Is God Three?

Ktoyou

New member
Hall of Fame
Yep :) many different forms,...also pan-en-theism is more fitting within a traditional theist context,...since all exists in (en) 'God', since nothing can exist outside of him. Isn't 'God' omnipresent? :)

Omnipresent in the He apprehends all at the same time, yet reserves comprehension to what needs His attention.

Where many error is think God is present in the air, or wood, or a kids rubber ball. These are very simplistic and incorrect human ideas.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
there are no gods beside Him, and no gods with Him.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1-2)

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Yes, Jesus wholly affirmed the Shema. More on this can be seen in one of my posts that got sent to the Spammner's wasteland thread here :thumb: - (a 'plural unity' may be implied in terms such as 'elohim', but not necessarily for 'echad' which describes YHWH uniquely and specially, so deeper study required)

Strong's Concordance
echad: one
Original Word: אֶחָד
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: echad
Phonetic Spelling: (ekh-awd')
Short Definition: one

Echad is an adjective and can refer to one of many.
 

Squeaky

BANNED
Banned
The trinity, as an official doctrine, began to be developed in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea and was completed in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. Both of these official events were convened and presided over by Roman Emperors. So by 381 A.D. it was officially decreed that God was three persons who were equally the one God.

“[The Trinity Doctrine] is not ... directly and immediately the word of God.” - (p. 304) “The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples for over 100 years], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.


Now it is obvious that Scripture uses the word 'one' numerous times to describe God. And it is equally obvious that every dream or vision of God shows a single person as God (sometimes the Messiah is shone approaching or standing by the one person depicted as God (Acts 7:55 and Dan. 7:9, 13, 14 are good examples).

So, how many times in Scripture is God described using the word 'three'?

And how many times is he shown in scripture as three persons? or one person with three faces?

I said
Well I can tell you what the Word says. Jesus said the Father is the only true God. And Paul said for us there is only one God the Father.

John 17:1-3

1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
(NKJ)

1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
(NKJ)
 

Hawkins

New member
Thanks for offering an analogy,

but I am interested in scripture.

Now if scripture offers analogies, then I am interested.

I see that you are not willing to withdraw your "logic"

Even though your logic makes Gods out of many humansm maybe thousands maybe millions of humans depending on what God means by those unto whom the word of God came.

The three in one God theory is therefore off by maybe millions of God in one.

The trinity is not taught by scripture.

Jesus is no more "the God" than Moses or those unto whom the word of God came.

Jesus is the son of God.

An analogy?

Why not the egg analogy? You know the shell, white and yolk analogy?

Or the ice, water, steam analogy?

Why didn't God use those to explain himself or is it themselves?

Why do you use them?

God didn't, are you a better communicator than God?

Rest assured, God is the great communicator, if He wanted me to understand He knows how to communicate to me without your man made analogies.

God is not an egg, or is that news to you?

How many eggs do you use to make an omelet?

God is not fragile,you are not going to break God into three pieces.


Your argument here is moot. Even Jesus quoted that He's in OT. David called God the Lord of my Lord.

There's another location where Isaiah put it into a prophecy.

It only shows that God has revealed who He is to only the prophets in OT. You can't thus draw the conclusion that Moses' God is not the same simply because Moses didn't mention His Trinity, under the possibility that God didn't want him to reveal God's anatomy at that moment. I even give you the reason why, as back then the Jews are the only ethnic group believing in monotheism. The introduction of a Trinity God can only confuse them (as they are already very confused for being put in wilderness for 40 years).


Isaiah 9:6 (NIV2011)
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.

As a prophecy, the above can be divided into two parts. The first clearly says that it's Jesus who is to be prophesied.

Now take a look at the second part,

Wonderful Counselor
In NT Jesus is seldom referred to as a wonderful counselor. The Holy Spirit is the Wonderful Counselor instead.

Mighty God
OK.

Everlasting Father
God the Farther. Jesus is never called as the Everlasting Father.

Prince of Peace
This is Jesus who is the focus of such a prophecy.

Now how God will be called?
Mighty God - God
Wonderful Counselor - God the Holy Spirit
Everlasting Father - God the Father
Prince of Peace - God the Son


You can't simply get to the conclusion that Jesus is not taught in OT. The Jews don't need to understand God's anatomy though. God didn't even leave His name to the Jews, not to speak what He's composed of. To me, "Name" gives another reason why Jesus should be protected from being revealed to the Jews.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
Your argument here is moot. Even Jesus quoted that He's in OT. David called God the Lord of my Lord.

There's another location where Isaiah put it into a prophecy.

It only shows that God has revealed who He is to only the prophets in OT. You can't thus draw the conclusion that Moses' God is not the same simply because Moses didn't mention His Trinity, under the possibility that God didn't want him to reveal God's anatomy at that moment. I even give you the reason why, as back then the Jews are the only ethnic group believing in monotheism. The introduction of a Trinity God can only confuse them (as they are already very confused for being put in wilderness for 40 years).


Isaiah 9:6 (NIV2011)
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.

As a prophecy, the above can be divided into two parts. The first clearly says that it's Jesus who is to be prophesied.

Now take a look at the second part,

Wonderful Counselor
In NT Jesus is seldom referred to as a wonderful counselor. The Holy Spirit is the Wonderful Counselor instead.

Mighty God
OK.

Everlasting Father
God the Farther. Jesus is never called as the Everlasting Father.

Prince of Peace
This is Jesus who is the focus of such a prophecy.

Now how God will be called?
Mighty God - God
Wonderful Counselor - God the Holy Spirit
Everlasting Father - God the Father
Prince of Peace - God the Son


You can't simply get to the conclusion that Jesus is not taught in OT. The Jews don't need to understand God's anatomy though. God didn't even leave His name to the Jews, not to speak what He's composed of. To me, "Name" gives another reason why Jesus should be protected from being revealed to the Jews.

You claim it to be moot.

That does not make it moot.

Please show me from scripture why it is moot.

Indeed, references to the messiah are clearly found in the OT

That is not proof that Jesus existed in the OT times

It is proof that God planned and foreknew and foretold of the messiah that God would provide

See Genesis 3:15, the first place God foretold of our redeemer

As for the names that God gave to His son

Why do you find them proof that Jesus is God?

Did you expect God to name his son after the Devil? maybe Satan? or Baal, or the destroyer?

Would you name your children using your last name or someone else's last name?

Those of us who want to learn scripture have to realize that God has "common" sense.

He named his son after himself.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1-2)

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

Yes, indeed, the son has the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.

Jesus was begotten, he had a beginning, Matthew 1:18

and as a perfect son, both genetically and with the decisions that Jesus Christ made, he definitely was the revealed logos of God in the flesh
 

Hawkins

New member
You claim it to be moot.

That does not make it moot.

Please show me from scripture why it is moot.

Indeed, references to the messiah are clearly found in the OT

That is not proof that Jesus existed in the OT times

It is proof that God planned and foreknew and foretold of the messiah that God would provide

See Genesis 3:15, the first place God foretold of our redeemer

As for the names that God gave to His son

Why do you find them proof that Jesus is God?

Did you expect God to name his son after the Devil? maybe Satan? or Baal, or the destroyer?

Would you name your children using your last name or someone else's last name?

Those of us who want to learn scripture have to realize that God has "common" sense.

He named his son after himself.

Your moot is that I told you time after time that there's reason why Jesus is not conveyed to the Jews as God in OT. Why do you have to insist that OT needs to teach Jesus as God in order for Him to be God?

I used Thomas as an example to explain to you that why Jesus is God in NT.

Your only argument time and again is that "until Jesus is conveyed to the Jews that He's God in OT, or else He's not God". This is a moot argument. Because you are not God. If God has a reason (the possibilities I have already shown you) not to reveal what He is composed of to the Jews, you thus can't claim that Jesus is not God.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Your argument here is moot. Even Jesus quoted that He's in OT. David called God the Lord of my Lord.

You seem to be mixed up those Lord.

LORD is God and Lord is Jesus.

In some scripture, they interpret God as Yahweh and Jesus is Lord; and I think this is the better one.
 

Hawkins

New member
You seem to be mixed up those Lord.

LORD is God and Lord is Jesus.

In some scripture, they interpret God as Yahweh and Jesus is Lord; and I think this is the better one.

So you mean that "lord of my lord" means Jesus of my Jesus? I don't think what you said here makes any sense.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
You you mean that "lord of my lord" means Jesus of my Jesus? I don't think what you said here makes any sense.

Your typing was not clear.

It was confusing post.

But I can follow context of your claims.


You are trying to legitimate your claim of trinity doctrine.
 

Hawkins

New member
Your typing was not clear.

It was confusing post.

But I can follow context of your claims.

Are you sincere to say that my sentence is confusing?

So you mean that "lord of my lord" means Jesus of my Jesus? I don't think what you said here makes any sense.

The significance of what David said "Lord said to my lord" is that "God said to my master". David is a prophet. He won't have another master than God. That's the significance of the implication.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
Are you sincere to say that my sentence is confusing?

So you mean that "lord of my lord" means Jesus of my Jesus? I don't think what you said here makes any sense.
Ok, that is more clear but that is not proof of trinity whatsoever.
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
The same question for you. Why do you insist that the OT has to prove that Jesus is God? How can you neglect what Thomas called Jesus in NT?

I never claim OT has to prove Jesus is God because Jesus makes it clear in NT that He is the Son of God. He never claims God the Son.
 

Hawkins

New member
I never claim OT has to prove Jesus is God becaseu Jesus makes it clear in NT that He is Son of God. He never claims God the Son.

If you read my posts, I already explained why He can't (I mean CAN'T) claim to be God even when He is! My question for you again is that why do you have to neglect how Thomas called Jesus?
 

meshak

BANNED
Banned
I you read my posts, I already explained why He can't (I mean CAN'T) claim to be God even when He is! My question for you again is that why do you have to neglect how Thomas called Jesus?

That is not clear verse.

and your interpretation is out of the context to Jesus' word about Himself.
 

Hawkins

New member
That is not clear verse.

and your interpretation is out of the context to Jesus' word about Himself.

Have you read my posts at all. Even oatmeal reckoned that what I said makes sense in NT. His only argument remains why Jesus is not taught in OT. That's before you jumped up from no where.
 
Top