The Trinity Doctrine

[hoghead1]

Hi, Ed,

John does not say that the Word is the Spirit.  That is your supposition.  Verse 14 onward makes it very clear that  the Word  is Christ.

[Ed J]

Hi, Ed,

(1) John does not say that the Word is the Spirit. That is your supposition.
(2) Verse 14 onward makes it very clear that the Word is Christ.

Hi Hoghead1,

1) He does in John 6:63
You’re missing the obvious connection that “The Word” (God’s HolySpirit) became flesh at Jordan.
As I said: compare John’s narrative to that of Luke’s in Acts 10:38 and Paul’s in 2Corinthians 5:18-19
Your supposition that “The Word” became flesh at Bethlehem is based on a faulty religious premise.

2) Check it out, these verses (Acts 10:38 & 2Cor 5:18-19) are saying the same as John 1:14;
why don’t you at least consider this possibility before outright dismissing it.
After all, isn’t that what you are expecting of the members here?

____________
God bless
Ed J

[Ed J]

Hi Hoghead1,

I always entertain the ideas of the members here, so as to respond to them according to their understanding.
I have found that this approach works better than brow-beating them with what they don’t understand.

____________
God bless
Ed J

[hoghead1]

Hi,Ed,

Here are some additional biblical passages I think you need to take into account.   Matthew 1:23: “…call him Immanuel, which means God with us.”  That shoots down your theory that Christ was not God when born.  2 Pr. 1:1: “…by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”  Jn. 5:28: ” Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'”  I Tim. 3:16: “God was manifested in the flesh.”  Col. 1:9:”For  in him, dwells the fullness of teh Godhead bodily.”  Rev. 1:8:”I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” These passage make it very plain that Christ is God and therefore has existed eternally.   And I can cite additional ones as well.

 

[NickHassan]

Hi hoghead,

Yes God has visited His people.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

 

But like how Paul and Barnabus were seen as gods by the carnal so you see Jesus.

[Proclaimer]

Oh, c’mon, Ed.  You must not have read much Scripture. Try John 1:1 and following, for starters.

Since you read the Church Fathers, then try this:

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article [“the”], and in some he omits it. He adds the article [“the”] to logos, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [“the”], when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the logos is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article [“the], and theos without it, prevail also between logos with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As God who is over all is theos with the article [“the”] not without it, so also “the” logos is the source of that logos (reason} which dwells in every reasonable creature; the logos which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence “the” logos. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos (gods), and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is autotheos (God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know You the only true God; “but that all beyond the autotheos (God) is made theos by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply “the” theos but rather theos. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos (gods) beside Him, of whom “the” theos is “the” theos, as it is written, “The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became (gods), for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made theos gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is ho theos (“the god”), and those who are formed after Him are (gods), images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the ho logos (“the word”) of ho theos (“the god”) , who was in the beginning, and who by being with “the” theos (“God”) is at all times theos (“god”), not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

[hoghead1]

Hi, Ed,

Sorry, but your case doesn’t hold any water.  It looks like  copied it from some online source who really doesn’t know Greek grammar.  Your source failed to inform you that “Theos” is not the  subject but the predicate nominative.  According to Caldwell’s Rule, in Koine Greek, the  predicate nominative does not require the definite article, though in translation this is necessary. As I said before, with biblical languages, if you in are in a penny, you are in for a pound. Nice try, but no cigar.

[GeneBalthrop]

EDJ…..No one needs “Greek grammer” to understand what JESUS SAID, WE have written what he said and with the spirit of GOD ABIDING in us we can easely understand them, even those who had no scriptures in time past was able to understan, by the SPIRIT OF TRUTH ABIDING IN THEM Remember what Jesus said, the words he was speaking to us was ‘NOT’ HIS WORDS, but the ‘WORDS’ of him that sent him. As JESUS said , ‘THE FATHER WHO WAS IN HIM WAS DOING THE WORKS, and telling him exactly what to say and even how to say it. JESUS himself was never took credit for the words he was telling us, but you surely already know that EDJ. IMO

peace and love to you and yours. ………gene

[942767]

Hi hoghead1:

You say:

I’m sorry, but I have no time to read  sites you are others may refer me to.  I want to talk to you, not them.  I want to hear what you have to say,  not them.

I have no time of day for posted videos.

(I am sorry that you feel this way.  My concern is that we teach God’s Word in truth.  I do not want to say that He said something when He did not.  Perhaps, both you and I can learn from the video that I posted.)

But, since you do want to hear what I have to say.   The following is what I believe:

Those scriptures that I have posted that show that Jesus was subordinate to the Father are not ambiguous, and so, the scriptures that you say conflict with what is clear by these scriptures must have an interpretation which lines up with what is being clearly stated.  If your interpretation of the prologue to John 1 conflicts with those scriptures which are not ambiguous and need no interpretation, then your interpretation of John 1 must be incorrect.

Also,

Are you saying that Revelation 1:8 which states is speaking about Jesus?  If so, I disagree.  There is only “One Almighty”, and that is God.

⁸ I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

(That is what happens when you do not read the scriptures in context.  Take a look at what the scriptures prior to rev 1:8 state)

⁴ John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

⁵ And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

⁶ And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Love in Christ,
Marty

 

[hoghead1]

Hi, Marty,

Judge not, that you be not judged, my friend.  If you had read  carefully “The Revelation of John”, you would have easily noted that  the first chapter is abut “the revelation of Jesus Christ,” the coming of Christ.  This same point is also  made very clear in Rev. 22:12-21. Also, I have pointed out a number of important additional passages, such as  Matt. 1:28, 2 Pr. 1:1,Jn, 8:58,Jn. 8:28, I Tim. 3:16, etc.

Next, you brought up the issue of subrodinationism in the Trinity.  Traditional Trinitarian thought had no trouble whatsoever  here.  However, many contemporary persons do, as we tend to value democracy far more than the fathers did. So, some of us can easily come away with the impression  that the Father and Father alone, depicted as the Boss of bosses, is God, strictly speaking, whereas the Son and Spirit seem lesser divine beings, mere lieutenants sent to  the Father’s bidding and also dirty work.  Calvin, for example, wrote that the Father did not descend to earth, did no suffer or die on the Cross, but he who was send by by him.  However, it is also  possible to view  the Trinity in a more democratic light, where the three persons are all co-equal each volunteering to do a certain task, each subordinate to the others, and yet each in charge of teh others. This would be a more relational model of the Trinity, where the  persons are all viewed co-equal and  interdependent on one another.  The Father cannot be a Father without the Son, the Son cannot be a Son without the Father, etc. Wolfart Pannenberg, a major 20th-century theologian has provided such a model. If you take a more modalistic view of the Trinity, then you could view the members as symbolizing how different parts of your mind or personality are interrelated, each having a say in the operations of the others.

Another major alternative is to recognize that the Bible is not a book of systematic theology or metaphysics.  We have at best only conflicting snapshots of God as he or she is in his or her own nature.  Hnece, some biblical passages do equate and identify all the persons as God, whereas others seem to depict teh Father alone as God.  Expecting the Bible to present a consistent picture is irrational and we just have to live with the fact it can be contradictory.

However you want to proceed, there is no getting around the fact many biblical passages clearly identify Christ with God.

 

 

[GeneBalthrop]

Marty…..Right on brother, discarding the clear and sound truth, for the ambiguous is exactly what false teachers do, they put together their own form of religions based on ambiguity, they cannot deal with what is clear written, this is how we all can know them. They have changed the truth for a “LIE”. while this can work for the already decieved TRINITARIANS of the world, it certanly can’t with those here who know the truth of Gods words and hold to them. IMO

Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene

[942767]

Hi hogead1:

To be sure, Jesus does refer to himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, because he is the first begotten from the dead, and the last in that he is alive forever more:

Rev 1:17:

¹⁷ And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

¹⁸ I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Rev 2:

⁸ And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

[hoghead1]

Hi,

Christ means more than just that.  He means  he is eternal, God,  the beginning of all creation  and the ultimate effect of creation.  As we read in Jn. 5:8,”Most assuredly, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.”

[GeneBalthrop]

hoghead….IF Jesus was GOD HE WOULD HAVE “NEVER” SAID “for “thou” are the “only” “true” God, i really do not believe his was talking about himself now was he? The word “only” means no other, the last time i looked anyway, and the word true, mean real, also the last time i looked. SO if my lord (adoni human ruler) said that to us, why should we not believe him? who are you to contradict him?

peace and love to you and yours. ……..gene

[942767]

Hi hoghead1:

You say:

Christ means more than just that.  He means  he is eternal, God,  the beginning of all creation  and the ultimate effect of creation.  As we read in Jn. 5:8,”Most assuredly, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.”

How could he saying that he is the eternal God when he has told us in John 17:3 that life eternal is that we would know the “one True God”, and Jesus Christ who He has sent?

Neither did he say that “he was eternal” or that he saw Abraham as the Pharisees misunderstood him to say.  He said “Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad.

The following scripture pertains to Abraham as well as others who preceded him and obeyed God in Faith and is what Jesus meant.

Hebrews 11;

¹³ These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

But he was foreordained which is also what he meant:

1 Peter 1:

¹⁸ Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

¹⁹ But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

²⁰ Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

He is the beginning of the new creation:

Col 1:

¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

¹⁹ For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Love in Christ,
Marty

 

 

[hoghead1]

Hi, Marty,

You need to look more carefully at Jn.17.  Jn.17:5 , along with Philippians 2:5-7, is stating that Christ is eternal, is God, but humbled himself and took up human flesh, became a kind of  servant, but is no  way an inferior being to God.  If I wanted to describe this in terms contemporary relational metaphysics, I would say that the Father is the primordial  imagination or ordering or envisagement of creative possibilities.   The Son signifies the temporal objectifications of this primordial creativity; it is God as entering into finite reality.

[Proclaimer]

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

A simple read of this text says that he had glory with the Father before the cosmos. Because the cosmos is not eternal, the most you can draw from this is he is before the cosmos and this agrees with the fact that God created all things through him. Saying that it teaches that he is as eternal as the Father is to add another idea that is not found here.

[Proclaimer]

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This great piece of text is very descriptive of Jesus Christ. Nowhere does it say he is God. I guess people see “form of God” and say that this means he was God. If I was made in the form of Adam would that make me Adam? No, it makes me part of mankind. YHWH is not a nature, but the Father who has a nature. He has divine nature and he is generous to the point that he says we can partake in that nature. Even so, we are not God either.

What is the form of God. Is it spirit? Regardless, this verse is clearly talking about his form of which I have no problem believing that he had that form. He then emptied himself, came in the flesh, died for humanity, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right-hand of the majesty on high in the glory he had with God before the cosmos. It is amazing how many people oppose this.

And we too will be seated with Christ and of course that means we will rule with him, and by extension of all that, we cannot be Christ, just as Christ Jesus is not God and rules with him and is seated with him.

[942767]

Hi hoghead1:

I have just uploaded a youtube video relative to Phil 2:1-11 if you are interested.  I believe that Jesus was in the form of God as God’s Christ in his ministry here on earth.  For example, he had the power to forgive sins, and also, he stated in John 14 “he who hath seen me has seen the Father”.  The Apostle Paul was teaching the Philippians about humility, and saying to them and to us: Phil  2

⁵ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

The YLT  has it this way:

⁵ For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus,

God has seen the end from the beginning, and so, in the same way that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world, he had the glory with the Father from the foundation of the world.  It was already foreseen that he would  obey the Father without sin even unto death on the cross, and he would be exalted upon completing what the Father sent him to do.  It was a finished work from the foundation of the world.

Here is the explanation: John 17:

²² `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one as we are one;

²³ I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one, and that the world may know that Thou didst send me, and didst love them as Thou didst love me.

²⁴ `Father, those whom Thou hast given to me, I will that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory that Thou didst give to me, because Thou didst love me before the foundation of the world.

 

 

[Ed J]

Hi,Ed,

These passage make it very plain that Christ is God and therefore has existed eternally.
And I can cite additional ones as well.
.
(1) Matthew 1:23: “…call him Immanuel, which means God with us.”
….I Tim. 3:16: “God was manifested in the flesh.”
.
(2) 2Pr. 1:1: “…by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Hi Hoghead1,

Let’s examine these verses you cite

1) Matthew 1:23 and 1Tim. 3:16 both compare to what it says in 2 Cor 5:19:
…..[color=blue]”God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself”[/color]

2) Compare whats in 2Peter 1:1 to what Thomas said:
“Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into
the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)

Afterword he said (John 20:28):
“My Lord and my God.”

The question presents itself: “Why did Thomas say that?” was he saying Jesus was God?
Not at all. He was instead confirming what Jesus had said earlier (John 14:11)…
”Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”

Thomas believed the works of God, believing that God was in Christ as Jesus had declared in John 14:11.
2Peter 1:1 is declaring BOTH the father and the son Just as Thomas had done earlier.

_____________
God bless
Ed J

[Author]

Posts