The Trinity

[JudgeRightly]

How was he equal to his creator????

The Son is a creature not God.

He was given the fullness of his Father but he is just a creature.

He, however, is a godlike spirit, a form of God, not a man. He took the form of man in the body prepared for him.

No one is equal to the Father, he is the most high.

Sent from my iPad using TOL

See, you're assuming that the Son was created, and that's why you have a problem with that verse. It clearly states that the Son was equal with God. The Son was NOT created, because He is God the Son. He existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit for all of eternity past.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How was he equal to his creator????

The Son is a creature not God.

He was given the fullness of his Father but he is just a creature.

He, however, is a godlike spirit, a form of God, not a man. He took the form of man in the body prepared for him.

No one is equal to the Father, he is the most high.

.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

In other words, Jesus the Son wasn't just equal with the Creator, He IS the Creator.

 

[keypurr]

See, you're assuming that the Son was created, and that's why you have a problem with that verse. It clearly states that the Son was equal with God. The Son was NOT created, because He is God the Son. He existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit for all of eternity past.

I assume nothing.

In Col 1:15 he is said to be a creature.

In Heb 1:3 he is the express image of the Father. ALL IMAGES are creations.

ONLY the FATHER is not a creation.

It is you and the churches that break the commandments and have created another God.

There is NO GOD THE SON in scripture.

The express image did exist first for it/he is the firstborn of all creation and God created all through it/him. He was given the fullness of the Father but he still is a creation. A spirit Son. Heb 1, Col 1, Phil 2.

The Father is GREATER than ALL, just as Christ tells you. Why do you not listen to HIM???????

Jesus was not at the creation, the logos was. The logos went into the body that was prepared for him, the logos is a spirit that spoke through Jesus. Jesus is a man born to Mary. He is the flesh son of the most high.

 

[keypurr]

In other words, Jesus the Son wasn't just equal with the Creator, He IS the Creator.

Did he not say that ALL POWER was GIVEN to him???

The Father was pleased that it/he contained his fullness. Col 1:15-22.

If he is equal to his God why did he need power given to him???

The logos is a form of God not God. A spirit liker his creator.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

God and is spirit Son are the we/us/our in the book or Genesis.

 

[God's Truth]

You just proved that you do not understand my thoughts




The WORD is the logos, the express image of the Father. This is what God sent to us, not himself. Heb 1




Nope, he sent his son.




Yes, God is a spirit but it was his spirit son he sent.




I think we are all guilty of this GT.




Say I think you are wrong is not insulting you, it is just saying I think your wrong. I do not doubt your love for who you think is God.

Are you kidding? You sound like an abusive person. You tell me I will never learn, and you tell me I don't know God, etc. All you have are insults because if you had the truth you would be trying to convince me with it instead of merely insulting.

 

[glorydaz]

The WORD is the logos, the express image of the Father. This is what God sent to us, not himself. Heb 1

Nope, he sent his son.

Yes, God is a spirit but it was his spirit son he sent.

This is like a game show. :banana:

Behind window # 1, we have "the express image of the Father".

Behind window # 2, we have "his son".

Behind window # 3, we have "his spirit son".

 

[keypurr]

Are you kidding? You sound like an abusive person. You tell me I will never learn, and you tell me I don't know God, etc. All you have are insults because if you had the truth you would be trying to convince me with it instead of merely insulting.

Your stuck in a rut GT, time to explore more. We all need to keep seeking his truth.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[keypurr]

This is like a game show. :banana:

Behind window # 1, we have "the express image of the Father".

Behind window # 2, we have "his son".

Behind window # 3, we have "his spirit son".

Thats a good start, now work on it.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Rosenritter]

So, you refuse to accept Paul's claim that the God he is speaking of is the Father of Jesus Christ? Just because he doesn't say that in the verse you were given?

No, because that's my understanding as well. I understand all these references to mean the same God with one character and personality.

The issue is not whether the Father is God, the issue is that if one is using a Trinity model, these are not interchangeable terms when used in the context of naming other members of the Trinity.

"God, Son, and Holy Ghost" is not correct within the Trinity model.
"Father, God, and Holy Ghost" is not correct within the Trinity model.
'Father, Son, and God" isn't it either.

My understanding doesn't have a problem with freely interchanging Father, God, Son, and Holy Ghost with each other. Or Lion of Judah and Lamb of God. Or Sun of Righteousness and Bright and Morning Star. The reason for the different names would be for context and application. It's Trinity that gets all specific and says it's wrong to "confuse the persons."

 

[Rosenritter]

How was he equal to his creator????

The Son is a creature not God.

He was given the fullness of his Father but he is just a creature.

He, however, is a godlike spirit, a form of God, not a man. He took the form of man in the body prepared for him.

No one is equal to the Father, he is the most high.

Sent from my iPad using TOL

Jesus is the Creator.

Joh 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10-12 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
(12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

What part of "all things were made by him" is hard to understand? Or is "and the world was made by him" difficult language? Or do you lack the mathematical comprehension that "without him was not any thing made that was made" excludes himself from being a thing that was made?

Joh 5:18 KJV
(18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Php 2:5-6 KJV
(5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The Son of God is equal with God, and is God. The Son of God is not a created creature. That's something pulled from your own imagining, not from an explicit statement of scripture. Here's what scripture explicitly states:

Col 1:13-17 KJV
(13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Yet what do you have the audacity to claim? By your own word?

How was he equal to his creator???? The Son is a creature not God.

The Son was the creator of all things in heaven and earth. As he created all things, including those in heaven, he cannot be one of the things that was created in heaven. It does not say that Jesus is a creature, it does not say that the Son is a creature, it says he is the firstborn of every creature. It's a Jewish term. We've covered this before. It means the Creator.

 

[God's Truth]

Your stuck in a rut GT, time to explore more. We all need to keep seeking his truth.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

I am no such thing. You are a lousy judge. I have the truth. You admit you don't, so be a better student.

 

[lifeisgood]

Show where I have complained about someone lying about what I say.

Go back and read your own responses as if it was someone else responding.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You believe a man became God. You have false beliefs.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[glorydaz]

No, because that's my understanding as well. I understand all these references to mean the same God with one character and personality.

The issue is not whether the Father is God, the issue is that if one is using a Trinity model, these are not interchangeable terms when used in the context of naming other members of the Trinity.

"God, Son, and Holy Ghost" is not correct within the Trinity model.
"Father, God, and Holy Ghost" is not correct within the Trinity model.
'Father, Son, and God" isn't it either.

My understanding doesn't have a problem with freely interchanging Father, God, Son, and Holy Ghost with each other. Or Lion of Judah and Lamb of God. Or Sun of Righteousness and Bright and Morning Star. The reason for the different names would be for context and application. It's Trinity that gets all specific and says it's wrong to "confuse the persons."

Did the Holy Spirit die on the cross? Or the Father? There are reasons people say the members of the Godhead are distinct. God certainly fits Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so context ALWAYS must come into play.

When GT says the Lord Jesus is the (HOLY) Spirit, that's error. It's blurring the distinction and mishandling the verse in question. It's missing the point the verse is making. Context is everything.

 

[Rosenritter]

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Lazy, would you please define how you understand the words Lord and Christ in that passage of Acts 2:36?

 

[Rosenritter]

Did the Holy Spirit die on the cross? Or the Father? There are reasons people say the members of the Godhead are distinct. God certainly fits Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so context ALWAYS must come into play.

When GT says the Lord Jesus is the (HOLY) Spirit, that's error. It's blurring the distinction and mishandling the verse in question. It's missing the point the verse is making. Context is everything.

That there is a good example of why we (you and I) should use different terms. It would sound very strange to say that the Holy Spirit died on the cross, seeing that we use the term Holy Spirit to speak of God in the sense of being invisible and unseen in this world. I also agree that it would be very confusing to say that the Father died on the cross, since the Father is how Jesus used to refer to God in heaven while he was on the earth.

If someone threw a knife at you and I saved you by catching the knife in my hand, it would be correct to say that I saved you from death, and that my hand was impaled by that knife. It would be incorrect to say that my head was impaled by the knife. We would maintain that distinction, even though we recognize that my head and my hand are really aspects (extensions) of the same person, with one character and a single personality.

That analogy isn't even that far removed from scripture. Jesus is called the arm of the Lord (Isaiah 53:1, John 12:38) and we are told that the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). The arm of the Lord can do nothing except by the will of his Father (John 5:30) which wouldn't be the case if these were separate persons with their own wills and personalities.

But back to my original point, Paul (and the other writers) do not speak as Trinitarians. They feel no need to divide up their attention or praise between any three distinct persons. While they do refer to God in different ways, and in relation to different forms as appropriate for context (as you brought up) they don't speak of a Trinity. God never saw fit to put such terms in our scripture. I am not saying that it might not have some use as a model (acknowledging that a model is seldom perfectly accurate in all points) but we shouldn't demand that others swear allegiance to a model.

 

[God's Truth]

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

But he was God before coming to earth. His Spirit is the Spirit of God. So no, you are in falseness when you say a mere man became God; impossible.

 

[glorydaz]

That analogy isn't even that far removed from scripture. Jesus is called the arm of the Lord (Isaiah 53:1, John 12:38) and we are told that the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). The arm of the Lord can do nothing except by the will of his Father (John 5:30) which wouldn't be the case if these were separate persons with their own wills and personalities.

There is one God with ONE WILL. Why would the Godhead have more than one will? Why would the Godhead have different "personalities"?

The Father, Son, and Spirit are never separate. We refer to the "distinctions" as persons (although that word usually speaks of human beings) because God is a being (a Divine being) while we are human beings. Perhaps you're arguing a moot point. No analogy can ever do justice to our Great God.

 

[keypurr]

Jesus is the Creator.

Joh 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:10-12 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
(12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

What part of "all things were made by him" is hard to understand? Or is "and the world was made by him" difficult language? Or do you lack the mathematical comprehension that "without him was not any thing made that was made" excludes himself from being a thing that was made?

Joh 5:18 KJV
(18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Php 2:5-6 KJV
(5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

The Son of God is equal with God, and is God. The Son of God is not a created creature. That's something pulled from your own imagining, not from an explicit statement of scripture. Here's what scripture explicitly states:

Col 1:13-17 KJV
(13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Yet what do you have the audacity to claim? By your own word?



The Son was the creator of all things in heaven and earth. As he created all things, including those in heaven, he cannot be one of the things that was created in heaven. It does not say that Jesus is a creature, it does not say that the Son is a creature, it says he is the firstborn of every creature. It's a Jewish term. We've covered this before. It means the Creator.

Jesus was not. At the creation, the logos was.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he did not exist until then.

All things were created by God THROUGH his express image, a spirit not a man. The son that was with God is not the human Jesus.

Agree that the Son, logos, did the work his Father gave him to do. But consider that this express image son is a created creature. Only the Father is the true God. This son was given the power of his creator, his Father.

You need to see the spirit son AND the flesh son as two that became one in the body of Jesus. The Universe was not created by a man.


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[keypurr]

I am no such thing. You are a lousy judge. I have the truth. You admit you don't, so be a better student.

Your far from truth GT, but your heart is in the right place.


Sent from my iPad using TOL