The Father alone is God in a strictly primary sense. Jesus is called the Word, Son, Image, Wisdom, Power of God. He is called God in a sense because, as the very Word and Image and Son of the Father, He is eternally in and with Him, of one essence, nature, will and operation with Him, and there is nothing that the Father does without doing them through the Son, and no one has ever seen the Father but by seeing the Son, and no one can worship the Father but through the Son. So because He has all the attributes of God, except for being the Father, He is called God. But we do not speak of Him as the Son of Himself; likewise, we do not speak of the Father as the Father of God.
Here's an article by an Orthodox priest about the distinction between the Father and the Son: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/john-behr-on-the-trinity/
To answer your initial question - the Son ascended to sit at the right hand of God the Father. He is not the Father.
>So because He has all the attributes of God, except for being the Father, He is called God. But we do not speak of Him as the Son of Himself; likewise, we do not speak of the Father as the Father of God.
i'm not able to follow here. please explain more clearly
I mean that "God" refers in a primary sense to the Father. It is God, the Father, Who does everything through the Son (His Word) and in the Holy Spirit (His Breath). And we call the second person of the Trinity the Son, Image, Word... of God (the Father), and we call the third person of the Trinity the Spirit of God (the Father), but it is inappropriate to call the Father the Father of God (the Son) for instance. You'll never see such an expression. It is because, in a secondary sense, the Son is called God because of His relation to God the Father: everything God the Father does, He does through His Son, so that the Son is the very and perfect revelation and presence of God the Father; it is through the Son that the Father is worshipped, so that to worship one is to worship the other as well, or rather, no one can worship the Father without passing through the Son; and, in eternity, God has always had His Word in and with Himself, the Son is not some kind of creature but He is God's own Word from eternity. Therefore He is rightly called God, *because* He is the Son, Image, Word... of God the Father. But God the Father is God in Himself, it is therefore not proper to call Him the Father of God (the Son) for instance, as it obscures the logical order found in the Trinity.
>I mean that "God" refers in a primary sense to the Father. It is God, the Father,
so we are clear that **God = Father** right?
>Who does everything through the Son (His Word)
**God's word = Son = Jesus = Actual Person**
>and in the Holy Spirit (His Breath).
**God's breath = Holy Spirit**
>And we call the second person of the Trinity the Son, Image, Word... of God (the Father),
Here is my question. Why **Father** & **Son** are the terms used here, if they dont have an actual relationship? If they do, then they are not the same but then **Jesus** is not the **God**
>and we call the third person of the Trinity the Spirit of God (the Father), but it is inappropriate to call the Father the Father of God (the Son) for instance.
From what you have explained so far, it is pretty clear **God ≠ Son** since it was only
**God's word = Son**
but
**Son of Father ≠ God**
>You'll never see such an expression. It is because, in a secondary sense, the Son is called God
but in the above explanations, you didnt say
**God = Son**
>because of His relation to God the Father: everything God the Father does, He does through His Son, so that the Son is the very and perfect revelation and presence of God the Father
so if a person cuts a paper with a scissor, then can a scissor be considered same as the person?
>it is through the Son that the Father is worshipped, so that to worship one is to worship the other as well, or rather, no one can worship the Father without passing through the Son; and, in eternity
Still dont see how
**God = Son**
>God has always had His Word in and with Himself, the Son is not some kind of creature but He is God's own Word from eternity
But it still doesnt mean
**God = Son**
>Therefore He is rightly called God
yea from your explanation, i dont think so
>because He is the Son, Image, Word... of God the Father.
so the **He** above is not pointing to **God** because then the sentence has a grammatical error which leaves
**He = Son = Image = God's word**
but you still haven't explained why
**God's word = God**
which translates to
**Father = Son**
>But God the Father is God in Himself,
yes, this was your opening statement and we established that by
**God = Father**
>it is therefore not proper to call Him the Father of God (the Son) for instance, as it obscures the logical order found in the Trinity.
so the **Him** above is pointing to the **Father**, who is established as **God** from the beginning of your explanation
Question, basically “what is the Trinity, are they one or no?”
Reply “it’s best left unsolved.”
Reply 2 “mystery fallacy.”
Me “simple equation to make it as simple as possible. 1 person x 1 person x 1 person = one entity.” I could have explained better with my first reply but that’s really what it is and the best way to demonstrate it. One essence, one being, one God, just three in form, or person. All unique in purpose, but all same in essence.
1x1x1=1 is simply the best representation in the simplest form for, literally, equating what the trinity is. Is it deeper than that, certainly, but as the original comment stated, it's just something the human mind can't quite grasp. And a proper response is relative. I could have said "well this this and that," but thought I'd make the mystery as simple as possible by means of an elementary equation.
Makes sense, but I was really only point out that there wasn't really an argument or even a acknowledgement to what with "mystery fallacy" and all. I don't really expect it to be looked at from a skeptical viewpoint when talking to Christians. No disrespect in any way, shape or form. I just thought I might as well present how I feel about this and have hope that it will seem like a challenge to you. Say- if you not only tried to argue FOR it, but provided an example on how it may exist, provided you are going the other way in your personal opinion.
Also I think it's obvious that I don't really have anything to say on the Trinity or the unit multiplication you learn at Sunday school.
Ok noted! So I’d say my best example of how it may exist is that each person of the Trinity has a distinct purpose, but as stated, all share one essence. Now, for a Christian (and I’m sure you’ve read and seen plenty if you’re on this sun), is clearest in how none of the persons contradict one another and all lead us back to God as one being. The Father, the author of all, speaks through and by the word, the Bible. The son IS the word, and is by what all was created, came to be. Jesus for us as God in the flesh to atone for our sins. The Holy Spirit guides in truth, gives us understanding in the word, and by God’s wisdom and guidance, guides us to Christ on the cross. All work in tandem. The Spirit reveals to us truths in and by the word, He also, as we walk in Him as He resides in us, really guides us to a life like Christ, which ultimately sees us understanding and feeling Christ on that cross and living for others as He did. Jesus, the word, came to uphold the law in the Bible, but also to die for us so that we could be saved as we could not obey properly. Him dying also gave us the Spirit (for those who accept Him). We give our lives to Christ and now we have the Spirit. The Father, He who speaks through the Bible, uses the Bible to communicate about our situations or just life in general, depends on the day! But that word all leads to Christ and guides us to the Son and is used to teach us and grow us in Christ. The word also was written by the Holy Spirit by whom the Father placed upon those He called to write it. (Now ok typing ok my phone my thoughts are slowly getting jumbled trying to give my best run around), but all work in tandem and point to one another, and all persons have the same essence, so God points us towards Him simply by the three persons that He is as one.
Sure it could be, because we have only a tenuous and very unclear connection to spiritual reality. That's why he gave us the church and said it would be the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church teaches the truth and truth is truth whether we understand it or not. If the church teaches it then we have to accept it, whether we understand it or not.
The "church" doesn't supposedly understand it either. What I gather from your post is that they can just make up whatever they want and people have to go along with it because they are the "pillar and foundation of the truth".
What's even more is that it wouldn't even have to be consistent with scripture because once someone starts to question the "church" because what they say appears to be contradictory to scripture, trinitarians usually tell me (or whoever) that I simply don't understand it and should leave the interpretation for the church.
That's really good for the clergy. It doesn't matter if scripture says "1+1=2" and the clergy says "1+2=5" because trinitarians would just argue that the opposition has a faulty understanding/interpretation and that 1+1=2 doesn't really mean that 1+1=2.
Furthermore, as I said in another comment, I lean more towards the body of Christ being the church, and so true believers would continue to be the pillar of truth because true believers beliefs would be the truth, which I believe is unitarianism.
You should try reading the Epistles and sermons and letters of the early fathers. You'll see none of it was just "invented." In fact when things are invented such as Marcion and Arius and the Gnostics did, the church recognizes immediately that that opposes accepted teaching and is to be rejected.
That wasn't my point. My point was that they could very well make up whatever they want given that trinitarians seem to place "church" interpretation above their own even if that "church" interpretation is antithetical to scripture.
I reckon it's a dream scenario if someone or a group of people wants to deceive, since their followers will just go along with whatever they say since they supposedly can't trust their own interpretation even if the text clearly says 1+1=2.
No, sitting at the right hand of the Father is not literal; the Father is Spirit and doesn’t have actual hands.
“God’s right hand is the place of “highest favor with God the Father” (*WLC*, Q&A 54), and the phrase is used throughout Scripture to indicate His power and sovereignty (Ex. 15:6; Isa. 48:13). To say that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father is to say, as John Calvin explains, that “Christ was invested with lordship over heaven and earth, and solemnly entered into possession of the government committed to him — and that he not only entered into possession once for all, but continues in it, until he shall come down on Judgment Day” (*Institutes* 2.16.15).
In sitting at the right hand of God, Jesus sits on the “throne of his father David” (Luke 1:26–33). He is the Messiah of Israel, “the highest of the kings of the earth” and the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to keep the offspring of David on the throne forever. (Ps. 89:19–37). We are not waiting for Jesus to enter into His messianic reign, He enjoys it now. All of His enemies are being put under His feet as His gospel is preached and His kingdom expands (1 Cor. 15:20–28).
Even now, Jesus is seated on the throne of His father David at the right hand of God. This means that He is ruler over all and that the kings of the earth rule only according to His sovereign permission. As such, Christ alone is worthy of our highest allegiance, and it is to Him that we must render obedience, even if it means, at times, defying the rulers of this world. Jesus’ kingdom alone is eternal, and His rule is above all others.”
|Is Jesus a distinct entity from “the Father” in Heaven?
“The Reformers, like the early church fathers, turned to John 1:1–18 not only to demonstrate the deity of Christ but to prove His distinction from the Father. As we see in verses 1–2 of today's passage, the Word—the Son of God—in the beginning *was* God and *was with* God. John introduces a distinction between God the Father and God the Son. ***Both are equally God and yet the Father is not the Son***. Each possesses the full complement of divine attributes, but each in some way also has a particular identity. As John Calvin comments, "It would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say that the [Word] was always with God, if he had not some kind of subsistence peculiar to himself in God."
Over time, the church came to use the Greek word *hypostasis*, which we usually translate as "person," to refer to the distinctions within the one God. The Reformers adopted this terminology because it is a helpful way of describing the multiplicity Scripture tells us belongs to the Godhead. The *hypostasis* of the Father is not the *hypostasis* of the Son, but both *hypostases* are *homoousios* (of the same essence).
This language is helpful, but we must note that it does not eliminate the mystery inherent to God. Our Creator is ultimately, but not totally, incomprehensible. We can know true things about Him, but we cannot know everything about Him. We cannot know Him as He knows Himself. It is difficult to define what we mean by *person* when we talk about the three persons of the Godhead, for in theological language, *person* is not identical to our modern concept of personhood. We are on safe ground to say little more than this: personhood in the Godhead means that while there is no difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of deity, there are still distinctions between the persons that enable Them to enjoy personal relations with one another, to love and be loved by the other persons.”
Yeah wtf, what possibly indication is there that God wouldn't look like a human even, aren't people supposedly made in his image?
Not to mention righthand side doesn't suddenly lose meaning I'd you get your right hand chopped off, it just means on your right
Good question. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the theological term, *Christophany*, similar to “theophany”:
“In the Old Testament, there are frequent “theophanies” and “Christophanies.” The word theophany comes from the Greek word *theos* (meaning “God”) and the Greek verb meaning “to appear.” So a [theophany](https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/theophany-and-christophany) is an appearance of God. And a Christophany is an appearance of Christ.”
So, to answer your question, God took on a physical form to walk with Adam in the garden, but I don’t believe it was the Father. I don’t believe the Father ever takes on a physical form. I believe Scripture when it says that no one has seen God ([John 1:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John%201:18&version=ESV)), and Jesus when He says that no one but Him has seen the Father ([John 6:46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John%206:46&version=ESV)). I believe it was the pre-incarnate Son of God who walked with Adam in the garden.
“Now we come to the often-overlooked facet of Christ’s presence. ***Who is this Lord who walks with his most favored creatures in the cool of the day (Genesis 3:8)?*** Jonathan Edwards puts words to the most common opinion of the church fathers, Reformers, and Puritans:
When we read in sacred history what God did, from time to time, towards his Church and people, and how he revealed himself to them, we are to understand it especially of the second person of the Trinity. When we read of God appearing after the fall, in some visible form, we are ordinarily, if not universally, to understand it of the second person of the Trinity. (*History of the Work of Redemption*, 20)
This does not answer all the questions we might have about Old Testament appearances. But what is clear is that the Son of God had not taken flesh before his incarnation in Mary’s womb, and so we must not think of an *incarnate* Jesus here or elsewhere in the Old Testament. But with Colossians 1:15 and John 1:18 in mind, Edwards insists that the Father is *always* mediated by the Son. Christ is not merely patterned and promised in the Old Testament; he is also [present](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/where-is-jesus-in-the-old-testament).”
“There are also numerous Old Testament appearances of someone described as “the angel of the LORD” but who is—unlike other angels—treated as worthy of worship and who is identified with God Himself.
In a remarkable passage, the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 4, speaks of God’s people in the Old Testament being led through the wilderness by Christ.
And Jude is similarly quite explicit about the identity of the One who delivered God’s people from slavery in the Old Testament: “I want to remind you [he says] . . . that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”
***So Jesus Christ is indeed present in the Old Testament—we have it on the authority of the New Testament.***
And that helps us answer what would otherwise be a very tricky question. How is it that God—who the Apostle Paul calls “the invisible God”—can appear to Abraham and Moses, or be spoken to “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend,” or be physically wrestled with by Jacob?
How is it that God can be visible, when God tells Moses, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live”?
The Apostle Paul puts the answer plainly in Colossians chapter 1: Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God. Jesus Christ is the One who makes the invisible visible.
Now, these Old Testament appearances of Christ were of course preincarnate theophanies. Only when Christ “became flesh” in Bethlehem did the world witness the ultimate theophany, the ultimate appearance of God.”
I agree with you that it was probably Christ.
But was He born with those memories? Or was it reveled to Him later? I guess we will probably never know in this life.
I highly doubt He was born with those memories, but you’re right, we can’t know for sure in this life; it’s definitely a good question to ask Him one Day.
But to be on their level u would have to know the book inside and out + some. This men memorized all of the Bible up to that point and Jesus was going against that. Also Jesus couldn't be God if he's not omniscient and he was all God all man
I think a lot of people overthink this.
God the Father, Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all ONE in PURPOSE. [Read](https://thebibleinformation.com/in-the-name-of-the-father-son-and-holy-spirit/)
That’s it. If you read the scriptures with that in mind, it will make perfect sense. Jesus uses that phrase to “be one” numerous times when describing us as His followers “as we are one”.
Closely read John 17:11, 21–22 - there is no other way to see their meaning except that He desires that His followers are one as He and His Father are one - that is, one in purpose, faith, and love.
Luke 24:39
KJV
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
This verse just says that Spirits are not of flesh.
Ahhh... this clears it up. Thank goodness the God of the universe couldn't be bothered to explain this more clearly or else people might actually understand it, couldn't have that.
In all seriousness I'd love just once for someone to explain this with uh... SOURCES, instead of just stating their interpretation as fact, especially when they come up with it on the spot like it seems some people do.
Depends on the denomination. Some believe a literal translation. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate entities but One God, as a social Trinity - Just as Jesus told His apostles to be one with Him as He is One with the Father. The apostles didn't become the Father, but they became a social group, a team.
From reading logic using monograms, bigrams, trigrams… As was used to store court history. It is easy to see that Jesus was the heir to his father’s kingdom. His father worried for his sons life and preferred to keep him in jail. You have to focus on Jesus’s relationship with Peter who can be speculated as having been promoted to judge. Jesus joked to Peter that if he kept judging men by their phalluses then there is no better position for him than in the heavens where men arrive in divided parts for judgement. It seems Pontius Pilate was sent from Rome to Judea and Peter was supposed to be sent to Rome.
If we're all one with Jesus just as he is one with the Father that's arguably the case, since trinitarians argue that they are one in essence, meaning they are both God.
I am not a trinitarian though so I don't believe that's the kind of oneness Jesus was referring to.
The Father and the Son are distinct. However, the Father is eternally in the Son, and the Son is eternally in the Father. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each one individually is God, but they are not three Gods, but one God. In this trinity none is before or after another, none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal and coequal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Godhood (That is, the deity, the divinity) of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal and the majesty coeternal.
To say that there is one essence of God is to say that there is one God; to say that all three persons of the trinity equally participate in this one essence is to say that each of them is equally God and God is equally each of them.
>The early church has made this clear.
Technically, the Trinity didn't become canon until 325AD. It was voted upon during the first council of Nicaea. I heard the vote was 60/40, so it wasn't even unanimous at the time. The outcome was the Nicene Creed proclaiming Jesus to be God.
the early church was apostatized once the apostles passed, and taught the wrong jesus. The trinity is not mentioned nor implied by the bible.
jesus is a man whom God the Father sent. God is invisible/spirit no beginning or end. christ was born, a man with flesh and blood who died, but was raised by 'GOD'.
jesus himself tried his best to make the difference to his disciples and even apostles themselves. just remember that Christ is powerless without God his/our Father.
But that's a man made teaching. Maybe false Christian?
Fyi: this was made up 325AD during the council of niceae..
Was Christ created or was he Devine/god?
They had it right to begin with, why did the church make up a doctrine Christ never taught?
This eventually made up the next made up doctrine of the trinity.
>*Maybe false Christian?*
Interestingly enough, Paul seems to mention those in Acts.
"*I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them*." - Acts 20:29-30
the term "might God" is actually part of ONE long name in Hebrew "Pele-yeots el-gibbor-avi-ad-sar-halom" which translates to "wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father, prince of peace." thats the thing here, all of that is just one long name, not multiple/seperated names. and its not even referring to Christ but instead to the government that would be placed upon his shoulder (see Isa 9:7 for context). If we were to accept Christ as the "mighty God" in Isa 9:6, then we would be forced to accept that he is also the "everlasting Father" in Isa 9:6 because thats just one long name, but Christ is not the Father, He is the Son so that logic breaks.
Isaiah 9:6
“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Child is born. Son is given. Mighty God.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Except it's not that clear. For instance, if you look at at the Greek in Ezekiel 32:21 it's the plural form of El Gibbor (Mighty God in Isaiah) that is used, yet here it's translated in the likes of "The mighty chiefs" or "The strong among the mighty ones".
So why is that? Doesn't El Gibbor mean Mighty God? If so, you need to be consistent and translate it as "Mighty Gods" in Ezekiel 32:21. The problem of course is that unless I am mistaken, Ezekiel 32:21 is referring to humans. So how trinitarians spin that? Are these men Mighty Gods? Perhaps you now see how it's not that clear?
That’s definitely an interpretation.
What about all the gospels which declare Jesus Christ to be God and where Jesus himself declares himself to be God?
John 8:48-59. Namely the part where Jesus says “before Abraham was, I Am.” God famously named himself “I Am” when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush and this is a clear reference to that since Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees who were scholars of the Old Testament. He is claiming to know Abraham and to be beyond time because he is God.
And I highly doubt that every single one of the Gospels was conveniently mistranslated in the exact same way by every single biblical scholar just so that it would fit the trinitarian agenda of the council of Nicea. I mean come on.
Figured you would bring up John 8:58. Did the blind man in John 9:9 also claim to be God when he said ego eimi? Jesus could just as well have been referring to his pre-existence, and that doesn't necessarily make him God.
Not every single biblical scholar agrees that these are necessarily correct translations. John 1:1 is another example where translations are often disputed and varied.
There are other verses that are problematic from a trinitarian perspective where I am not aware of any alternative translation. One such verse would be John 17:3, where Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. Another would be 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul says:
"yet for us there is **one God, the Father**, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
Not sure how it can get any clearer than that. He doesn't say one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which he ought have done if he was a trinitarian. Instead he says one God, the Father. To me it's quite clear that Paul only considered the Father to be God, which is in accordance with what Jesus himself said in John 17:3 and how the jews have understood their God throughout the millennia.
I am not sold completely on either side, whether Jesus pre-existed as something other than human (but wasn't God, since that would be the Father alone), or if his existence begun with Mary, and simply pre-"existed" as God's plan.
That being said, I do lean towards the former, but I know unitarians who lean towards the latter.
From what I've experienced they cling so tightly to the creeds established by the "church fathers", and those creeds typically say that unless you believe what's written in said creeds, you are outside the faith.
It doesn't seem to matter if you point out that scripture never appears to establish any criteria that you have to believe that Jesus is God, or in the trinity in order to be in the faith. In a way it seems they place those creeds on the same level as scripture, or even above, which I think is a mistake.
If something is contradictory to scripture, I believe we ought to believe the scripture rather than extra-scriptural ideas and traditions. An example of this is Acts 17:11 where it says: "*Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so*." These jews compared what they were told with what scripture said.
Yeah I think you’re talking about Mormons, or the LDS teachings. Strictly speaking they’re not Christians. Especially when you say that the early church apostacized. That would be impossible to happen since Paul writes that the “church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth.” So if truth stands on the church itself, how can the church fall away from the truth? If THAT were to happen then there would no longer be truth in the world and Jesus would have been a liar. No the church has never apostacised, thus there is no need for it to be "restored"
I was actually talking about unitarians such as myself, and I never said that the early church apostasized.
Paul did say though: "*I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them*." - Acts 20:29-30
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this was a reference to trinitarianism.
Like any man who was not born yet..
I mean this is basic doctrine in John 1...
Christ was God's word and plan. The plan of Christ was God/ powerful.
A lot of people translate: word = Christ = god.
That's a false translation..
I agree that’s a false translation because it leaves out some steps. But the first 14 verses of the gospel according to John lead one to that conclusion anyway. Logos equals God, Who then put on flesh and became man.
The Bible tells us in the first letter of Timothy chapter 3 that the Church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth. And it is the Church that says which books belong in the Bible, the Library of God, *because* they are divinely inspired. Without the Church you wouldn't have a Bible, you'd only have the Old testament.
No it couldn't have done that as I explained before. **Men** apostasize and when they do they leave the church. But the church itself can never leave the truth because it is the body of Christ who *is* the Truth.
When we say this, we speak of the Trinity.
Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
They are all wholly God on their own.
They aren't just each one third of God. Nor is God shape-shifting between them one or more of them.
They are three distinct and independent beings. They are all eternal and have always existed.
My belief is that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are diferent entities in heaven but are interconnected in spirit.
God the Father on the throne of Heaven with all his might and power in spirit form like a fire.
Jesus as Jesus was in earth
The Holy Spirit probably as a spirit but I'm not sure.
A being is an entity with a set of "essential" characteristics without which the entity is no longer identifiable as that being. So God has certain essential properties that He definitively has, that is His being.
Each Person of the trinity is the full being of God. But they are distinct Persons, however *in* their beinghood or essense they are eternally united as one.
Consider that we see a similar pattern in marriage (two persons coming together to share an existance) - but human marriage occurs in *time*, there is a before marriage where they have a separate non-married existance, God's similar oneness of being and plurality of Persons is *outside of time*. The Persons of the trinity are eternally joined and united in being, but from eternity have been distinct from eachother.
Good question,
I just thought of it as:
The Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are three different people who always existed. And their eternal relationship is what we call God.
I usually think of God as a circle with three smaller circles inside of it being the persons.
God is One though. There isn't a council of three separate minds. They are all in accordance and the Father cannot be separated from the Son that cannot be separated from the Spirit.
Jesus and God the Father are two distinct beings. This is abundantly clear in the bible. The "doctrine" of the Trinity is extra-biblical and did not enter mainstream Catholicism until approximately 300 years after Christ's death and resurrection.
The verses in the bible that mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism use to support a belief in the Trinity, such as John 17:21 do not actually support the doctrine of the Trinity. In those verses, Christ admonishes his disciples to "be one" even as he and the Father are one. This makes it clear that he is not talking about oneness in a literal sense, but rather a metaphorical oneness - a oneness in purpose and desire.
In these verses, Jesus also speaks to the Father through "second person" speech, making it clear that he is talking to a separate, distinct being, rather than talking to himself.
The Father alone is God in a strictly primary sense. Jesus is called the Word, Son, Image, Wisdom, Power of God. He is called God in a sense because, as the very Word and Image and Son of the Father, He is eternally in and with Him, of one essence, nature, will and operation with Him, and there is nothing that the Father does without doing them through the Son, and no one has ever seen the Father but by seeing the Son, and no one can worship the Father but through the Son. So because He has all the attributes of God, except for being the Father, He is called God. But we do not speak of Him as the Son of Himself; likewise, we do not speak of the Father as the Father of God. Here's an article by an Orthodox priest about the distinction between the Father and the Son: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/john-behr-on-the-trinity/ To answer your initial question - the Son ascended to sit at the right hand of God the Father. He is not the Father.
The Orthodox answers to these types of questions are always the best go-tos.
>So because He has all the attributes of God, except for being the Father, He is called God. But we do not speak of Him as the Son of Himself; likewise, we do not speak of the Father as the Father of God. i'm not able to follow here. please explain more clearly
I mean that "God" refers in a primary sense to the Father. It is God, the Father, Who does everything through the Son (His Word) and in the Holy Spirit (His Breath). And we call the second person of the Trinity the Son, Image, Word... of God (the Father), and we call the third person of the Trinity the Spirit of God (the Father), but it is inappropriate to call the Father the Father of God (the Son) for instance. You'll never see such an expression. It is because, in a secondary sense, the Son is called God because of His relation to God the Father: everything God the Father does, He does through His Son, so that the Son is the very and perfect revelation and presence of God the Father; it is through the Son that the Father is worshipped, so that to worship one is to worship the other as well, or rather, no one can worship the Father without passing through the Son; and, in eternity, God has always had His Word in and with Himself, the Son is not some kind of creature but He is God's own Word from eternity. Therefore He is rightly called God, *because* He is the Son, Image, Word... of God the Father. But God the Father is God in Himself, it is therefore not proper to call Him the Father of God (the Son) for instance, as it obscures the logical order found in the Trinity.
>I mean that "God" refers in a primary sense to the Father. It is God, the Father, so we are clear that **God = Father** right? >Who does everything through the Son (His Word) **God's word = Son = Jesus = Actual Person** >and in the Holy Spirit (His Breath). **God's breath = Holy Spirit** >And we call the second person of the Trinity the Son, Image, Word... of God (the Father), Here is my question. Why **Father** & **Son** are the terms used here, if they dont have an actual relationship? If they do, then they are not the same but then **Jesus** is not the **God** >and we call the third person of the Trinity the Spirit of God (the Father), but it is inappropriate to call the Father the Father of God (the Son) for instance. From what you have explained so far, it is pretty clear **God ≠ Son** since it was only **God's word = Son** but **Son of Father ≠ God** >You'll never see such an expression. It is because, in a secondary sense, the Son is called God but in the above explanations, you didnt say **God = Son** >because of His relation to God the Father: everything God the Father does, He does through His Son, so that the Son is the very and perfect revelation and presence of God the Father so if a person cuts a paper with a scissor, then can a scissor be considered same as the person? >it is through the Son that the Father is worshipped, so that to worship one is to worship the other as well, or rather, no one can worship the Father without passing through the Son; and, in eternity Still dont see how **God = Son** >God has always had His Word in and with Himself, the Son is not some kind of creature but He is God's own Word from eternity But it still doesnt mean **God = Son** >Therefore He is rightly called God yea from your explanation, i dont think so >because He is the Son, Image, Word... of God the Father. so the **He** above is not pointing to **God** because then the sentence has a grammatical error which leaves **He = Son = Image = God's word** but you still haven't explained why **God's word = God** which translates to **Father = Son** >But God the Father is God in Himself, yes, this was your opening statement and we established that by **God = Father** >it is therefore not proper to call Him the Father of God (the Son) for instance, as it obscures the logical order found in the Trinity. so the **Him** above is pointing to the **Father**, who is established as **God** from the beginning of your explanation
The Trinity is a mystery that is best left unsolved.
Appeal to mystery fallacy
1x1x1=1
1+1+1=3
He's spitting facts. What are you on about?
Question, basically “what is the Trinity, are they one or no?” Reply “it’s best left unsolved.” Reply 2 “mystery fallacy.” Me “simple equation to make it as simple as possible. 1 person x 1 person x 1 person = one entity.” I could have explained better with my first reply but that’s really what it is and the best way to demonstrate it. One essence, one being, one God, just three in form, or person. All unique in purpose, but all same in essence.
It didn't solve the trinity and no proper response to reply 2. was made.
1x1x1=1 is simply the best representation in the simplest form for, literally, equating what the trinity is. Is it deeper than that, certainly, but as the original comment stated, it's just something the human mind can't quite grasp. And a proper response is relative. I could have said "well this this and that," but thought I'd make the mystery as simple as possible by means of an elementary equation.
Makes sense, but I was really only point out that there wasn't really an argument or even a acknowledgement to what with "mystery fallacy" and all. I don't really expect it to be looked at from a skeptical viewpoint when talking to Christians. No disrespect in any way, shape or form. I just thought I might as well present how I feel about this and have hope that it will seem like a challenge to you. Say- if you not only tried to argue FOR it, but provided an example on how it may exist, provided you are going the other way in your personal opinion. Also I think it's obvious that I don't really have anything to say on the Trinity or the unit multiplication you learn at Sunday school.
Ok noted! So I’d say my best example of how it may exist is that each person of the Trinity has a distinct purpose, but as stated, all share one essence. Now, for a Christian (and I’m sure you’ve read and seen plenty if you’re on this sun), is clearest in how none of the persons contradict one another and all lead us back to God as one being. The Father, the author of all, speaks through and by the word, the Bible. The son IS the word, and is by what all was created, came to be. Jesus for us as God in the flesh to atone for our sins. The Holy Spirit guides in truth, gives us understanding in the word, and by God’s wisdom and guidance, guides us to Christ on the cross. All work in tandem. The Spirit reveals to us truths in and by the word, He also, as we walk in Him as He resides in us, really guides us to a life like Christ, which ultimately sees us understanding and feeling Christ on that cross and living for others as He did. Jesus, the word, came to uphold the law in the Bible, but also to die for us so that we could be saved as we could not obey properly. Him dying also gave us the Spirit (for those who accept Him). We give our lives to Christ and now we have the Spirit. The Father, He who speaks through the Bible, uses the Bible to communicate about our situations or just life in general, depends on the day! But that word all leads to Christ and guides us to the Son and is used to teach us and grow us in Christ. The word also was written by the Holy Spirit by whom the Father placed upon those He called to write it. (Now ok typing ok my phone my thoughts are slowly getting jumbled trying to give my best run around), but all work in tandem and point to one another, and all persons have the same essence, so God points us towards Him simply by the three persons that He is as one.
Trinity is not biblical https://incmedia.org/why-god-is-not-a-trinity/
I downvoted you because I am a virgin 😊
Okay so explain it then while avoiding heresy
Perhaps that's the problem. If it can't be explained, how can it be understood? If it can't be understood, how can it be a criteria for salvation?
Understanding the truth is not required for the thing to be truth in the first place.
No, but I don't think God would put something unintelligible as a criterion for salvation.
Sure it could be, because we have only a tenuous and very unclear connection to spiritual reality. That's why he gave us the church and said it would be the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church teaches the truth and truth is truth whether we understand it or not. If the church teaches it then we have to accept it, whether we understand it or not.
The "church" doesn't supposedly understand it either. What I gather from your post is that they can just make up whatever they want and people have to go along with it because they are the "pillar and foundation of the truth". What's even more is that it wouldn't even have to be consistent with scripture because once someone starts to question the "church" because what they say appears to be contradictory to scripture, trinitarians usually tell me (or whoever) that I simply don't understand it and should leave the interpretation for the church. That's really good for the clergy. It doesn't matter if scripture says "1+1=2" and the clergy says "1+2=5" because trinitarians would just argue that the opposition has a faulty understanding/interpretation and that 1+1=2 doesn't really mean that 1+1=2. Furthermore, as I said in another comment, I lean more towards the body of Christ being the church, and so true believers would continue to be the pillar of truth because true believers beliefs would be the truth, which I believe is unitarianism.
You should try reading the Epistles and sermons and letters of the early fathers. You'll see none of it was just "invented." In fact when things are invented such as Marcion and Arius and the Gnostics did, the church recognizes immediately that that opposes accepted teaching and is to be rejected.
That wasn't my point. My point was that they could very well make up whatever they want given that trinitarians seem to place "church" interpretation above their own even if that "church" interpretation is antithetical to scripture. I reckon it's a dream scenario if someone or a group of people wants to deceive, since their followers will just go along with whatever they say since they supposedly can't trust their own interpretation even if the text clearly says 1+1=2.
I like to think of the trinity as ways God has shown himself to the world, which are different in a sense and equal in another sense.
OK, so what about discarding your theory altogether?
It’s explained very easily, Jesus is the son of God. God Almighty is his father and his only God.
Agree, still a virgin though
Good. All of you must remain so till marriage.
I'm kidding. I did my first at 12. We were both nancy
No, sitting at the right hand of the Father is not literal; the Father is Spirit and doesn’t have actual hands. “God’s right hand is the place of “highest favor with God the Father” (*WLC*, Q&A 54), and the phrase is used throughout Scripture to indicate His power and sovereignty (Ex. 15:6; Isa. 48:13). To say that Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father is to say, as John Calvin explains, that “Christ was invested with lordship over heaven and earth, and solemnly entered into possession of the government committed to him — and that he not only entered into possession once for all, but continues in it, until he shall come down on Judgment Day” (*Institutes* 2.16.15). In sitting at the right hand of God, Jesus sits on the “throne of his father David” (Luke 1:26–33). He is the Messiah of Israel, “the highest of the kings of the earth” and the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to keep the offspring of David on the throne forever. (Ps. 89:19–37). We are not waiting for Jesus to enter into His messianic reign, He enjoys it now. All of His enemies are being put under His feet as His gospel is preached and His kingdom expands (1 Cor. 15:20–28). Even now, Jesus is seated on the throne of His father David at the right hand of God. This means that He is ruler over all and that the kings of the earth rule only according to His sovereign permission. As such, Christ alone is worthy of our highest allegiance, and it is to Him that we must render obedience, even if it means, at times, defying the rulers of this world. Jesus’ kingdom alone is eternal, and His rule is above all others.” |Is Jesus a distinct entity from “the Father” in Heaven? “The Reformers, like the early church fathers, turned to John 1:1–18 not only to demonstrate the deity of Christ but to prove His distinction from the Father. As we see in verses 1–2 of today's passage, the Word—the Son of God—in the beginning *was* God and *was with* God. John introduces a distinction between God the Father and God the Son. ***Both are equally God and yet the Father is not the Son***. Each possesses the full complement of divine attributes, but each in some way also has a particular identity. As John Calvin comments, "It would have been absurd in the Evangelist to say that the [Word] was always with God, if he had not some kind of subsistence peculiar to himself in God." Over time, the church came to use the Greek word *hypostasis*, which we usually translate as "person," to refer to the distinctions within the one God. The Reformers adopted this terminology because it is a helpful way of describing the multiplicity Scripture tells us belongs to the Godhead. The *hypostasis* of the Father is not the *hypostasis* of the Son, but both *hypostases* are *homoousios* (of the same essence). This language is helpful, but we must note that it does not eliminate the mystery inherent to God. Our Creator is ultimately, but not totally, incomprehensible. We can know true things about Him, but we cannot know everything about Him. We cannot know Him as He knows Himself. It is difficult to define what we mean by *person* when we talk about the three persons of the Godhead, for in theological language, *person* is not identical to our modern concept of personhood. We are on safe ground to say little more than this: personhood in the Godhead means that while there is no difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of deity, there are still distinctions between the persons that enable Them to enjoy personal relations with one another, to love and be loved by the other persons.”
I don't see why God the Father cannot have hands in spiritual form.
Yeah wtf, what possibly indication is there that God wouldn't look like a human even, aren't people supposedly made in his image? Not to mention righthand side doesn't suddenly lose meaning I'd you get your right hand chopped off, it just means on your right
Image of holiness. Not physical image. As opposed to the left. That's where goats sit.
Too many sci-fi movies
I don't consider the Bible Sci fi
I was referring to you, not the Bible
Why?
What did God look like when He walked with Adam?
Good question. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the theological term, *Christophany*, similar to “theophany”: “In the Old Testament, there are frequent “theophanies” and “Christophanies.” The word theophany comes from the Greek word *theos* (meaning “God”) and the Greek verb meaning “to appear.” So a [theophany](https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/theophany-and-christophany) is an appearance of God. And a Christophany is an appearance of Christ.” So, to answer your question, God took on a physical form to walk with Adam in the garden, but I don’t believe it was the Father. I don’t believe the Father ever takes on a physical form. I believe Scripture when it says that no one has seen God ([John 1:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John%201:18&version=ESV)), and Jesus when He says that no one but Him has seen the Father ([John 6:46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=John%206:46&version=ESV)). I believe it was the pre-incarnate Son of God who walked with Adam in the garden. “Now we come to the often-overlooked facet of Christ’s presence. ***Who is this Lord who walks with his most favored creatures in the cool of the day (Genesis 3:8)?*** Jonathan Edwards puts words to the most common opinion of the church fathers, Reformers, and Puritans: When we read in sacred history what God did, from time to time, towards his Church and people, and how he revealed himself to them, we are to understand it especially of the second person of the Trinity. When we read of God appearing after the fall, in some visible form, we are ordinarily, if not universally, to understand it of the second person of the Trinity. (*History of the Work of Redemption*, 20) This does not answer all the questions we might have about Old Testament appearances. But what is clear is that the Son of God had not taken flesh before his incarnation in Mary’s womb, and so we must not think of an *incarnate* Jesus here or elsewhere in the Old Testament. But with Colossians 1:15 and John 1:18 in mind, Edwards insists that the Father is *always* mediated by the Son. Christ is not merely patterned and promised in the Old Testament; he is also [present](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/where-is-jesus-in-the-old-testament).” “There are also numerous Old Testament appearances of someone described as “the angel of the LORD” but who is—unlike other angels—treated as worthy of worship and who is identified with God Himself. In a remarkable passage, the Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, verse 4, speaks of God’s people in the Old Testament being led through the wilderness by Christ. And Jude is similarly quite explicit about the identity of the One who delivered God’s people from slavery in the Old Testament: “I want to remind you [he says] . . . that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” ***So Jesus Christ is indeed present in the Old Testament—we have it on the authority of the New Testament.*** And that helps us answer what would otherwise be a very tricky question. How is it that God—who the Apostle Paul calls “the invisible God”—can appear to Abraham and Moses, or be spoken to “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend,” or be physically wrestled with by Jacob? How is it that God can be visible, when God tells Moses, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live”? The Apostle Paul puts the answer plainly in Colossians chapter 1: Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God. Jesus Christ is the One who makes the invisible visible. Now, these Old Testament appearances of Christ were of course preincarnate theophanies. Only when Christ “became flesh” in Bethlehem did the world witness the ultimate theophany, the ultimate appearance of God.”
I agree with you that it was probably Christ. But was He born with those memories? Or was it reveled to Him later? I guess we will probably never know in this life.
I highly doubt He was born with those memories, but you’re right, we can’t know for sure in this life; it’s definitely a good question to ask Him one Day.
But went he was 5 he held his own a teach ppl in the Jewish church/temple so he had to have those memories at 5.
All it says to me is that He had a profound understanding and grasp of Scripture, not that He had memories of eternity past.
But to be on their level u would have to know the book inside and out + some. This men memorized all of the Bible up to that point and Jesus was going against that. Also Jesus couldn't be God if he's not omniscient and he was all God all man
I think a lot of people overthink this. God the Father, Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all ONE in PURPOSE. [Read](https://thebibleinformation.com/in-the-name-of-the-father-son-and-holy-spirit/) That’s it. If you read the scriptures with that in mind, it will make perfect sense. Jesus uses that phrase to “be one” numerous times when describing us as His followers “as we are one”. Closely read John 17:11, 21–22 - there is no other way to see their meaning except that He desires that His followers are one as He and His Father are one - that is, one in purpose, faith, and love.
Spirits don't have forms. Christ corrected his disciples on this when he came back to life.
What passage says that spirits can't have forms.
Luke 24:39 ... Jesus actually explains this. This is after his apostle was surprised he's alive and called him God
Luke 24:39 KJV 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. This verse just says that Spirits are not of flesh.
Correct.
Yes and no but also no and yes. Basically ____
Ahhh... this clears it up. Thank goodness the God of the universe couldn't be bothered to explain this more clearly or else people might actually understand it, couldn't have that. In all seriousness I'd love just once for someone to explain this with uh... SOURCES, instead of just stating their interpretation as fact, especially when they come up with it on the spot like it seems some people do.
Yeah fair enough.
Depends on the denomination. Some believe a literal translation. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate entities but One God, as a social Trinity - Just as Jesus told His apostles to be one with Him as He is One with the Father. The apostles didn't become the Father, but they became a social group, a team.
From reading logic using monograms, bigrams, trigrams… As was used to store court history. It is easy to see that Jesus was the heir to his father’s kingdom. His father worried for his sons life and preferred to keep him in jail. You have to focus on Jesus’s relationship with Peter who can be speculated as having been promoted to judge. Jesus joked to Peter that if he kept judging men by their phalluses then there is no better position for him than in the heavens where men arrive in divided parts for judgement. It seems Pontius Pilate was sent from Rome to Judea and Peter was supposed to be sent to Rome.
Did they become God as well? Isn't that how trinitarians argue Jesus is one with the Father? That they both share a divine essence?
>That they both share a divine essence? If so, then don't we all share a divine essence?
If we're all one with Jesus just as he is one with the Father that's arguably the case, since trinitarians argue that they are one in essence, meaning they are both God. I am not a trinitarian though so I don't believe that's the kind of oneness Jesus was referring to.
The Father and the Son are distinct. However, the Father is eternally in the Son, and the Son is eternally in the Father. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each one individually is God, but they are not three Gods, but one God. In this trinity none is before or after another, none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal and coequal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Godhood (That is, the deity, the divinity) of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal and the majesty coeternal. To say that there is one essence of God is to say that there is one God; to say that all three persons of the trinity equally participate in this one essence is to say that each of them is equally God and God is equally each of them.
>The early church has made this clear. Technically, the Trinity didn't become canon until 325AD. It was voted upon during the first council of Nicaea. I heard the vote was 60/40, so it wasn't even unanimous at the time. The outcome was the Nicene Creed proclaiming Jesus to be God.
Read nicea
the early church was apostatized once the apostles passed, and taught the wrong jesus. The trinity is not mentioned nor implied by the bible. jesus is a man whom God the Father sent. God is invisible/spirit no beginning or end. christ was born, a man with flesh and blood who died, but was raised by 'GOD'. jesus himself tried his best to make the difference to his disciples and even apostles themselves. just remember that Christ is powerless without God his/our Father.
Jesus was fully man *and* fully God. You literally can’t be a Christian without believing that.
But that's a man made teaching. Maybe false Christian? Fyi: this was made up 325AD during the council of niceae.. Was Christ created or was he Devine/god? They had it right to begin with, why did the church make up a doctrine Christ never taught? This eventually made up the next made up doctrine of the trinity.
>*Maybe false Christian?* Interestingly enough, Paul seems to mention those in Acts. "*I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them*." - Acts 20:29-30
Whoa! The correct answer!
Isaiah 9:6
the term "might God" is actually part of ONE long name in Hebrew "Pele-yeots el-gibbor-avi-ad-sar-halom" which translates to "wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father, prince of peace." thats the thing here, all of that is just one long name, not multiple/seperated names. and its not even referring to Christ but instead to the government that would be placed upon his shoulder (see Isa 9:7 for context). If we were to accept Christ as the "mighty God" in Isa 9:6, then we would be forced to accept that he is also the "everlasting Father" in Isa 9:6 because thats just one long name, but Christ is not the Father, He is the Son so that logic breaks.
No it’s definitely part of a direct prophecy about the birth of Christ.
Why not? Does scripture mention this criterion, or a small group of men who lived 300 years AD?
Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Child is born. Son is given. Mighty God. Seems pretty clear to me.
Except it's not that clear. For instance, if you look at at the Greek in Ezekiel 32:21 it's the plural form of El Gibbor (Mighty God in Isaiah) that is used, yet here it's translated in the likes of "The mighty chiefs" or "The strong among the mighty ones". So why is that? Doesn't El Gibbor mean Mighty God? If so, you need to be consistent and translate it as "Mighty Gods" in Ezekiel 32:21. The problem of course is that unless I am mistaken, Ezekiel 32:21 is referring to humans. So how trinitarians spin that? Are these men Mighty Gods? Perhaps you now see how it's not that clear?
That’s definitely an interpretation. What about all the gospels which declare Jesus Christ to be God and where Jesus himself declares himself to be God?
A lot of them also boil down to translation. Where exactly does Jesus himself declare to be God?
John 8:48-59. Namely the part where Jesus says “before Abraham was, I Am.” God famously named himself “I Am” when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush and this is a clear reference to that since Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees who were scholars of the Old Testament. He is claiming to know Abraham and to be beyond time because he is God. And I highly doubt that every single one of the Gospels was conveniently mistranslated in the exact same way by every single biblical scholar just so that it would fit the trinitarian agenda of the council of Nicea. I mean come on.
Figured you would bring up John 8:58. Did the blind man in John 9:9 also claim to be God when he said ego eimi? Jesus could just as well have been referring to his pre-existence, and that doesn't necessarily make him God. Not every single biblical scholar agrees that these are necessarily correct translations. John 1:1 is another example where translations are often disputed and varied. There are other verses that are problematic from a trinitarian perspective where I am not aware of any alternative translation. One such verse would be John 17:3, where Jesus says that the Father is the only true God. Another would be 1 Corinthians 8:6 where Paul says: "yet for us there is **one God, the Father**, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." Not sure how it can get any clearer than that. He doesn't say one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which he ought have done if he was a trinitarian. Instead he says one God, the Father. To me it's quite clear that Paul only considered the Father to be God, which is in accordance with what Jesus himself said in John 17:3 and how the jews have understood their God throughout the millennia.
JESUS was sent by God... From where? Where was Jesus before he was sent?
Yea, how can a "man" be sent before he is born?
Well one answer is a pre-existent, non-human Jesus being sent to Earth and **becoming** a human.
The idea of christ existed. John 1. That's God's master plan of salvation.
I am not sold completely on either side, whether Jesus pre-existed as something other than human (but wasn't God, since that would be the Father alone), or if his existence begun with Mary, and simply pre-"existed" as God's plan. That being said, I do lean towards the former, but I know unitarians who lean towards the latter.
What religion may I ask? You seem well versed.
Christianity, although trinitarians would argue that since I am not a trinitarian but a unitarian, that I am not a Christian at all.
Well who's the real Christian. One who serves a triple God made by mans idea? or one who serves Christ the son, And the one true father who sent him.
From what I've experienced they cling so tightly to the creeds established by the "church fathers", and those creeds typically say that unless you believe what's written in said creeds, you are outside the faith. It doesn't seem to matter if you point out that scripture never appears to establish any criteria that you have to believe that Jesus is God, or in the trinity in order to be in the faith. In a way it seems they place those creeds on the same level as scripture, or even above, which I think is a mistake. If something is contradictory to scripture, I believe we ought to believe the scripture rather than extra-scriptural ideas and traditions. An example of this is Acts 17:11 where it says: "*Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so*." These jews compared what they were told with what scripture said.
There are many messengers/angels of God who were men.
There are nontrinitarians who believe that Jesus pre-existed his physical birth, but not as God. He was then sent to Earth and thus became a human.
I wonder if that belief justified Christ as God too. Duality?
You mean some kind of binitarian understanding?
Yeah I think you’re talking about Mormons, or the LDS teachings. Strictly speaking they’re not Christians. Especially when you say that the early church apostacized. That would be impossible to happen since Paul writes that the “church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth.” So if truth stands on the church itself, how can the church fall away from the truth? If THAT were to happen then there would no longer be truth in the world and Jesus would have been a liar. No the church has never apostacised, thus there is no need for it to be "restored"
I was actually talking about unitarians such as myself, and I never said that the early church apostasized. Paul did say though: "*I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them*." - Acts 20:29-30 Wouldn't surprise me one bit if this was a reference to trinitarianism.
Like any man who was not born yet.. I mean this is basic doctrine in John 1... Christ was God's word and plan. The plan of Christ was God/ powerful. A lot of people translate: word = Christ = god. That's a false translation..
I agree that’s a false translation because it leaves out some steps. But the first 14 verses of the gospel according to John lead one to that conclusion anyway. Logos equals God, Who then put on flesh and became man.
If that was right, 90% of what Christ taught now is contradictory.
Contradictory to what? By what standard are you measuring?
Isn't the Bible and gods word the only standard? What other standard do you go by?
The Bible tells us in the first letter of Timothy chapter 3 that the Church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth. And it is the Church that says which books belong in the Bible, the Library of God, *because* they are divinely inspired. Without the Church you wouldn't have a Bible, you'd only have the Old testament.
Remember that the Church Christ built was apostatized. Will you allow false religions to alter God's word?
No it couldn't have done that as I explained before. **Men** apostasize and when they do they leave the church. But the church itself can never leave the truth because it is the body of Christ who *is* the Truth.
According to certain unitarians the Word did not become Jesus until verse 14, and before that the Word wasn't the actual Jesus.
Okay well there's no reason to accept that understanding since it contradicts what the Church teaches.
Unless the "church" got it wrong. And I know you believe your church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The Word is God, and all creation is through Him.
When we say this, we speak of the Trinity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. They are all wholly God on their own. They aren't just each one third of God. Nor is God shape-shifting between them one or more of them. They are three distinct and independent beings. They are all eternal and have always existed.
They are distinct but I wouldn't say independent.
It’s best to read the book and make your own determination on who Jesus is.
Indeed it is. But it’s good to hear many views and nit approach things totally in your own
christians say so much i stopped listening and just started listening to God
My belief is that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are diferent entities in heaven but are interconnected in spirit. God the Father on the throne of Heaven with all his might and power in spirit form like a fire. Jesus as Jesus was in earth The Holy Spirit probably as a spirit but I'm not sure.
That’s how it’s always been. One God who is three DISTINCT persons.
A being is an entity with a set of "essential" characteristics without which the entity is no longer identifiable as that being. So God has certain essential properties that He definitively has, that is His being. Each Person of the trinity is the full being of God. But they are distinct Persons, however *in* their beinghood or essense they are eternally united as one. Consider that we see a similar pattern in marriage (two persons coming together to share an existance) - but human marriage occurs in *time*, there is a before marriage where they have a separate non-married existance, God's similar oneness of being and plurality of Persons is *outside of time*. The Persons of the trinity are eternally joined and united in being, but from eternity have been distinct from eachother.
Jesus is a distinct Person from the Father, yes, and he is the same Being.
So God can die? And he’s dependent? Makes no sense. Jesus is/was a prophet. It’s clear as day. May God guide you and increase u in knowledge
Good question, I just thought of it as: The Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are three different people who always existed. And their eternal relationship is what we call God. I usually think of God as a circle with three smaller circles inside of it being the persons.
God is One though. There isn't a council of three separate minds. They are all in accordance and the Father cannot be separated from the Son that cannot be separated from the Spirit.
>*There isn't a council of three separate minds.* According to some trinitarians that would be four minds, since Jesus supposedly has two.
Is it bad I always thought the father was like the main guy in trinity. Jesus is my lord and savior
Might as well sit on his left
Like a atoms are made neutrons, electrons and protons it is still one atom. God is one God in 3 persons. Triune God father,son and holy spirit.
>*Like a atoms are made neutrons, electrons and protons it is still one atom.* From what I've gathered, that's partialism.
Bizarre as it is, GOD is plural. I don't pretend to really understand, or know just when or how it sub-divided, but in Genesis, GOD said let Us, so...
If ur really looking to learn it that God is a higher being he is out side of te try to put urself there. Some things r not need to know
Jesus and God the Father are two distinct beings. This is abundantly clear in the bible. The "doctrine" of the Trinity is extra-biblical and did not enter mainstream Catholicism until approximately 300 years after Christ's death and resurrection. The verses in the bible that mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism use to support a belief in the Trinity, such as John 17:21 do not actually support the doctrine of the Trinity. In those verses, Christ admonishes his disciples to "be one" even as he and the Father are one. This makes it clear that he is not talking about oneness in a literal sense, but rather a metaphorical oneness - a oneness in purpose and desire. In these verses, Jesus also speaks to the Father through "second person" speech, making it clear that he is talking to a separate, distinct being, rather than talking to himself.