Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[Der Alte]

I'll just pick out a couple...

Irenaeus - Against Heresies Book 1 [120-202 AD] - Disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John

Very properly, then, did he say, “In the beginning was the Word,” for He was in the Son; “and the Word was with God,” for He was the beginning; “and the Word was God, ” of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. “The same was in the beginning with God” …

You forgot the beginning sentence “Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words:”

...your quote fits right here in the middle, then the last three sentences...

“Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the Æons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia. Such are the views of Ptolemæus.”

And you claim what by this, that they taught the Nicene Creed by this?

I was not arguing about the Nicene Creed. If I recall correctly The post I quoted said nothing about the Nicene Creed. If you wish to try to prove I quoted something out-of-context quote the passage in context and show how I was wrong.

Or this one here...

Irenaeus - Against Heresies - Book 4 [120-202 AD] -

And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, … all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God.
...
He, therefore, who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared “No man knoweth the Father,” but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit,
...
For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.
Can you explain to me, how this proves Irenaeus believed as it is taught in the Nicene Creed?

Once again I was not arguing the Nicene Creed.

Besides all this, the Father was in Christ. And according to the Granville Sharp's rule, Thomas was referring to two persons, when Thomas said, “My Lord and my God.”

apekrithē Thōmas kai eipen autō HO Kyrios mou kia ho Theos mou.
Answred Thomas and said to him the Lord of me and the God of me

And since many claim “Lord” means God, would you then say, Thomas is saying, “the God of me and the God of me”

Wrong on two counts Kyrios does NOT "mean" God but it primarily refers to God. There is a big difference. Second you need to brush up on the Granville Sharp rule [GSR] before you try to instruct someone else. Learn why John 20:28 is not a GSR construction.

 

[Der Alte]

Hello Lightray.

Back to the passage I quoted.

Zechariah 11
12 I then said to them, “If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” So they weighed out as
my wages thirty shekels of silver. 13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly
price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the
house of the Lord.

I asked how you would interpret this passage, you replied.

I have printed the verses from seven to ten, are you sure that Zechariah annulled the covenant with Israel?

7 So, on behalf of the sheep merchants, I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. I took two staffs;
one I named Favor, the other I named Unity, and I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I disposed of the three shepherds,
for I had become impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die,
let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another!” 10 I took my staff Favor and broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples.

This is a messianic prophecy, Zechariah does not pasture the flock doomed to slaughter? Zechariah does not break
this staff, '10 I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples.'

Matthew 27
9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the
price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price.

Your interpretation of this passage from Zechariah is incorrect, Lightray.

13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly price at which I was valued by them.

Zechariah 11:12 is considered to be a Messianic prophecy in the Talmud.

Zech. xi. 12 is Messianically explained in Ber. R. 98, but with this remark, that the 30 pieces of silver apply to 30 percepts, which the Messiah is to give to Israel.

Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 9, List Of Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied In Ancient Rabbinic Writings (Book II. ch. 5.), Alfred Edersheim,
​

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

Back to the passage I quoted.

Zechariah 11
12 I then said to them, “If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” So they weighed out as
my wages thirty shekels of silver. 13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly
price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the
house of the Lord.

I asked how you would interpret this passage, you replied.


I have printed the verses from seven to ten, are you sure that Zechariah annulled the covenant with Israel?

7 So, on behalf of the sheep merchants, I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. I took two staffs;
one I named Favor, the other I named Unity, and I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I disposed of the three shepherds,
for I had become impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die,
let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another!” 10 I took my staff Favor and broke it, annulling the covenant that I had made with all the peoples.

This is a messianic prophecy, Zechariah does not pasture the flock doomed to slaughter? Zechariah does not break
this staff, '10 I took my staff Favor and cut it in pieces, to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples.'

Matthew 27
9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the
price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price.

Your interpretation of this passage from Zechariah is incorrect, Lightray.

13 Then the Lord (YHWH) said to me, “Throw it into the treasury”, this lordly price at which I was valued by them.

I'll try agian.

Zechariah said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!” And the people valued Zechariah at thirty shekels of silver. Zechariah represents Christ. Then the LORD said to Zechariah "throw it to the potter," at which they valued Zechariah, and Zechariah castes it into the temple, which represents Judas.

Here this should make it clear...

12 And I [Zechariah] said unto them, If ye think good, give me [Zechariah] my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my [Zechariah] price thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the Lord said unto me [Zechariah], Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I [Zechariah, here represents Christ] was prised at of them. And I [Zechariah, here represents Judas] took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.​

At no time does Zechariah represents the LORD.

 

[7xlightray]

I was not arguing about the Nicene Creed. If I recall correctly The post I quoted said nothing about the Nicene Creed. If you wish to try to prove I quoted something out-of-context quote the passage in context and show how I was wrong.

No, that is why I originally made that post#882, which was a continuation from posts #875, #879, #880. So, when you jumped in, I would only assume this is what you would be addressing, seeing as that was the reason I posted it. Otherwise, why would you reply to my post?

Wrong on two counts Kyrios does NOT "mean" God but it primarily refers to God. There is a big difference. Second you need to brush up on the Granville Sharp rule [GSR] before you try to instruct someone else. Learn why John 20:28 is not a GSR construction.

I was not trying to suggest “Kyrios” means God, but many try to claim "Lord" means God; for example in this passage they try to say, when it states "Lord" Jesus Christ, what Paul really is trying to say, or means by this is God Jesus Christ...

1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,​

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Lightray.

Care to read the following and provide an interpretation.

Joshua 5
13 Once when Joshua was by Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing before him with a drawn sword
in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you one of us, or one of our adversaries?” 14 He replied,
“Neither; but as commander of the Lord's hosts I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and
worshiped, and he said to him, “What do you command your servant, my lord?” 15 The commander of the Lord's
hosts said to Joshua, “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

Care to read the following and provide an interpretation.

Joshua 5
13 Once when Joshua was by Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing before him with a drawn sword
in his hand. Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you one of us, or one of our adversaries?” 14 He replied,
“Neither; but as commander of the Lord's hosts I have now come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and
worshiped, and he said to him, “What do you command your servant, my lord?” 15 The commander of the Lord's
hosts said to Joshua, “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy.” And Joshua did so.

Is this a Bible Study ?
What happened to Zechariah 11?

My understanding was you were going to prove to me YHWH is the Christ, that Jesus is the God.

“No leap, YHWH is the Christ.” “Are you sure Lightray, that I will not find verses to reverse your opinion?”

I think it would be so much easier, if you just gave me hard proof that Jesus is the God, cause I can give hard proof, ...Jesus speaking, not an apostle, John 17:1-3.

Joshua 5 you could argue it one way, and me another, same as Exodus 3. Though if you notice this is not just anyone, nor any angel, but commander of host's. Therefore this does not mean Joshua worshiped him as the God, but reverence for. As the godly men, Joseph, Daniel, and Solomon received worship. What about Lot and the two angels in Gen. 19:1, or, Gen. 23:7 all the same word “H7812,” is Abraham worshiping all theses people as God's? No, we know better. As scripture teaches, there are authorities in heaven, as there are on earth. And on earth we are to submit, and bow to certain authorities on earth, for God has put them there.

 

[ripple the car]

How difficult is it to understand that the One God, YHWH, has a Son and Messiah? Scripture testifies to this over and over. Yes, we honor the Son even as we honor the Father, and even ask Him for things as we ask the Father, but He is not identical with His Father in a literal understanding. He is under and from the Father, and is the image of God in human flesh, as a reflection of His glory in a wholly unique and wonderful way, but at the same time, He has a God; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The earliest Christians wrote extensively about the Father and the Son, about God and His Messiah / Word. Nothing about One God in Three Persons until quite a bit later. Even the casual conversation of Trinitarians makes frequent and simple reference to God and to His Son. It's very simple, so why complicate things beyond what the Scriptures teach?

Thanks to men later complicating Christology beyond the testimony of Scripture, council after council defined more and more complicated, specific theologies, communities of Christians lost communion one with another, and needless battles over Truth ensued. Many even died as either a direct or indirect result of these theological differences. Why hold the Christian world apart needlessly? Why not just affirm the Apostles' Creed and keep it simple?

 

[Wryetui]

Why does the OP considers himself to be a better theologian than the apostles, the saints and the Church Fathers?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Gracia.

Sorry about the delay, I have been away.

How difficult is it to understand that the One God, YHWH, has a Son and Messiah?

YHWH does not have a Son, the YHWH in the Old Testament was always the one and only Son. YHWH took on
this human and visible form, and we were created as an image of this visible YHWH. In the image of the Christ we
have all been created, the Father is invisible, you certainly are not created in the image of the Father. Look here
is a vision of YHWH in the O.T, this should make it a bit easier to see.

Ezekiel 1
26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated
above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.

The Christ is the YHWH with this human form, not the Father.

Adam and Eve met YHWH in the Garden of Eden, YHWH walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening.
Once again, the Father has never been seen or heard, mankind has never known the Father. The Father never walked and talked with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were on personal terms with the Christ, their creator was the Christ.

Colossians 1:16
for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things have been created through him and for him.

All things (including Adam and Eve), were created FOR Him, for Jesus Christ. The Father never created Adam and Eve for Himself. The Father created through His Son and FOR His Son, the Son is the alpha and the omega. The Son is Genesis
and the Revelations of all creation. The Son has precedence over everything visible and invisible, all things will be subjected to the Christ.

The Father is not a player in the scripture.

John 5:39
You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem, Gracia, is that things are not at all simple here. For one thing, questions about the Trinity are deeply metaphysical questions; and the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is built. Hence, the early fathers often incorporated major aspects of Hellenic metaphysics into their teachings. This was an absolute necessity if the church was to survive. The creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, are often mistakenly assumed to have provided very simple solutions. Now I'm not saying that they did not contribute much. I am saying that they often raised more questions than they answered. What, for example, does it mean to say the Son is of one essence or substance with the Father? Does this mean they are one and the same? Does this mean the Father could suffer? What? What about the Holy Spirit? The original creed said nothing much about it an all. The current section on the Holy Spirit was added way later. Is the divine which rules in heaven identical with the divine whose presence is felt on earth? How? Does that mean God can experience emotion, suffering? Can God change? Is God simple or complex in nature? Is God a rue personality or an abstract essence shared by three divine personalities or Gods? These are just some of the many metaphysical questions raised. They are very tricky to address, even today.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Lightray.

Have been away, sorry about the delay.

Is this a Bible Study ?

This is not a Bible study, this is a discussion I thought?

What happened to Zechariah 11?

We differ on how we interpret the revelation of the Christ in Zechariah. Your seeing Zechariah and I am seeing the
Christ. The scripture is alll about the Christ.

My understanding was you were going to prove to me YHWH is the Christ, that Jesus is the God.

Correct Lightray.

I think it would be so much easier, if you just gave me hard proof that Jesus is the God, cause I can give
hard proof,

...Jesus speaking, not an apostle, John 17:1-3.

Your hard proof is not what you think it is.

Lightray, if you had quoted the extra verses from your quotation (John 17:1-5) you would have noticed the following.

John 17
1 After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

Jesus shared in the glory with His Father before the creation existed. Jesus is the Father and came forth from the Father. Jesus has the same name as the Father, sits on the very same throne. Your problem Lightray, is the same problem the apostles suffered from, the apostles thought they knew of YHWH. The apostles did not know YHWH, the apostles only ever knew the Christ. The Christ humbled Himself too perfectly and took on this appearance of a man.

Philippians 2
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited (held onto),
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.

A wonderful revelation but an incomplete revelation. Jesus humbled Himself and took on the human appearance within eternity. The Christ was from eternity, even the prophet Daniel recorded his vision of this Christ in eternity, way before
the incarnation.

Daniel 7:9-10
9 “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;

Is this the Father?

Check this prior appearance of the Son against this vision given to John.

Revelations 1
13 and in the midst of the seven lamp stands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

Same fellow Lightray, same appearance, one God who is YHWH, and the YHWH is the Christ.

There exists no vision of the Father in the scripture, there exists no formal statements by the Father in the scripture.
The Father is unknown to humanity, humanity has ever only known the Christ, the O.T 'YHWH' with the human appearance.

Even Nebuchadnezzar saw this same YHWH, YHWH the Son actually, with the emphasized human appearance.

Daniel 3
25 “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form
of the fourth is like the Son of God.”

What a powerful messianic vision, four men, the fourth man was the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Joshua 5 you could argue it one way, and me another, same as Exodus 3. Though if you notice this is not just anyone, nor any angel, but commander of host's.

Lightray, I noticed this man commands the angels, this man is rightfully the Lord of Hosts (angels). Only YHWH
commands the angels.

Therefore this does not mean Joshua worshiped him as the God, but reverence for.

Joshua was standing before the Lord of Hosts, so Joshua had no choice but bury his head in the dirt. The text says
a man,I can assure you Lightray, this was no ordinary man.

As scripture teaches, there are authorities in heaven, as there are on earth. And on earth we are to submit, and bow to certain authorities on earth.

Like Daniel, I will not bow to any image or even a two legged creature.

Joshua 5
15 The commander of the Lord's hosts said to Joshua, “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy.”

The Lord of Hosts told Joshua that even the ground is holy, because the Lord is Holy, Holy, Holy.

 

[klutedavid]

The problem, Gracia, is that things are not at all simple here. For one thing, questions about the Trinity are deeply metaphysical questions; and the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is built. Hence, the early fathers often incorporated major aspects of Hellenic metaphysics into their teachings. This was an absolute necessity if the church was to survive. The creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, are often mistakenly assumed to have provided very simple solutions. Now I'm not saying that they did not contribute much. I am saying that they often raised more questions than they answered. What, for example, does it mean to say the Son is of one essence or substance with the Father? Does this mean they are one and the same? Does this mean the Father could suffer? What? What about the Holy Spirit? The original creed said nothing much about it an all. The current section on the Holy Spirit was added way later. Is the divine which rules in heaven identical with the divine whose presence is felt on earth? How? Does that mean God can experience emotion, suffering? Can God change? Is God simple or complex in nature? Is God a rue personality or an abstract essence shared by three divine personalities or Gods? These are just some of the many metaphysical questions raised. They are very tricky to address, even today.

The revelation of the scripture is the revelation of the Christ. The Father is not in the scripture, just His name.

 

[7xlightray]

How difficult is it to understand that the One God, YHWH, has a Son and Messiah? Scripture testifies to this over and over. Yes, we honor the Son even as we honor the Father, and even ask Him for things as we ask the Father, but He is not identical with His Father in a literal understanding. He is under and from the Father, and is the image of God in human flesh, as a reflection of His glory in a wholly unique and wonderful way, but at the same time, He has a God; the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The earliest Christians wrote extensively about the Father and the Son, about God and His Messiah / Word. Nothing about One God in Three Persons until quite a bit later. Even the casual conversation of Trinitarians makes frequent and simple reference to God and to His Son. It's very simple, so why complicate things beyond what the Scriptures teach?

Thanks to men later complicating Christology beyond the testimony of Scripture, council after council defined more and more complicated, specific theologies, communities of Christians lost communion one with another, and needless battles over Truth ensued. Many even died as either a direct or indirect result of these theological differences. Why hold the Christian world apart needlessly? Why not just affirm the Apostles' Creed and keep it simple?

Just to add to what you have said...

And this is about as simple as I could express it.

The word/spirit, which is wisdom, life, and power of God, from God. Jesus was and is the word, so we can certainly say he existed before being born as a human, not that he was a person before being born.

A way to understand John 1:1, in the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Adam, and Eve was adam (man). Eve was adam, his rib, but not the person Adam.

The “word” is not a person, but is living, and has reason. For example in our bodies we have antibodies, that are produced by the body's immune system, that fight against any foreign antigens or targets such as viruses and bacteria. The immune system is living, is human, and has certain reason, it does not have to be directed by us, it just knows when to attack, what to attack, and what not to attack, and it can learn. It has what is called immunological memory “the capacity of the body's immune system to remember an encounter with an antigen” so that “it can react more swiftly to the antigen by means of these activated cells in a later encounter.” Which I think is rather amazing. We've been talking about the immune system, but it almost sounds like we have been talking about a person.

My immune system can operate, or function on it's own, without me having to tell it when, and what to do, but it's not a person of it's own. My immune system is living, can learn, is human, it's me, but it's not the me the person.

God is love, love is not the Who, but the What. Same for word, word is not the Who, but the What. Same as the immune system, it's not the Who, but the What.

The immune system has memory, but not that it is self aware.
It's an extension of me, it is what I am, but not the who.

And through this powerful word, were all things created, and this word became flesh, and the new creation is through this word, that became flesh, and a life giving spirit.

So, when it says, “In beginning was the-ho word-logos, and the-ho word-logos was with the-ho God and god was the-ho word-logos.” it is saying the word was with the person God, and the word is what God is, not who God is. Spirit is what God is, not who God is. And the word is spirit, and spirit is the word John 6:63; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12. Flesh is what I am, not who I am. Angels are spirits, spirits are what angels are, not who they are. Yet, the Spirit of the Lord is Who this Spirit is.

And from scripture this is what I am forced to believe...

Isaiah 45:4-5...
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:​

And...

Psalm 22:1 My [Jesus] God, my God [the Father], why hast thou forsaken me?. . .8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him. . .9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.​

Jesus was not a person, but the living word/spirit of God, that living word, that life, which was with the Father, became flesh.

 

[7xlightray]

We differ on how we interpret the revelation of the Christ in Zechariah. Your seeing Zechariah and I am seeing the
Christ. The scripture is alll about the Christ.

It would seem to me, you are misrepresenting what I said, this is what I said...

“And the people valued Zechariah at thirty shekels of silver. Zechariah represents Christ.”

And...

“13 And the Lord said unto me [Zechariah], Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I [Zechariah, here represents Christ] was prised at of them. And I [Zechariah, here represents Judas] took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.”

 

[7xlightray]

Your hard proof is not what you think it is.

Lightray, if you had quoted the extra verses from your quotation (John 17:1-5) you would have noticed the following.

John 17
1 After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, 2 since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
4 I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do. 5 So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed.

Jesus shared in the glory with His Father before the creation existed. Jesus is the Father and came forth from the Father. Jesus has the same name as the Father, sits on the very same throne. Your problem Lightray, is the same problem the apostles suffered from, the apostles thought they knew of YHWH. The apostles did not know YHWH, the apostles only ever knew the Christ. The Christ humbled Himself too perfectly and took on this appearance of a man.

Actually, I have already commented on this passage a few times already, in this thread, I think it was in this thread.

The context shows Jesus is referring to the plan, the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world, the glory planned, and the glory yet to come. John 17:1-2 is clearly showing this...

John 17
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.​

The first "hast" Aorist Tense in the indicative mood is past Tense. And “he should give” is in the Subjunctive Mood and means: the action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.

Jesus has not received this yet, referring to verse 2, not until he sits down on God's throne, nor is he able yet to give life until his resurrection. Jesus is saying God has already given him this, yet he is asking for it. So, he is referring to the plan of God, obviously!


Next we have...

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hastgiven me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.​

Jesus has been asking for this glory, but yet, he says, He hast given him this glory, therefore pointing to plan of God. And it is totally odd for him to say “for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” The normal thing would be to say, “because you love me,” or at the very least, “for thou loved me before my incarnation,” because the Father would have loved him at all times, so Jesus is obviously pointing to something specific.

The glory Jesus had before the foundation of the world...

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.​

Here is also something a little extra...

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee [“Thee” is in the Genitive], and they have believed that thou didst send me.​

Jesus does not say he came out from heaven, but out from the Father. And “I came out from” - to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of: with the genitive of the place from which one comes by birth. This is the same as in John 8:42.

 

[ripple the car]

Sir ~

Thank you for writing back! Sir, if YHWH spoke with Moses on the Mount and if YHWH created all things, than could it not be argued that YHWH and the Father are One, as Christ describes His Father and God as the One who created the heavens and the earth? And who revealed Himself to Moses, speaking out of the bush? Surely God can allow us to see things through which He can speak, and surely God can inspire His scribes to use human reference points to describe His doings. Like, when the Psalms speak of His hands, face, or eyes, I presume they refer to

Hello Gracia.

Sorry about the delay, I have been away.

YHWH does not have a Son, the YHWH in the Old Testament was always the one and only Son. YHWH took on
this human and visible form, and we were created as an image of this visible YHWH. In the image of the Christ we
have all been created, the Father is invisible, you certainly are not created in the image of the Father. Look here
is a vision of YHWH in the O.T, this should make it a bit easier to see.

Ezekiel 1
26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated
above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.

The Christ is the YHWH with this human form, not the Father.

Adam and Eve met YHWH in the Garden of Eden, YHWH walked and talked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening.
Once again, the Father has never been seen or heard, mankind has never known the Father. The Father never walked and talked with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were on personal terms with the Christ, their creator was the Christ.

Colossians 1:16
for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things have been created through him and for him.

All things (including Adam and Eve), were created FOR Him, for Jesus Christ. The Father never created Adam and Eve for Himself. The Father created through His Son and FOR His Son, the Son is the alpha and the omega. The Son is Genesis
and the Revelations of all creation. The Son has precedence over everything visible and invisible, all things will be subjected to the Christ.

The Father is not a player in the scripture.

John 5:39
You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.

 

[ripple the car]

His mercy, strength, knowledge, and being, in ways understandable to us. That's how I tend to understand the Genesis account of God's coming down and walking with Adam and Eve.

 

[ripple the car]

Sir, thank you for writing back! I just feel like if the earliest Gentile Christians had abided with a very simple, more Judaic understanding of things (One God expressing Himself to us through His Messiah and Word), and not gotten so technical (ever try to puzzle through the text of the Anathanisian Creed?), things could have progressed much more simply and peacefully over 2,000 years of Christian history. The Apostles saw fit to call Him Master, Teacher, Lord, Saviour, Messiah, Son of God, and Word of God. That's as technical as they got. Is it truly more important to try and figure out issues of hypostasis, or to believe on and follow Him, and wait for His return?

The problem, Gracia, is that things are not at all simple here. For one thing, questions about the Trinity are deeply metaphysical questions; and the Bible is not a book of metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is built. Hence, the early fathers often incorporated major aspects of Hellenic metaphysics into their teachings. This was an absolute necessity if the church was to survive. The creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, are often mistakenly assumed to have provided very simple solutions. Now I'm not saying that they did not contribute much. I am saying that they often raised more questions than they answered. What, for example, does it mean to say the Son is of one essence or substance with the Father? Does this mean they are one and the same? Does this mean the Father could suffer? What? What about the Holy Spirit? The original creed said nothing much about it an all. The current section on the Holy Spirit was added way later. Is the divine which rules in heaven identical with the divine whose presence is felt on earth? How? Does that mean God can experience emotion, suffering? Can God change? Is God simple or complex in nature? Is God a rue personality or an abstract essence shared by three divine personalities or Gods? These are just some of the many metaphysical questions raised. They are very tricky to address, even today.

 

[Hoghead1]

You need to have a clear picture of God and if you are going to know whom you are walking with, Gracia. The reason why Hellenic metaphysics were brought into the church is that the Bible does not at all provide a unified account of God. It's not enough just to say you believe in God, you need to be more specific, say what kind of God you believe in. So , yes, you need to have a clear idea of what the Trinity is claiming. Is it claiming, for example, that God is a cosmic society of three separate, unique personalities? Does the one God simply mean they all are working together in harmony? That is what the social theory says. Ok, but how then is this anything other than polytheism? See what I mean? No metaphysical considerations, no clarity. Of course, the Apostles may have had a simpler faith, though I doubt it was as simple as you think. The early church, for example, was caught in a major conflict over the Trinity, specifically over the Deity of Christ. Is the divine that rules in heaven identical with the divine that makes its presence felt on earth? If you think the Bible provides simple answers, forget it. Both the Trinitarians and the anti-Trinitarians used Scripture to back their positions. If I had a nickel every time I heard some anti-intellectual Christian say they have no need of metaphysics, they know Christ and that's enough and then they turn right around and describe the God of the creeds, confessions, and church fathers, I'd be a rich man. Tine and again I hear all this nonsense about how one has some "personal" relationship with a "personal God', doesn't need any metaphysics, etc. However, when they come down to describing this "personal God," the latter is anything but a person. Rather, they affirm the God of classical theism, the God of the church fathers, creeds and confessions. That isn't a very personal image of God at all, as the classical model claims that God is void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable. So, yes, metaphysical considerations are important to take into account, as they are constantly in play.

 

[7xlightray]

Daniel 7:9-10
9 “I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;

Is this the Father?

Check this prior appearance of the Son against this vision given to John.

Revelations 1
13 and in the midst of the seven lamp stands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

Same fellow Lightray, same appearance, one God who is YHWH, and the YHWH is the Christ.

There exists no vision of the Father in the scripture, there exists no formal statements by the Father in the scripture.
The Father is unknown to humanity, humanity has ever only known the Christ, the O.T 'YHWH' with the human appearance.

We have a bit of a problem with your interpetation...

Daniel 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.​

Did Jesus come to himself? That would mean there are two Jesus'. Maybe Jesus is not the only one with white hair, and having a white garment as white as snow. We also know, Jesus sat on the Father's throne Revelation 3:21.