believe In Modalism.
(I believe that each person of the Godhead is distinctly their own person).
I believe that the Lord our God is one God.
I believe that each person of the Godhead is God (i.e. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost).
I believe each person of the Godhead (or Trinity) is divinely God in essence or being.
I believe each person of the Godhead (or Trinity) is eternal and uncreated.

As for the Nicene creed:
My focus of study is the Bible and not church history.
Men can be corrupt or corrupted;
And man made documents can be altered or changed.
But the Word of God endures forever.
Therefore, my authority is the Bible and not some creed or document written by men.
This does not mean I am against all of the Nicene creed per say.
I am just not a student of it, and I could really care less about it.
For creeds are not my authority.
God's Word is my authority.
But please show me how my view of the Trinity is different than this document.
Is it because I believe there is a hierarchy (in terms of authority only) amongst the Godhead? Meaning, are you saying it is wrong for me to believe that when Jesus said that the Father was greater than Him, He was speaking only in terms of authority and not in essence or being?
Or are you talking about something else?


...