The trinity is foundational, not an option

[DamianWarS]

I don’t think anyone here denies the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Perhaps, but if they did they would be in violation of CF rules. You're just preaching to the choir here.

 

[New Birth]

No, Jesus Christ = YAHWEH the triune God.

Are you saying All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily? That within Christ is the Father?

 

[Dave L]

Are you saying All the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily? That within Christ is the Father?

You cannot divide God into parts. The holy trinity dwells in the Son of man who speaks as the eternal Son of God.

 

[New Birth]

You cannot divide God into parts. The holy trinity dwells in the Son of man who speaks as the eternal Son of God.

If the trinity dwells in Christ can Christ speak as the Father?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have presented here a very good, rather easy to understand description of what the Trinity is and what it's not.

I had to go look up John 14:10 & 17:21 in the Greek to see if I could get a better sense of what it means. I found the word "in" has different applications.

Here's my theory of what would seem reasonable to me that it would mean.

i picture a circle which represents the essence of God's character and maybe even attributes. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, having no beginning and no end, even "immortal" except in the course of this current universe when the Son took on a human nature. Obviously Jesus's humanity was "killable".

The persons of the Trinity are in that circle of what it represents to be Divine. When Jesus talks about being "in" the Father and the Father "in" him. I don't think that's talking about one being (entity) inside another being; as we associate the Holy Ghost indwelling a believer. I don't see there'd be a practical reason for God to be "inside Himself" in that matter. The notion is silly; for if all 3 persons are wholly God, such arrangement would not be necessary.

It seems more reasonable to me that They are united in the intent, purpose and nature of Divinity; all of the same "substance" (how ever it is we would define what "substance" God is "made out of".)

If that makes sense?

Jesus never says the Spirit is "in him". Yet the Spirit didn't have to be "in" Jesus because Jesus had his own Divine nature (literally) "in" him. What's missing from the equation is that Jesus never talks about the Spirit being "in" the Father or vice versa. So, I'm not exactly sure what that means; but it seems to me this could have something to do with Jesus's humanity.

So that is my "working idea" so to speak and I'd be interested in hearing your feed back about it; as well as your thoughts about imagery we get from the Bible concerning the Father sitting on the throne. The lamb that was slain stands before Him to open the scrolls. The son sits down at the right hand of God the Father. etc.

I acknowledge that the use of this imagery very well may be conveying something to us in a form we can understand, because our only context to be able to relate to, is of our experience of existing in a material world. I've heard people say the "ancient of days" sitting on the throne is Christ; but I'm not inclined to think that is accurate either.

The thing I find intriguing in this imagery is the Father depicted as an entity with a body. Obviously the Father (materially speaking) does not have a body. Yet God as an entity consists of "something". He's obviously "real"; even if the only way we are capable of grasping that realness is through pictorial "allegory" presented in material format.

Does any of that make sense?

The other pondering "floating around" in my head; has to do with the fact that Jesus was the only person of the Godhead to exist in a material form. And thus the necessity for an incorruptible material universe to eventually be created. It is a manifestation of God's expression of creativity.

What happens when an eternally existent entity decides to... make things! LOL

No. I disagree. Nobody in recent history grew up speaking and writing biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek. People are guessing that they know a dead language (When they really do not know it). Just read and believe your Bible in the English. God has preserved His Word for us today, and the Bible is plain in what it says. For it clearly states that Christ was in the Father.

#1. Paul says that God the Father was in Christ (the Son) and He (the Father) was reconciling the world unto Himself.

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

#2. Jesus says that the Father is in him, and He is in the Father and that the disciples may also be one in both the Father and the Son, too.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-23).​

This dispels any notion of a false Oneness doctrine. For Jesus has clearly stated that He was God and He says He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Very clear here. Very simple to understand for all those who just want to simply read their Bible and believe it plainly.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

 

[Dave L]

If the trinity dwells in Christ can Christ speak as the Father?

He doesn't. He speaks as the eternal Son through the incarnate Son of man.

 

[New Birth]

No. I disagree. Nobody in recent history grew up speaking and writing biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek. People are guessing that they know a dead language (When they really do not know it). Just read and believe your Bible in the English. God has preserved His Word for us today, and the Bible is plain in what it says. For it clearly states that Christ was in the Father.

#1. Paul says that God the Father was in Christ (the Son) and He (the Father) was reconciling the world unto Himself.

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

#2. Jesus says that the Father is in him, and He is in the Father and that the disciples may also be one in both the Father and the Son, too.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-23).​

This dispels any notion of a false Oneness doctrine. For Jesus has clearly stated that He was God and He says He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Very clear here. Very simple to understand for all those who just want to simply read their Bible and believe it plainly.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

Its hard to follow this post, it seems to be three in one, maybe thats why its confusing. LOL

 

[The Righterzpen]

No. I disagree. Nobody in recent history grew up speaking and writing biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek. People are guessing that they know a dead language (When they really do not know it). Just read and believe your Bible in the English. God has preserved His Word for us today, and the Bible is plain in what it says. For it clearly states that Christ was in the Father.

#1. Paul says that God the Father was in Christ (the Son) and He (the Father) was reconciling the world unto Himself.

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

#2. Jesus says that the Father is in him, and He is in the Father and that the disciples may also be one in both the Father and the Son, too.

21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-23).​

This dispels any notion of a false Oneness doctrine. For Jesus has clearly stated that He was God and He says He is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Very clear here. Very simple to understand for all those who just want to simply read their Bible and believe it plainly.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

I see what you are saying about language being "dead". But translating Scripture into any language doesn't happen in a vacuum. The origins of the Scripture came from somewhere. If we had not the Hebrew and Greek, we would not have the English translation. The King James that you have today, someone (a lot of someones actually) translated out of Greek and Hebrew.

So yes, you can say someone in our modern era has never read or spoken Hebrew; but that argument also applies to the translators in the 1500's who wrote the King James.

So what does "in the Father" / "in the Son" mean? If we are addressing heresies about the Trinity such as Modalism? Obviously it makes no sense that God would be literally "in Himself". So.... what does that language mean?

Is the English word "in" (or even the word "in" in any language) adequate to convey the meaning? Apparently not, because if it was, we would not be having discussions like this.

 

[New Birth]

He doesn't. He speaks as the eternal Son through the incarnate Son of man.

So the Father is in Christ and Jesus says if you have seen him you have seen the Father. Does this mean Jesus and the Father are One?

 

[Dave L]

So the Father is in Christ and Jesus says if you have seen him you have seen the Father. Does this mean Jesus and the Father are One?

One in spirit and purpose but each a distinct person.

 

[New Birth]

I see what you are saying about language being "dead". But translating Scripture into any language doesn't happen in a vacuum. The origins of the Scripture came from somewhere. If we had not the Hebrew and Greek, we would not have the English translation. The King James that you have today, someone (a lot of someones actually) translated out of Greek and Hebrew.

So yes, you can say someone in our modern era has never read or spoken Hebrew; but that argument also applies to the translators in the 1500's who wrote the King James.

So what does "in the Father" / "in the Son" mean? If we are addressing heresies about the Trinity such as Modalism? Obviously it makes no sense that God would be literally "in Himself". So.... what does that language mean?

Is the English word "in" (or even the word "in" in any language) adequate to convey the meaning? Apparently not, because if it was, we would not be having discussions like this.

Hate to but in here but. I think your looking at the wrong word that needs defining. Maybe if there was an accurate understanding of the "Father" and "Son" it would be easier to see how the Father could in fact be in the Son.

 

[New Birth]

One in spirit and purpose but each a distinct person.

So can you define what Jesus means when he says "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That funny the first question you ask is the same I ask trinitarians who say the Father Son and Spirit are coequal and coeternal.

You are imagining things. I did not ask you this question. You asked me this question.

But to address what you are saying: I believe the three persons of the Godhead are all eternal and they are equal in substance (i.e. equal in being spirit and power), but I do not believe they are equal in rank. Jesus says the Father is greater than Him. Jesus submitted to God the Father. Everything Jesus said and did was a part of the commands from God the Father. The words "Father" and "Son" suggests terms that we are familiar with in that a father is the head over a son. If I understood your view of the Oneness doctrine correctly, the names are just meaningless. They only fit a manifestation of God. So if I am correct in my understanding on your view of God here: Then your God transforms to play different roles like an actor. However, this is not the God of the Bible.

I take it trinitarians do not understand the incarnation very well, There is one Spirit of God and not three right?

Maybe you missed the post, but sometimes pictures speak better than words. Please look back at post #59 for a pictorial example of what I am referring to in regards to the Trinity. Again, it is a crude pictorial example of the Lord our God, but it helps to illustrate what the Scriptures reveal about our God.

Anyways, the example I show helps to illustrate that a being can be one and yet also three persons.

I think you would agree. But we know that one God in different ways. Such as we know God as our Father because he created all things. Would you agree? We also know that one Spirit of God as the Holy Spirit that indwells the believer right. Would you agree its the same Spirit? If so then we can say we know God as our Father and we know the same "not different" God as the Spirit within us. So what is the difference in the Holy Spirit and the Father other than the relationship and how we understand. The same applies to Jesus. Jesus is that same God manifest or known to us as the Son of God. God as man would not come as a nonbeliever but as a man he believed in God "Jesus was not a Atheist" God as a man was limited by self imposed limitations as he was a real man and not an eternal everlasting Son but God became a real person. However the flesh was not deity but the spirit that was in Him was that same Spirit of God. And there is the distinction between the Son and the Father. As a man God was known as the Son yet Jesus could accurately say He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Why Because he was the Father manifest in the flesh.

But this is not what Scripture reveals to us. If such were the case, then Jesus praying to the Father in the garden would be nonsense.

Even the Father speaks to the Son and refers to the Son as God.

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Hebrews 1:8).

This verse would be total nonsense if the Oneness doctrine was true as you say.
But we know that the Oneness doctrine is clearly false. Jesus said in prayer to the Father in the garden that His will be done. This denotes two different wills here. The Father's will and what Jesus desired. In your view of God, this would all just be a show or a deception on our behalf.

The reason blaspheme against the Holy Ghost and not the Son is because the Son was flesh People killed the flesh and were offered mercy. Yet the agent of Mercy is the indwelling Spirit of God. once rejected God has no other way to save. one cant be saved without the Spirit of God in them.

But what about general cursing of God (Which is usually in reference to the Father)? Are we to assume that everyone who has cursed God generally in their early life is condemned? So what about the flesh then? See, the offense is exceptionally bad because it is an attack upon a unique person of the Godhead (i.e. the Holy Ghost). This is rather straight forward and simple to understand, but you do not like this truth, so you are attempting to do a theological gymnastic backflip around this part of Scripture. The question is why.

 

[Call me Nic]

One in spirit and purpose but each a distinct person.

How can two who have the same spirit be different people? If they have the same spirit, they have the same mind. If they have the same mind, they are the same.

 

[Dave L]

How can two who have the same spirit be different people? If they have the same spirit, they have the same mind. If they have the same mind, they are the same.

You are thinking of God materialistically. God is one spirit (spiritual essence) with three persons.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So can you define what Jesus means when he says "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father"?

This is what I was talking about before in regards to my pictorial example I showed you before in post #59. I told you to imagine that the object in the picture was three dimensional so that you could fill it with liquid. Please refer back to my example there to see what I am talking about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I see what you are saying about language being "dead". But translating Scripture into any language doesn't happen in a vacuum. The origins of the Scripture came from somewhere. If we had not the Hebrew and Greek, we would not have the English translation. The King James that you have today, someone (a lot of someones actually) translated out of Greek and Hebrew.

So yes, you can say someone in our modern era has never read or spoken Hebrew; but that argument also applies to the translators in the 1500's who wrote the King James.

I believe the preservation of Scripture was by divine means just as it's authorship is by divine means. I believe this because that is what Scriptures states. For God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). I believe this to be the King James. However, I do use Modern Translations to sometimes help in updating the 1600's English in the KJV. But I do not make Modern Translations my final word of authority because they have made a ton of ungodly changes to God's Word. They can be helpful, but we also have to be careful in using them, though.

So what does "in the Father" / "in the Son" mean? If we are addressing heresies about the Trinity such as Modalism? Obviously it makes no sense that God would be literally "in Himself". So.... what does that language mean?

What you view as illogical or impossible is not impossible for God. God is unique and different than our modern mind can fully comprehend. If God is one and yet He also exists distinctly as three separate persons (i.e. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) which is what the definition of the Trinity is all about, then we can say that the different persons of God can dwell within Himself in being one God. If you deny the unique persons of the Godhead (like the Oneness type individuals), then this is a problem to reconcile.

Is the English word "in" (or even the word "in" in any language) adequate to convey the meaning? Apparently not, because if it was, we would not be having discussions like this.

There is no problem with the word "in" in your Bible. This word has merely become your own enemy because you cannot understand that God can be one in Himself in regards to the different persons of the Godhead or the Trinity.

 

[New Birth]

This is what I was talking about before in regards to my pictorial example I showed you before in post #59. I told you to imagine that the object in the picture was three dimensional so that you could fill it with liquid. Please refer back to my example there to see what I am talking about.

If you have to use crayons and imagination to explain you position you dont have an understanding of your own position.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The issue is you lack the understanding of who God is and because there is the inability to comprehend that God is One and only One, tradition has come up with graphs and circles to help the imagination get a picture of the trinity. This is nonsense you speak of me doing theological gymnastic backflips. Have you stopped to listen to your position?
Jesus said if you have seen him you have seen the Father, how do you get out of that statement by Jesus? The scripture says the Father was in Jesus, how do you get out of that a separation of persons? Not one Jew was a trinitarian not one person in the first century church was a trinitarian this whole doctrine was unheard of in the early church. Trinitarians had to use unbiblical words and terms to define their position. eternal Son, trinity, three persons, one substance, one essence, three distinct persons. This is not found in scripture. But what is found is that Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the lamb is on the throne, when you see Jesus you see the Father.

The Jews wanted to kill Jesus for His claims that He was God.
So yeah, they surely did not comprehend the nature of God.

Imagine if you will three people became energy (and we can still see their human forms) and yet they were all connected together (either by the hands or somewhere else) whereby they are one being now and they could not disconnect from each other. Yet, they could phase inside each other and dwell inside one another (with them each retaining their uniqueness).

While again, this is a crude example to describe the nature of God or the Trinity, it helps to illustrate what I am talking about.

What I see as a gymnastic flip or twist on your part is explaining things like Jesus praying to God. Even in the beginning, God referred to Himself in the plural form. Let US make man in OUR image and OUR likeness. In your Oneness doctrine, sayings like this make no sense and you have to invent a work around in order to explain away the plain meaning of this Scripture (among many others).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you have to use crayons and imagination to explain you position you dont have an understanding of your own position.

Shouldn't the nature of God be difficult to explain because He is God? Can you explain how He does miracles? Can you explain how He has always existed? God is beyond our understanding in many ways. Your attempt to put God into box so that you can understand Him is not what God desires for our lives. We know in part and we look through a glass darkly.