Jesus and the Trinity

[Simonline]

Subordination means that the Father is thought to be the first but only as a matter of principle not of reality, not of chronology nor by degree.

that the Father is first, the son is second and the Sprit is third.

Why do you think they are called first, second and third persons of the trinity?

Not by chronology meaning that the son and the spirit are both eternal. That there was never a time that the father existed without the son and the spirit. They are co-eternal

Not by degree meaning that the deity of the son and the spirit was never diminished nor limited in any way. The three are co-equal.

Subordination means that we only recognized the father as the source or the fountain of the godhood. that the two are one with the father.

Isn’t that is what the creeds states,

The father is god.

The son is begotten (not made) of god, true god from true god.

The holy spirit proceeds from the father (and the son.) filio que


the whole of christendom was practically divided into two parts, because the latins added the phrase filio que because they believed that the holy spirit proceeds both from the father and the son. while the greeks believec that the spirit proceeds only from the father.

which ever is true, it is important to see that both the western and eastern church recognized that the father is the source of the spirit.

No. Leaving the issue of filio que aside, the Son and the Holy Spirit are as Eternally Divine as is the Father. What you are arguing implies temporality within the Trinitarian relationship but the Scriptures (and the Athanasian Creed) deny this (Mal.3:6).

You can't say that Eternity is existence without time (and the realm in which God lives) on the one hand but then imply that God has time within his fundamental Nature on the other. That is contradictory.

The Father is not the 'source' of Divinity for either the Son or the Holy Spirit, otherwise we are saying that the Son and the Holy Spirit are dependent upon the Father for their existence?! This is not correct. The Truth is Divinity has no source since it doesn't need one. The three Persons of the Trinity are individually and collectively Eternally self sufficient.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

let me quote tertullian, the man who thought to be the one who coined the word trinity...

if...from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord." But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever." For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.

Modern writers (like Augustine before them) have restated Tertullian as follows: (quote)

One of the comparisons or likenesses I am speaking of is taken from the most glorious object which our eyes see, the sun. That ball of light and heat, which we call most properly the sun, may be compared to the Father, from whom both the Word and the Spirit come. From this sun the light issues, and is as it were a part of it, and yet comes down to our earth and gives light to us. This we may compare to the Word, who came forth from the Father, and came down on earth, and was made man, and who, as St. John tells us, is "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

or

The light comes from the sun, the source of light, but we see the light most clearly when it pieces through the clouds as a sunbeam. When we are sitting in a room and the light shines in and touches us, we are warmed and can feel the light. So, the sun is like the Father, the beam like the Son and the warmth like the Holy Spirit.

(quote)words from John Calvin's Institutes on sourceness of the father...

The observance of order is not meaningless or superfluous, when the Father is thought of as first, then from him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit.

For this reason, the Son is said to come froth from the Father alone; the Spirit, from the Father and the Son at the same time.

When we mark the relation that the Son has with the Father, we rightly make the Father the beginning of the Son.

Even though the name "God" is also common to the Son, it is sometimes applied to the Father par excellence because he is the fountainhead and beginning of deity - and this is done to denote the simple unity of essence.

In respect to order and degree the beginning of divinity is in the Father.

Inasmuch as the Father is first in order ... he is rightly deemed the beginning and fountainhead of the whole of divinity. Thus God without particularization is unbegotten; and the Father also in respect to his person is unbegotten.

Since he is the Son, we say that he exists from the Father.

When a comparison of one person is made with another, the name of God is not to be taken without particularization, but restricted to the Father, seeing that he is the beginning of deity.

Hmmm...let me go away and ponder these profound matters. Last one out, remember to turn all the lights off and lock the door, OK?!

Simonline

 

[Monergism]

Then a person of God is not a person but is something else which means person of god is a misnomer. Which means you are calling a person of God something that it isn't. which means that you are defining trinity with terms that dont mean what they mean, which means you don't have a definition of trinity. you need to call it what it is what ever it really is not call it something it isnt. Calling a person of god a person of god makes any definition of trinity deceptive. Saying the term person isnt the best means it isnt accurate. if you have no accurate term it is better to call it an 'unknown' . the trinity is 3 unknowns that make up one god would be a more accurate definition of trinity than saying persons of god cause you guys don't know what a person of god is . it isn't a being, imagine that god the father a person of god the only true god isnt a being. so if a person isnt a being then what is it? it certainly isnt a person .

The word persona is translated person in English. But it literally means "mask." Did you not understand? Obviously you did not.

 

[2ducklow]

The word persona is translated person in English. But it literally means "mask." Did you not understand? Obviously you did not.

The etemylogical origin of the word isn't important. If you mean god is 3 masks then say God is 3 masks that are one god. but of course no one believes God is made up of 3 masks. mask does not mean person. say what you mean when you descibe trinity. person isn't what you mean for you do not mean that a person of god is a personal being, i.e. person. you don't know what it is so call it what it is an 'unknown.' really trinity is 3 unknowns that make up one god. Because no one has a word for what it is and no one knows what it is, it isn't a being therefore it isnt a person. if it isn't a being it has to be an idea or emotion or personality, something like that. you can't say person is the closest to what it is because the essence of being a person is being a being. a person of god isnt a being. ergo it isn't anything like a person. person is about as far from what a person of god is as anything can be. calling them persons of god is totally misleading to the max.

 

[hybrid]

The word persona is translated person in English. But it literally means "mask." Did you not understand? Obviously you did not.

that's right monergism. actually the word is prosopon. that conveys the idea that the Father was the invisible face. the one that cannot see and one lived. and the other is the visible face of god, which obviously is the son. the expressed image of the invisible god.

actually the greeks are complaning for using the word persona in referring to the three persons of the trinity. they prefer the greek word hypostases. one ousia 3 hypostases. the use of the word personae was because of the language deficit inherent to latin.

but what the greek meant by three hypostases, is not yet clear to me.

 

[hybrid]

Hmmm...let me go away and ponder these profound matters. Last one out, remember to turn all the lights off and lock the door, OK?!

Simonline

Here’s more how the creeds recognizes the sourceness of the father.

The Ncene Creed: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God....

The Chalcedonian Definition: Before the ages, begotten of the Father according to his Deity....

The Athanasian Creed: (the Son) God, of the Substance of the Father begotten before the worlds....

The Westminster Confession of Faith.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.


Orthodox Catechism:

GOD THE FATHER is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. The Scriptures reveal the one God is Three Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- eternally sharing the one divine nature. From the Father the Son is begotten before all ages and all time (Psalm 2:7; II Corinthians 11:31). It is from the Father that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (John 15:26).


Even the words used by scriptures like…

Word of god, denotes that the word had its source from the speaker.

“of” is a preposition that denotes sourcness

son is a word that denotes sourceness from the father.

Begotten has it sourceness from the begetter

 

[Monergism]

The etemylogical origin of the word isn't important.

Then quit complaining.

If you mean god is 3 masks then say God is 3 masks that are one god. but of course no one believes God is made up of 3 masks. mask does not mean person.

But persona, which is Latin, literally means "mask," and was rendered as "person" in the English language. But for you, etymology means nothing.

say what you mean when you descibe trinity. person isn't what you mean for you do not mean that a person of god is a personal being, i.e. person. you don't know what it is so call it what it is an 'unknown.' really trinity is 3 unknowns that make up one god. Because no one has a word for what it is and no one knows what it is, it isn't a being therefore it isnt a person. if it isn't a being it has to be an idea or emotion or personality, something like that. you can't say person is the closest to what it is because the essence of being a person is being a being. a person of god isnt a being. ergo it isn't anything like a person. person is about as far from what a person of god is as anything can be. calling them persons of god is totally misleading to the max.

All you're doing, my friend, is playing semantics. First, you say that "person" is a misnomer, because when the Trinitarian speaks of "person," he does not mean as it would be said in the English usage. But, the word "all" has various definitions. If we say, "All of the world," we are only speaking of the entire world. But if we say, "All of Judea came to be baptized," we aren't really saying that "all" of Judea came to be baptized. Rather, it would be rendered "many." As I said before, if God is called a person, it should be understood that "person" here denotes that God is personal. And as I have conceded yesterday, the term "person" isn't the greatest word when speaking of the Trinity, and for good reason. As we can see, you do not understand what anyone means when they say "person" when speaking of the Trinity.

The Trinitarian doesn't even say, "one being, three persons." On the contrary. Instead, the Trinitarian says, "one substance, three persons." What a totally different view of what you are even speaking of. It can also be said, "one substance, three subsistences," or "one substance, three hypostases." Unlike "person" for the English usage, the term "person" in the Trinity is interdependent. Without the Father, there would be no God. Without the Son, there would be no God, and without the Holy Spirit, there would be no God. While man is not interdependent of other men, the persons in the Trinity are interdependent. What a different view. The saying was right when one said that trying to understand the Trinity would cause you to lose your mind.

 

[Monergism]

Word of god, denotes that the word had its source from the speaker.

This does not necessarily mean that the Son of God was made.

son is a word that denotes sourceness from the father.

Son can be used to show a relationship of the Father and Son.

Begotten has it sourceness from the begetter

The Nicene Creed also states, "...begotten; not made..."

 

[Simonline]

Here’s more how the creeds recognizes the sourceness of the father.

The Ncene Creed: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God....

The Chalcedonian Definition: Before the ages, begotten of the Father according to his Deity....

The Athanasian Creed: (the Son) God, of the Substance of the Father begotten before the worlds....

The Westminster Confession of Faith.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.


Orthodox Catechism:

GOD THE FATHER is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. The Scriptures reveal the one God is Three Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- eternally sharing the one divine nature. From the Father the Son is begotten before all ages and all time (Psalm 2:7; II Corinthians 11:31). It is from the Father that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (John 15:26).


Even the words used by scriptures like…

Word of god, denotes that the word had its source from the speaker.

“of” is a preposition that denotes sourcness

son is a word that denotes sourceness from the father.

Begotten has it sourceness from the begetter

I get the point, believe me.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

The etemylogical origin of the word isn't important. If you mean god is 3 masks then say God is 3 masks that are one god. but of course no one believes God is made up of 3 masks. mask does not mean person. say what you mean when you descibe trinity. person isn't what you mean for you do not mean that a person of god is a personal being, i.e. person. you don't know what it is so call it what it is an 'unknown.' really trinity is 3 unknowns that make up one god. Because no one has a word for what it is and no one knows what it is, it isn't a being therefore it isnt a person. if it isn't a being it has to be an idea or emotion or personality, something like that. you can't say person is the closest to what it is because the essence of being a person is being a being. a person of god isnt a being. ergo it isn't anything like a person. person is about as far from what a person of god is as anything can be. calling them persons of god is totally misleading to the max.

Of course the etymological origin of the word is important! The word persona (from which we get the English word person) originally meant 'mask' or 'character' or 'role' (as in the part played by an actor). It effectively meant personality but without the association of a corporeal [physical] body. Thus, personality is not dependent upon a corporeal body for its existence (as you will discover when you die, before you receive your resurrection body, whether as a believer or unbeliever). As I have said before, this is your blind spot. You obviously cannot conceive of personality apart from a corporeal body (i.e. a finite physical creature). And it is this understanding that you are using to try and understand God. Thus your belief is not based upon what the Scriptures teach (Jn.4:24) but rather upon your own very limited (and defective) understanding.

How can a person not be a personal being?! The Trinity is One Being made up of three Persons, all of whom are personal persons (each one 'I' in their own right). However, notice that no Person of the Trinity ever uses the plural pronoun 'we', since God is One Being and not three beings? Whether with reference to any one Person of the Godhead or God entire the personal pronoun is always 'I'. What does that tell you?

If 'the essensce of being a person is being a being' (?!) then what you are saying is that absolutely everything that has existence [i.e. is a being] is a person (including animals and all inanimate objects)?! You really are out of your tree! You have absolutely no idea about what you are saying.

'a person of god isnt a being. ergo it isn't anything like a person. person is about as far from what a person of god is as anything can be. calling them persons of god is totally misleading to the max' So now you believe that God is completely impersonal in the way that Eastern spirituality would have us believe?! If that's the kind of god in which you believe then you'd be better off as a Buddhist, but definitely not as a Christian.

My mind boggles?!

Simonline.

 

[hybrid]

[/font][/font]

This does not necessarily mean that the Son of God was made.




Son can be used to show a relationship of the Father and Son.



The Nicene Creed also states, "...begotten; not made..."

i am not implying that the son was created nor made. from my previous posts I made it quite clear that God without particularization was unbegotten and uncreated. that the son is eternally begotten by the father. that the begotteness of the son is not referring to his beginning but to his nature so that the son is also etenal and the father never existed at any time without the son. they are co-eternal.

what i am saying is that the source of the deity of the son is from the father. this is how it is understood by traditional orthodox chrisitianity. the father and the son are not twins. the son is god because his father is god and not in his own right. that the trinity is not a divine comittee of gods, neither a triad of divine race.

 

[hybrid]

The Trinitarian doesn't even say, "one being, three persons."

yes. though this is a common mistake.​

​

On the contrary. Instead, the Trinitarian says, "one substance, three persons." What a totally different view of what you are even speaking of. It can also be said, "one substance, three subsistences," or "one substance, three hypostases."

amen to that​

Unlike "person" for the English usage, the term "person" in the Trinity is interdependent. Without the Father, there would be no God. Without the Son, there would be no God, and without the Holy Spirit, there would be no God. While man is not interdependent of other men, the persons in the Trinity are interdependent. The saying was right when one said that trying to understand the Trinity would cause you to lose your mind.

but you do have a good grasped though.


​

 

[2ducklow]

It effectively meant personality but without the association of a corporeal [physical] ).

'''that would mean that a person of God is a personality; therefore; a person of god should be called a personality of god.

How can a person not be a personal being?!

You didn't explain how. a person is not a personal being if a person is not a personal being it is an impersonal being such as a rock or cat.

The Trinity is One Being made up of three Persons, all of whom are personal persons (

. there is no such thing as an impersonal person. a person with no personal attributes would not be a person. it would be a rock or a tree etc. they aren't persons.

However, notice that no Person of the Trinity ever uses the plural pronoun 'we', since God is One Being and not three beings?

This doesn 't prove your premise that a personal being isnt a person. it is a restatement of trinity that 3 persons = one god. Jesus never said we with reference to himself. god the father never said we with reference to himself would logically mean that they aren't several people that are one people. that is if you want to put a logical spin to it.

Whether with reference to any one Person of the Godhead or God entire the personal pronoun is always 'I'

Which means that a person is a personal being because non beings never say I. You still haven't proved that a person isn't a personal being.

If 'the essensce of being a person is being a being' (?!) then what you are saying is that absolutely everything that has existence [i.e. is a being] is a person (including animals and all inanimate objects)?!

A person has (1) existance or being (it be). A person also has (2.) personal attributes . A person has to have both to be a person lacing either one of these 2 essentials, it is not a person. anything that doesn't exist, or isnt a being isnt a person.
A rock has existance or being (it be) A rock has no personal attributes. A rock is not a person..

 

[larchen]

The reason why multiple personalities are a disorder in humans is because we were created by the Creator to be unitarian in nature. Just because we are unitarian in nature it does not follow that the Creator also has to be unitarian in Nature (especially when he has revealed himself to be Trinitarian in Nature). We need to start from God's own revelation of himself in the Scriptures and not from our own subjective experience and defective/impaired reasoning and logic. Only then will we be likely to reach the correct conclusions.

No, it is absolutely not a basic tenent of the Christian faith that "There is one God, in whom is the Divine Trinity, and that God is the Lord Jesus Christ". That is 'Oneness' heresy. Orthodox conservative Evangelical Christianity affirms the Biblical Truth that God by Nature is strictly Trinitarian and not Unitarian. God is Trinitarian in Nature and the Messiah is the Living Incarnation of God but there is more to God than the Living Incarnation. The Messiah is only one of the three Persons of the Trinity, not all three Persons combined into one. It is the Being which is One, not the Persons.

As for Emmanuel Swedenborg, he was a heretic: http://www.carm.org/list/swedenborg.htm, therefore I will not accept anything that man espouses as authoritative (and you would be wise not to either).

Again, you are starting from your own subjective experience, flawed human reasoning and logic rather than Divine Revelation. On that basis your conclusions are guaranteed to be wrong.

Simonline.

So, even in the face of Biblical evidence which claims God is one, throughout the Old Testament and also in the New Testament (ex. "For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:9) you still believe blindly that there is a pluralty of persons in God? As there is nothing then to argue with I guess I will pursue the matter no further. If you disagree with the Bible there is nothing I can do. Thanks for responding to my post.

Cheers, a skylark

 

[Mikecpking]

There is a problem with the term 'person'. Tertullan used 'Personae, but this has been tranliterated into 'Person' and this is too strong a concept to define the distinctions in the Trinity. 'Person' does not convey the ideas implied by early Christians.
There is no term in English that describes distinction with difference.

"
'person''''suggests 'tri-theism' but stripped of 'individuality' might do.


- . 'aspect' suggests 'modalism', but stripped of 'impersonality' might do
God is not three individuals, 'but personal self-distinctions within one divine essence'; while each is self conscious and self directing there is never opposition, or independence of will, feeling or action.

. God is in himself a threefold centre of life but his life is not split into' three; he is one in

Essence, personality and will."

Quote from Noel Moules "The God Head"

 

[2ducklow]

There is a problem with the term 'person'. Tertullan used 'Personae, but this has been tranliterated into 'Person' and this is too strong a concept to define the distinctions in the Trinity. 'Person' does not convey the ideas implied by early Christians.
There is no term in English that describes distinction with difference.

So are you saying that there should be some word that means distinction with difference? why not just say that god is revealed in 3 distinctions with difference if that is the meaning instead of the incorrect term 'person'? Actually saying distinction and difference mean about the same thing. So saying god is made up of 3 differences or 3 distinctions kinda means nothing.

"
'person''''suggests 'tri-theism' but stripped of 'individuality' might do.

that would equate to tri-thiesm with plurality. which only makes it worse.

- . 'aspect' suggests 'modalism', but stripped of 'impersonality' might do
God is not three individuals, 'but personal self-distinctions within one divine essence'; while each is self conscious and self directing there is never opposition, or independence of will, feeling or action.

All of which has no meaning that I can see. What is a personal self-distinction? God has 3 personal self distinctions? that doesn't mean anything to me. One divine essence? what does that mean? one god? the essence of something is the essential parts not the non essential parts so that would be saying only one essential divine part. which is nonsensical.

. God is in himself a threefold centre of life but his life is not split into' three; he is one in

Essence, personality and will."

Quote from Noel Moules "The God Head"

3 fold centre of life? what does that mean? 3 fold what is 3 fold? one in essence conveys no meaning to me. one personality one will ok i can buy that. Although really I don't consider god a person or to have a personality but for the sake of argument i argue the point as if god were a person and had a personality. I believe only humans are persons.

 

[Mikecpking]

So are you saying that there should be some word that means distinction with difference? why not just say that god is revealed in 3 distinctions with difference if that is the meaning instead of the incorrect term 'person'? Actually saying distinction and difference mean about the same thing. So saying god is made up of 3 differences or 3 distinctions kinda means nothing.
[/size][/font]

that would equate to tri-thiesm with plurality. which only makes it worse.

[/font]

It does mean something, there is obviously a distinction between the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.!

All of which has no meaning that I can see. What is a personal self-distinction? God has 3 personal self distinctions? that doesn't mean anything to me. One divine essence? what does that mean? one god? the essence of something is the essential parts not the non essential parts so that would be saying only one essential divine part. which is nonsensical. 3 fold centre of life? what does that mean? 3 fold what is 3 fold? one in essence conveys no meaning to me. one personality one will ok i can buy that. Although really I don't consider god a person or to have a personality but for the sake of argument i argue the point as if god were a person and had a personality. I believe only humans are persons.

2ducklow

Same divine essence means one God

3 fold centre of life means the 3 distinctions in the God head ( Example Jesus' baptism). When in Genesis 'we are made in his image' , image means character and person.

Do you actually believe in the Trinity?

 

[2ducklow]

It does mean something, there is obviously a distinction


.between the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.!

Thats not what I said. distinction with difference is the same thing, if something is distinct from something else it is different that something else/ If you mean that each person is really a distinction, then call it what it is 1st ,,,2nd and 3rd distinctions of god, A person is a being and since trinity states that a person isnt a being that means a person of god doesn't exist. so you can't call it what it aint. i aint a person is something that doesnt even exist for if it isnt a being then it has no existance. it would only be an idea of some kind or an emotion or personality. something that doesnt exist. trinity is defined by words that dont mean what they really mean. person in the context of trinity means something totally different than the word person, it really has no meaning because no one knows what it is.

2ducklow

Same divine essence means one God

Just a restating of 3 is one in diffferent terms. i.e. 3 persons of god are the same essence. It is just changing words to conceal the same contradictory concept namely that 3 is one.

3 fold centre of life means the 3 distinctions in the God head ( Example Jesus' baptism). When in Genesis 'we are made in his image' , image means character and person.

Do you actually believe in the Trinity?

3 fold centre of life = 3 distinctions = 3 persons = one god head. Same thing just different terms.
An image of something is not the thing it is an image of. A painting or photograph is an image of something. a statue of king david isn't king david it is an image of king david. We were created by god in certain ways that are an image of god. We can receive the word of god, animals cant. we have human spirits and god is spirit therefore we can fellowship in the spiritual realm, either with demons or god and his angels. animals can't do that. I woudl say that is how we are created in the image of god, basically.

I believe there is only one god god the father and jesus is the son of the only god there is. Jesus isn't his own father, Jesus isn't god. he is the son of god. so no I do not subscribe to the trinitarian doctrine, in any form.

 

[Mikecpking]

I believe there is only one god god the father and jesus is the son of the only god there is. Jesus isn't his own father, Jesus isn't god. he is the son of god. so no I do not subscribe to the trinitarian doctrine, in any form.

That is where we differ. The bible is very clear who Jesus was:

Hebrew Scriptures:

Messiah ascribed with divinity:

Isiah 7:14 ..and shall call his name Immanual 'God with us'

Isiah 9 6 He will be called wonderful, counsellor, Mighty God..

Jesus Christ is truly God the son and distictly God the Son:

John 1 v 1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:18


18 No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Col 2:9 9 For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

Titus 2:13 13 while we wait for the blessed hope— the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

Jesus links himself with the God of Israel:

Mt 22:43-46: Jesus says he is the 'Son', not just of David, but from a source that made him David's lord, and that this had been so even when David uttered the words of Ps 110.

Jn 8:58-59: Jesus identifies himself directly with Yahweh; "Before Abraham was, I am". There are also the distinct "I am ..." sayings throughout John's gospel.

Jn 18:5-6: Jesus, when asked to identify himself in Gethsemene, utters the declaration, "I am", and they all fall backwards; there is shock at his statement and power in the words.

I think it is without a doubt that Jesus was God in human form.

So my question to you is if there was only one God as you state correctly and you quite correctly state that Jesus was the Son of God, where in your opinion did Jesus come from? Also what about the Holy Spirit; what is that to you?

 

[2ducklow]

That is where we differ. The bible is very clear who Jesus was:

Hebrew Scriptures:

Messiah ascribed with divinity:

Isiah 7:14 ..and shall call his name Immanual 'God with us'

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, thatGod was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God was with us because god was in christ therefore everywhere christ went god went as well..

Isiah 9 6 He will be called wonderful, counsellor, Mighty God..

John 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

Jesus name shall be called the everlasting father,the mighty god because he has the name of his father who is the everlasting father, the mighty god.

Jesus Christ is truly God the son and distictly God the Son:

John 1 v 1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good?there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

god's words arent god anymore than your words are you. It's personification time.

John 1:18


18 No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

lots of people saw jesus no one ever saw god ergo jesus isn't the one (God) whom no one has ever seen. good scritpure course really they all are good scritpure and that is the key to unlocking the truth in any scirpture.

Col 2:9 9 For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

in christ not is christ. all the fullness of the diety was in him not is him.

Titus 2:13 13 while we wait for the blessed hope— the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;ASV
no commas in the original manuscripts. where one puts the comma in this scripture is determined by ones doctrine. in effect the comma becomes an interpretation.

Jesus links himself with the God of Israel:

Mt 22:43-46: Jesus says he is the 'Son', not just of David, but from a source that made him David's lord, and that this had been so even when David uttered the words of Ps 110.

Psalms 2:7 I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee.

At the time the ps. was written it says Jesus was conceived that day. not true Jesus was conceived much latter after Mary had been born and come to maturity that is when Jesus was born.

Jn 8:58-59: Jesus identifies himself directly with Yahweh; "Before Abraham was, I am". There are also the distinct "I am ..." sayings throughout John's gospel.

John 8:27 They perceived not that he spake to them of the Father.

They didn't know Jesuswas speaking of the Father when he said "I AM".

Jn 18:5-6: Jesus, when asked to identify himself in Gethsemene, utters the declaration, "I am", and they all fall backwards; there is shock at his statement and power in the words.

I think it is without a doubt that Jesus was God in human form.

I think it is without a doubt that God was in Jesus.

So my question to you is if there was only one God as you state correctly and you quite correctly state that Jesus was the Son of God, where in your opinion did Jesus come from? Also what about the Holy Spirit; what is that to you?

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus was conceived miraculously by god with the help of Mary and her egg. no man helped mary conceived God did that part.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


1 Peter 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

God the father is spirit and he is holy. he is the holy spirit. there aren't 2 holy spirits. God the father saying " i send my spirit" is no different than me saying " I send my heart to love you". its called personification.