Is God Three, or Two?

[Yekcidmij]

Siamese twins are seen as a biological defect of genetic mutation, hence why they are seperated if possible. I don't think we should say that God is analagous to a genetic defect.

 

[cubinity]

[...] One being existing in three distinct persons isn't necessarily biblical [...]

I think I understand what you're getting at with this OP, and it is an interesting riddle. However, the practical application of any possible solution evades me.

I am a Trinitarian who believes Jesus, the Father and the Spirit all qualify under the title, "God." This is not strict polytheism, because in polytheism, the gods can have different identities, agendas, intentions, and even conflict with one another.

While the Trinity is a construct of three different beings, their identities are intertwined completely, thus making them all God.

Admittedly, I am a Trinitarian for exta-Biblical reasons, as no Biblical author was a Trinitarian (the concept is about three hundred years younger). However, in terms of identity, I find that the construct has some value, and helps me practically interact with God and my Christian community.

I would never argue that the Trinity is the absolutely accurate, end-all description of God. I would also never argue that seeing God as a Trinity is not seeing God as something that He is not. Even the Trinity may have its flaws. How can we know for sure, right?

As you pursue your riddle, I encourage you to keep practical application in mind. Remember, Christianity is a practical faith, and if there is no practicality in what you're pursuing, then I think it is important to ask why you're pursuing it at all.

 

[BreadAlone]

In the 4th and 5th chapters of Rev. there is quite a description of “The Throne Room in Heaven.” In this description we see God on His throne, 24 elders on their thrones, 4 living creatures, and the Lamb, Jesus Christ receiving the prophecy of all prophecies. It seems every one of import was there at this most important event.

Everyone that is, except the Holy Spirit. Do those who teach the trinity think his invitation got lost in the Mail or something?

No, you just don't read what's clearly written:

Revelation 4:5
From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God.

--

Cross-reference that with the "seven-fold Spirit" of Isaiah. If you interpret Scripture with Scripture, you cannot deny that htis is the Holy Spirit surrounding and emanating from the throne - which is exactly where he should be.

 

[Cody2]

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." KJV

God is a Trinity.

 

[BreadAlone]

Can you explain how God is considered to be one being existing in three distinct persons?

That was the intent of my post. The persons of the Trinity are God fulfilling distinct roles. The Father, infinite and boundless, is complemented by the Son, who became finite for us - and sent the Spirit of Truth to dwell within us for eternity, the Breath of Life which we lost in the Fall.

It makes perfectly beautiful sense in that context. If you think of it as "there are three people sitting in heaven," it'll lose you. There is one God who manifests Himself in three persons for different purposes.

 

[judechild]

Can you explain how God is considered to be one being existing in three distinct persons?

I will try:

If you ask me "what are you?" I would answer "I am human;" that is a question of my nature. If you ask me "who are you?" I would answer "I am Judechild;" that is a question of my person.

If you ask God "what are you?" He would answer "I am God." If you ask Him "Who are You?" He would answer "I am the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (See Matthew 28:19). God: one nature; three Persons.

 

[Deut 5:29]

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." KJV

God is a Trinity.

Oh please....not one of you guys again. Even the most novice Bible student knows better than that.

Some cite parts of 1Jo. 5:7-8 which no reliable manuscript contains. 1Jo.5:7-8 should read 7 For there are three that bear witness the Spirit the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

{Of course they agree. The water represents our baptisms, the blood cleanses us of our sins, and God gives us His Spirit to help us along the way. All three are major factors in our conversion. Of course they agree!}

The words added to 1Jo.5:7-8 were added to the margin of the Latin Vulgate in about 545 A.D. then into Greek in about 1215A.D. The added words are totally bogus. They’re meant to lead people into the false doctrine of the trinity.

 

[cubinity]

The Holy Spirit is God’s Power, not a third individual in the godhead. There are two individuals in the godhead, God the Father and God the Son.

I am of the personal conviction that Christianity is only beneficial as a tool as we personal relate with God, His church and His Kingdom. Therefore, when I ask you a personal question or make a personal statement, I'm not trying to argue with you, debunk you, or ad hominen (sp?). I'm just trying to better understand where you're coming from, and to better communicate where I'm coming from.

My questions go something like this: What is the practical necessity to perceive God one way over the other? Is such a specific necessity Scriptural? Why do so many make the Trinity, or what Jesus is, a fundamental argument? Does one's perception of God always have to originate from the Bible, or can tradition and communal agreement also work when developing a working knowledge of what God is like?

As I've already stated, none of the authors of the Bible were Trinitarians. This is in agreement with how you described the development of the doctrine. However, I found insisting against the Trinity made relating with other Christians more difficult, not less difficult, so I accepted it as a working perception of a God I admit I can't possibly have figured out.

If a person's fate does not hang in the balance, then couldn't we apply Paul's teachings in Romans 14 to this core religious issue?

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand... For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat... Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that nothing is unclean in itself."

I realize this is contextualized by Paul into an argument over kosher laws and sabbath laws. However, acknowledging those were the core religious teachings of his day, I feel it is appropriate to re-contextualize his statements to also apply to the core religious teachings of our day. (Isn't that what we do with the rest of Scripture, anyway?)

Again: What is the practical necessity to perceive God one way over the other?

 

[Doveaman]

Siamese twins are seen as a biological defect of genetic mutation, hence why they are seperated if possible. I don't think we should say that God is analagous to a genetic defect.

The only thing that God considers a defect is our inner character. That's why he is now working so hard and experiencing so much pain to repair it.

Would you consider this a defect?:

Rev 4:6-8:
In the midst of the throne, and around the throne, were four living creatures full of eyes in front and in back...The four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within.

 

[Doveaman]

I think I understand what you're getting at with this OP, and it is an interesting riddle. However, the practical application of any possible solution evades me...

As you pursue your riddle, I encourage you to keep practical application in mind. Remember, Christianity is a practical faith, and if there is no practicality in what you're pursuing, then I think it is important to ask why you're pursuing it at all.

Well, one practical application I can think of is having an understanding that makes some kind of sense of God's triune nature. Another practical application is having the ability to explain God's triune nature to others in a way the makes some kind of sense.

1 Peter 3:15:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

 

[Deut 5:29]

Again: What is the practical necessity to perceive God one way over the other?

God is love among other things one of which is truth.
We are to love truth. Believing lies about who God is, damages our personel relationship with God. That of course is the idea.

 

[Doveaman]

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." KJV

God is a Trinity.

Just so you know, the OP is presented as an explanation of the Trinity. It recognizes that “there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” - 1 John 5:7.

How this Trinity is defined is where we may disagree. For you God maybe one being existing in three distinct persons. For me God is one Holy Spirit being existing as two distinct persons, the Father and the Son.

The Siamese twins analogy offers a reasonable simple explanation of what I consider the Trinity might be like as one Spirit being: God is one Spirit being existing as two distinct persons, somewhat similar to how Siamese twins are one fleshly being existing as two distinct persons.

God does reveal Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and these three are one. What this means to me is that God reveals Himself “individually” as Father or Son, and He also reveals Himself “collectively” as Father and Son in the form of the Holy Spirit. God is one Holy Spirit (Father and Son) existing as two distinct persons (Father or Son).

 

[Evergreen48]

If you think of it as "there are three people sitting in heaven," it'll lose you. . . . . . [snip]

Yes, that is true. Especially since Jesus has ascended to where He was before.

Where was He before?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God."

Jesus' returning to where He was before speaks to me on this wise: Since He has returned to where He was before, He is again the Word which was with God, and was God. (This is incomprehensible to me, so I take it by faith, and would never try to explain it.) The Word became flesh and was identified as a man who was called Jesus. (If the Word became something else, then it was no longer what it originally was.) So, I do not believe that flesh and blood man who was called Jesus, was God. But I sure do believe that He was what God wanted all of us to be. But none of us 'made the grade'. Only Jesus did that. Since He was as human as we and He did, we could have also. But we didn't. Because we could have, but didn't, this makes us oh so very guilty! That is why we need Jesus, the only perfect One, as our Saviour.

 

[Doveaman]

K, lets look at your analogy.
God the Father is not the HS and God the Son is not the HS. It fails from the start.

I think not:

2 Cor 3:17:
Now the Lord is the Spirit.

John 14
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

Here are all 3 which Jesus addresses as being distinctive of one another.

Distinct but not separate; they are all one Spirit being, the Holy Spirit being.

Let’s go a few verses back:

John 14:16-18:
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Notice that when the Holy Spirit comes to us Christ also comes to us. The coming of the Holy Spirit is the coming of Christ. The Holy Spirit in us is the Son in us. The Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son in us.

2 Cor 3:17:
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The Lord Jesus is also the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is of, or from, the Lord Jesus. The personhood of the Holy Spirit is the personhood of the Father and the Son revealed through the Holy Spirit.

Siamese twins are attached with very little opportunity of working independently.

They can work independently, however, but not separately because they are one fleshly being. That’s why I used them as an analogy of the Father and the Son who can work independently – the Father in heaven and the Son on earth – but not separately because they are one Spirit being, one Holy Spirit being.

The Lord is the Spirit. - 2 Cor 3:17.

"I and My Father are one." - John 10:30.

All 3 distinct persons of the Trinity work distinctively

I consider them two distinct persons working as one Holy Spirit.

but are not 3 modes.

Agreed. They are 3 revelations of God. God reveals Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Doveaman]

The Holy Spirit is God’s Power, not a third individual in the godhead.
There are two individuals in the godhead, God the Father and God the Son.

I have no problem with this. To me it is God the Father and God the Son existing as one Holy Spirit being.

Notice this admission in the New Bible Dictionary: "The term 'Trinity' is not itself found in the Bible. It was first used by Tertullian at the close of the 2nd century, but received wide currency and formal elucidation [clarification] only in the 4th and 5th centuries" (1996, "Trinity," emphasis added).

That's probably why this thread was moved to the unorthodox section.

The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, the Holy Spirit is referred to as a gift. We are told that it can be quenched, that it can be poured out, and that we are baptized with it. It must be stirred up within us, and it also renews us. These are certainly not attributes of a person.

Well, these are just metaphorical terms explaining what God does with Himself. Paul used such terms, too, when he said:

But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. - Phil 2:17.

Christ also used such terms prophetically through the Psalmist when He said on the cross:

I am poured out like water, And all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It has melted within Me. - Ps 22:14.

It’s metaphorical speech, that’s all.

This Spirit is also called "the holy Spirit of promise ... the guarantee of our inheritance ... the spirit of wisdom and revelation ...".

Well, God did promise Himself to us, and His promises are guaranteed, and He is wise, and He does reveal stuff.

In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in their form and shape, the Holy Spirit is just as consistently represented in a completely different manner. It is described as appearing as a dove and as "tongues of fire". Jesus compared it with "living water".

More metaphorical speech. See above.

The Gospels record further evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a person. In Matthew 1:20, we read that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit (Moffatt translation). Yet Christ continually prayed to and addressed the Father, not the Holy Spirit, as His father. Never did He represent the Holy Spirit as His Father.

If the Holy Spirit is of the Father, and the Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Father, then the Holy Spirit can be considered as one Spirit existing as two distinct persons, the Father and the Son.

Nor did Jesus speak of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person; instead He only spoke of the relationship between Him and God the Father.

Yes, but He explained that relationship as a Spirit of unity and oneness:

God is Spirit. - John 4:24.

"I and My Father are one." - John 10:30.

One Spirit existing as two distinct persons.

If the godhead were a Trinity, surely the apostle Paul would have understood and emphasized this in his teaching. Yet we find no such concept in his writings. Paul's standard greeting in his letters to churches, as well as individuals to whom he wrote, is, "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." There is no mention of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is always left out of these greetings—an unbelievable oversight if the Holy Spirit were indeed a person coequal with God and Jesus.

That’s a good point.

If my Siamese twins analogy is a good analogy and one twin represented the Father and the other the Son, and their united, fleshly body represented the Holy Spirit, then when addressing the twins we might simply address them as Father and Son without addressing their (Holy Spirit) body.

The apostle Paul states clearly that "there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ. He makes no mention of the Holy Spirit as a divine person.

Well, if that one Father and that one Son exist as one Holy Spirit, then to mention the Father and the Son is to mention the Holy Spirit, because the Father and Son exist as one Holy Spirit being, just as the Siamese twins exist as one fleshly being.

The final book of the Bible (and the last to be written) describes "a new heaven and a new earth" (Revelation 21:1) wherein "the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them" (verse 3). Jesus Christ, "the Lamb," is also there (verse 22). The Holy Spirit, however, is conspicuously absent—another inconceivable oversight if this Spirit is the third person of a Trinity.

Agreed.

"Many other scriptures show this connection between the Holy Spirit and God's power. For example, Paul reminded Timothy that "God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). Other scriptures refer to the Holy Spirit as the power of God (Zechariah 4:6; Micah 3:8).

It also refers to the Holy Spirit as the “love” of God and the “sound mind” of God, suggesting personality.

Luke 4:14 records that Jesus Christ began His ministry "in the power of the Spirit." Speaking of the Holy Spirit, which would be given to His followers after His death, Jesus told them, "You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you ..." (Acts 1:8)...

The Holy Spirit is the very presence of God's power actively working in His servants (Psalm 51:11; 139:7).

Power lies within the body. The power of the Siamese twins lies within their united, fleshly body. If the Holy Spirit is the united Spirit “body” of the Father and the Son then we would expect the power of God to be found in the Holy Spirit.

When the Holy Spirit is referred to by personal pronouns such as "he" or "himself" in the Scriptures, this does not prove the Holy Spirit is a person. The translators of the King James Version, influenced by their belief in the Holy Spirit as a third person in the Trinity, generally translated pronouns referring to the Holy Spirit as personal and masculine rather than neuter.

My simple answer to this is:

The holy God will show Himself holy. - Isa 5:16.

God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." - John 4:24.

God is Holy and He is also Spirit, therefore God is Holy Spirit.

God also reveals Himself as personal and masculine rather that neuter.

Therefore, the personhood of the Holy Spirit is the personhood of God - Father and Son - revealed through the Holy Spirit.

 

[2ducklow]

Yes, that is true. Especially since Jesus has ascended to where He was before.

Where was He before?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God."

Jesus' returning to where He was before speaks to me on this wise: Since He has returned to where He was before, He is again the Word which was with God, and was God. (This is incomprehensible to me, so I take it by faith, and would never try to explain it.) The Word became flesh and was identified as a man who was called Jesus. (If the Word became something else, then it was no longer what it originally was.) So, I do not believe that flesh and blood man who was called Jesus, was God. But I sure do believe that He was what God wanted all of us to be. But none of us 'made the grade'. Only Jesus did that. Since He was as human as we and He did, we could have also. But we didn't. Because we could have, but didn't, this makes us oh so very guilty! That is why we need Jesus, the only perfect One, as our Saviour.

Rotherham john 6.48 I am the bread of life:-- 49 Your fathers, did eat, in the desert, the manna,--and died: 50 This, is the bread which, out of heaven, cometh down, that one, thereof, may eat,--and not die. 51 I, am the living bread, which, out of heaven, came down: If one eat of this bread, he shall live unto times age-abiding; and, the bread, moreover, which, I, will give, is, my flesh--for the world's life. 52 The Jews, therefore, began to strive one with another, saying--How can this one, unto us, give his flesh to eat? 53 Jesus, therefore, said unto them--Verily, verily, I say unto you--Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have not life within yourselves. 54 He that feedeth upon my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life age-abiding, and, I, will raise him up at the last day; 55 For, my flesh, is, true, food, and, my blood, is, true, drink: 56 He that feedeth upon my flesh, and drinketh my blood, in me, abideth, and, I, in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me,--and I live by reason of the Father, he also that feedeth upon me, even he, shall live by reason of me. 58 This, is the bread, which, out of heaven, came down:--Not just as your fathers did eat--and died! He that feedeth upon this bread, shall live unto times age-abiding. 59 These things, said he, as, in a synagogue, he was teaching, in Capernaum. 60 Many, of his disciples, therefore, when they heard, said--Hard, is this discourse,--Who can, thereunto, hearken? 61 But Jesus, knowing within himself that his disciples were murmuring concerning this, said unto them--Doth, this, cause, you, to stumble? 62 [What] then, if ye should view the Son of Man ascending where he was before? ... "




Jesus is the bread of life, it was the bread of life that desended from heaven, and the bread of life that we are the flesh of and drink the blood of, NOT the man Christ Jesus. the man christ Jesus did not descend from heaven, he was begotten by god and conceived by mary. Clearly Jesus is not a door, or a loaf of bread, or a shepard, and other figures of speech. Jesus is the bread of life that came down from heaven because the Father of Jesus begat him, and because the Father spoke through Jesus the words (bread of life) that we are to believe in to have eternal life.

Rotherham) John 14:10 Believest thou not, that, I, am in the Father, and, the Father, is, in me? The things which I am saying unto you, from myself, I speak not; but, the Father, within me abiding, doeth his works.



to interpret john 6.62 to mean that Jesus existed in heaven before he was born requires that you ignore john chapter 6. clearly we are not to eat the flesh of Jesus because it is fiugrative, and clearly Jesus is only figuratively the bread of life that came down from heaven, and just as clearly Jesus is the bread of life because he spoke god's words which bring life, not eating Jesus flesh. Jesus went back to where he as the bread of life (figuratively ) came from, not where he (the man Jesus ) came from.


Note; what bread did the OT people eat that came down from heaven? the word of god, vs. 58. The OT scriptures do not save, the OT bread does not save, it is NT scriptures that save, it is the NT bread that saves. OT saints had bread that came down from heaven and t hey ate it but they died, those who eat the NT bread that came down from heaven will live forever.

we are to eat the flesh and drink the b lood of the bread of Life who is Jesus. Just like Jesus said he is the light of the world, well really he isn't. it is god who is the light of the world Jesus is really the lamp of god that the light of god shines through. Jesus isn't really the bread of life, he is the one through whom god spoke the words of life that came down from heaven, that is the bread of life that Jesus is in a figurattive sense. We are not to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.

 

[Doveaman]

God is God. The best that we physical humans in a three dimensional universe can understand his reality is with the concept of Trinity.

Any other conception conceives God as something he is not.

My conception of God is a Trinity too. But instead of three in one, He is two as one. Three in one is four. Two as one is three.

 

[Hentenza]

I think not:

2 Cor 3:17:
Now the Lord is the Spirit.

And that's what happens when one takes verses out of context. lol

Distinct but not separate; they are all one Spirit being, the Holy Spirit being.

Let’s go a few verses back:

John 14:16-18:
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Notice that when the Holy Spirit comes to us Christ also comes to us. The coming of the Holy Spirit is the coming of Christ. The Holy Spirit in us is the Son in us. The Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son in us.

Not at all. if you use that logic then you could also wrongly say that the Son is the Father based on verse 9. The verse that you quoted is partially what will happen now (indwelling of the HS) and what will happen later (at that day). Look at verses 19 and 20.

19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

The apostles will see Him because He lives and so will they but "at that day" they will know that Jesus is in the Father just as the apostles are in Him and Him in the apostles. This string of verses are a great representation of the Trinity. Each is a distinct person but united in substance.

2 Cor 3:17:
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The Lord Jesus is also the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is of, or from, the Lord Jesus. The personhood of the Holy Spirit is the personhood of the Father and the Son revealed through the Holy Spirit.
They can work independently, however, but not separately because they are one fleshly being. That’s why I used them as an analogy of the Father and the Son who can work independently – the Father in heaven and the Son on earth – but not separately because they are one Spirit being, one Holy Spirit being.

No, each one is a distinct person since each is referred to as a person. Each has all the basic elements and/or powers of personhood: mind, will, and feeling.

1. The Father is a person. In addition of being referred to as a person ("He"), 3 elements of personhood are attributed to the Father. He has the power of intellect to know (Matt. 6:32). He has the emotional faculty to feel (Gen. 6:6). And He has the power of will to choose (Matt. 6:9-10). In addition, He has personal traits, such as the ability to communicate (Matt. 11:25) and teach (John 7:16-17).

2. The Son is a person. In addition of being referred to as a person ("He"), the Son can communicate and teach (John 7:17) as only persons can do. He too has intellect (John 2:25). He has feeling (John 11:35) and will (John 6:38). The personal pronoun "he" is used consistently to refer to Him.

3. The Holy Spirit is a person. In addition of being referred to as a person ("He", 'His"), all of the elements of personhood are attributed to the HS in scripture. He has a mind (John 14:26). He has will (1 Cor. 12:11). He has feeling (Eph. 4:30). The activities of a person are also attributed to the HS, He seaches, knows, speaks, testifies, reveals, convinces, commands, strives, moves, helps, guides, creates, recreates, sanctifies, inspires, intercedes, orders the affairs of the church, and performs miracles. (See Gen.6:3, Luke 12:12, John 3:8, 16:7-8, Acts 8:29, Romans 8:26, 1 Cor. 2:11, Eph. 4:30, 2 Peter 1:21, etc. ).

 

[Evergreen48]

Jesus is the bread of life, it was the bread of life that desended from heaven, and the bread of life that we are the flesh of and drink the blood of, NOT the man Christ Jesus. the man christ Jesus did not descend from heaven, he was begotten by god and conceived by mary. Clearly Jesus is not a door, or a loaf of bread, or a shepard, and other figures of speech. Jesus is the bread of life that came down from heaven because the Father of Jesus begat him, and because the Father spoke through Jesus the words (bread of life) that we are to believe in to have eternal life.

I agree with you that Jesus' flesh and blood did not come down from heaven. So it would follow that His flesh and blood was not what ascended to the Father.

to interpret john 6.62 to mean that Jesus existed in heaven before he was born requires that you ignore john chapter 6. clearly we are not to eat the flesh of Jesus because it is fiugrative, and clearly Jesus is only figuratively the bread of life that came down from heaven, and just as clearly Jesus is the bread of life because he spoke god's words which bring life, not eating Jesus flesh. Jesus went back to where he as the bread of life (figuratively ) came from, not where he (the man Jesus ) came from.

I do not believe that the man Jesus 'existed in heaven before He was born.' But I believe the Word which was with God, and was God, did exist before Jesus was born. If not, how could it (the Word) have been made flesh? I believe it was the Word which ascended back to God after Jesus' flesh disintegrated into our earthly atmostphere.

Note; what bread did the OT people eat that came down from heaven? the word of god, vs. 58. The OT scriptures do not save, the OT bread does not save, it is NT scriptures that save, it is the NT bread that saves. OT saints had bread that came down from heaven and t hey ate it but they died, those who eat the NT bread that came down from heaven will live forever.

The 'OT people' ate literal bread, which was only a picture, or a type of that which was to come. That it why it could not give them eternal life.

we are to eat the flesh and drink the b lood of the bread of Life who is Jesus. Just like Jesus said he is the light of the world, well really he isn't. it is god who is the light of the world Jesus is really the lamp of god that the light of god shines through. Jesus isn't really the bread of life, he is the one through whom god spoke the words of life that came down from heaven, that is the bread of life that Jesus is in a figurattive sense. We are not to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.

"And God said, "Let there be light and there was light."

I believe it is quite foolish to try to explain that which is spiritual by mortal reasoning and with mortal speech, let alone enter into an argument about it with anyone. I hold the knowledge and assurance of who Jesus was then, and who He is now in my heart, and I am satisfied with that knowledge and assurance. Because I am mortal I do not know, and cannot speak, the spiritual language that it would take to explain who Jesus was/is. I believe it must be accepted by faith, which I do.

Thank you, 2ducklow for your reply. It is appreciated.

May God bless you.

 

[cubinity]

Well, one practical application I can think of is having an understanding that makes some kind of sense of God's triune nature. Another practical application is having the ability to explain God's triune nature to others in a way the makes some kind of sense.

1 Peter 3:15:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

That is a good answer. Thank you for it.

Some honest feedback:
Making sense of God for one's own edification is certainly a noble and appropriate goal when one is trying to relate with that God. That is exactly why I take the approach on the Trinity that I do. I respect that that is also why you take the approach you do. I have no problem with either view, insofar as neither camp tells the other they can't believe what they believe, seeing as that none of us can every actually wrap our heads around God. As long as we maintain that these are progressive ideas, I think we're on the right track.

One's ability to explain comes from understanding one's own beliefs. This is beneficial for all of us, regardless of what we believe. I appreciate that you are here digging deeper into your beliefs with us, and allowing us to do the same with you. In this way, iron sharpens iron.

Regarding 1 Peter 3:15, remember that the subject about which we are giving a reasonable answer is our hope. It is not assuming we have all the details worked out (as that is impossible), but that we are able to explain why we get the hope we do out of it.

Again, thank you for your clear and concise answer.