ECT Our triune God

OneGodInChrist

New member
Jn . 1:1 The Word/Christ incarnated, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit. The Word is God, so trinitarians fully affirm that the fulness of Deity became man, the God-Man in Christ. This verse does not negate the hundreds that only make sense if God is triune, not solitary.

Although I know you don't challenge the absolute Deity of Christ, but rather confirm it godrulz, I believe the "logos" in John 1:1, is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the Bible. The Greek logos simply means thought, intent, plan, speech, expression, etc. It does not mean "person."

This verse simply means the same thing as when the Bible calls Jesus "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev.13:8
Jesus wasn't literally slain from the foundation of the world, but prophetically He was.
Thats also why the Bible says that God "created all things by Jesus Christ."
God prophetically knew that someday He would become flesh, before He ever created the worlds, and also knew He'd be slain as the sacrificial Lamb that would take away sins.
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
An understanding of throne concept is important (not our idea of a modern king on a chair). It represents authority. I also recognize symbolic, figurative language in Revelation. However, you deny clear historical, didactic passages that distinguish Father and Son (in one sense) and I agree with the ones that make them one (in another sense).

I totally agree with you about the throne being a position of authority. I however see the passages you refer to as distinguishing the Father and the Son as distinguishing between different manifestations, not person, as you know. When the Bible talks about the Son it's referring to the Son of God who was born at Bethlehem, died at Calvary, and rose again. We don't disagree there.
 

Apple7

New member
Just wondering if anyone wants to tackle this one: When we get to heaven, how many "persons" of God will we see? How many thrones will be there? I already know my answer, but would like to hear others. Im non changing the thread, because this has everything to do with this subject.

God bless,
OGIC


Why did you give up on defending your 'position' of God the Son never making an appearance in the OT, brother?

Jesus, Himself, said that He saw Abraham(first-person singular)...and Abraham likewise saw Him!

Open and shut case against your position...yes?

This is probably why you went silent.
 

Apple7

New member
Rev. 1:6 "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst if the throne and of tye four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood A LAMB AS IT HAD BEEN SLAIN, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth in all the earth."

I think we woukd both agree that that verse is symbolic and not literal. Is Jesus going to be literally there as a seven horned, seven eyed, Lamb. No, it's symbolic of what He did in sacrificing Himself on Calvary.


99% of Revelation is paraphrased from the OT, brother.

With a little footwork you can see the same things which were applied to Yahweh are directly applied to Jesus...thus, making Him God Almighty all by itself.




Jesus said in Rev. 3:21 that He was set down with His Father in His throne. Does that literally mean that two of them are sitting on one throne together? No, I believe it simply means Jesus sits on the throne as the Father.

Not in English.

Not in Greek.

No where does scripture ever state that the Father is the Son, or visa-versa.
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
Why did you give up on defending your 'position' of God the Son never making an appearance in the OT, brother?

Jesus, Himself, said that He saw Abraham(first-person singular)...and Abraham likewise saw Him!

Open and shut case against your position...yes?

This is probably why you went silent.

Actually my answer would be very simple..I believe that anywhere God appeared in the Old Testament to Abraham or anywhere else it was Christ, because I believe that Jesus is God. However, I don't believe that only one third of the Godhead was in Christ, but ALL THE FULNESS of God was Col. 2:9
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
Not in English.

Not in Greek.

No where does scripture ever state that the Father is the Son, or visa-versa.

"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Phillip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9
 

godrulz

New member
Hall of Fame
"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Phillip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9

I AND the Father; Peter AND Paul...they are one in nature, not person (Greek neuter is used=trinity consistent; if masculine 'one' was used, it might imply modalism).

Jesus perfectly reflects the character of the Father, the invisible God made visible. Hundreds of other verses (vs proof text out of context) shows that the Father is not the Son in all ways (one essence, but personally distinct).
 

Apple7

New member
Actually my answer would be very simple..I believe that anywhere God appeared in the Old Testament to Abraham or anywhere else it was Christ, because I believe that Jesus is God. However, I don't believe that only one third of the Godhead was in Christ, but ALL THE FULNESS of God was Col. 2:9

Tell us what you think the Trinity even is, brother...
 

Apple7

New member
"I and my Father are one." John 10:30

'One' what?



"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Phillip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9

God in the flesh is known as the Son....i.e. Malek Yahweh in the OT....i.e. also known as the messenger of God.

Even Jesus never said that He was the Father - but always made clear distinction between His deity and that of the Father.
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
Tell us what you think the Trinity even is, brother...

Well, first I want to say that I have the upmost respect for those who may hold a different view than myself because I was raised in a Trinitarian church and am still really close to the saints and pastor of that church, as well as others.

However I believe that Paul was speaking prophetically in Col. 2:8-9 that there would come a day when it would be taught that the fulness of the Godhead did not dwell in Christ.

If you study Church history from around 250AD to the present, it appears that the Trinity is a very Orthodox view.

However, if you study Church history prior to the third century, the picture looks much different. History teaches that prior to the day of a man by the name of Tertullian, the doctrine of the Trinity didn't exist.

Although there were discussions and disputes about the Godhead even back then, the Trinitarian concept wasn't widespread until Tertullian, even though his concept of the Trinity was much different than that was developed and confirmed at the Counsel of Nicea in 320 AD.

Prior to 100AD even secular church history confirms that all believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, with those exact words pronounced over them.

When the book of Mathew was written in approx. 63AD, ALL believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and still were for atleast another 50+ years, until the apostles died off and their successors and other teachings began to come in. To that date, hundreds of thousands of people continued to be baptized in Jesus' name and no other way.

To them Math. 28:19 was not a contradiction to how they baptized in the book of Acts, and for the next 100 years, but a confirmation. To them, when Jesus told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I believe they knew what that name was, so they baptized in the name of Jesus, confirming also Paul's statement in Col. 2:9

Those who sat on the Counsel of Nicea were NOT men who were even qualified to make any decisions on who God was. They were very paganistic, political "Christians" who believed a very compromised version of Christianity to what you and I believe today, which would later become known to us as Roman Catholicism.

In short, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is the one Catholic doctrine that most of Reformed Christianity hasn't YET let go of.
 

Bright Raven

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then he wasn't really dead.

Yes He was my friend.

John 10:17-18

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
 

Apple7

New member
Well, first I want to say that I have the upmost respect for those who may hold a different view than myself because I was raised in a Trinitarian church and am still really close to the saints and pastor of that church, as well as others.


That's nice...however, you still have yet to tell us what you think the Trinity even is...perhaps you never learned it...you just deny it for no good reason...yes?




However I believe that Paul was speaking prophetically in Col. 2:8-9 that there would come a day when it would be taught that the fulness of the Godhead did not dwell in Christ.

If you study Church history from around 250AD to the present, it appears that the Trinity is a very Orthodox view.

However, if you study Church history prior to the third century, the picture looks much different. History teaches that prior to the day of a man by the name of Tertullian, the doctrine of the Trinity didn't exist.

Although there were discussions and disputes about the Godhead even back then, the Trinitarian concept wasn't widespread until Tertullian, even though his concept of the Trinity was much different than that was developed and confirmed at the Counsel of Nicea in 320 AD.


Moses was Trinitarian.

This trumps your church fathers.....yes?





Prior to 100AD even secular church history confirms that all believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, with those exact words pronounced over them.

When the book of Mathew was written in approx. 63AD, ALL believers were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and still were for atleast another 50+ years, until the apostles died off and their successors and other teachings began to come in. To that date, hundreds of thousands of people continued to be baptized in Jesus' name and no other way.

To them Math. 28:19 was not a contradiction to how they baptized in the book of Acts, and for the next 100 years, but a confirmation. To them, when Jesus told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I believe they knew what that name was, so they baptized in the name of Jesus, confirming also Paul's statement in Col. 2:9

Scripture tells us that there is no difference in baptising in the singular name of the Trinity or the singular name of Jesus.




Those who sat on the Counsel of Nicea were NOT men who were even qualified to make any decisions on who God was. They were very paganistic, political "Christians" who believed a very compromised version of Christianity to what you and I believe today, which would later become known to us as Roman Catholicism.

In short, I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is the one Catholic doctrine that most of Reformed Christianity hasn't YET let go of.


The OT prophets were Trinitarian...and they came long before the Catholic church...
 

OneGodInChrist

New member
That's nice...however, you still have yet to tell us what you think the Trinity even is...perhaps you never learned it...you just deny it for no good reason...yes?







Moses was Trinitarian.

This trumps your church fathers.....yes?







Scripture tells us that there is no difference in baptising in the singular name of the Trinity or the singular name of Jesus.







The OT prophets were Trinitarian...and they came long before the Catholic church...

I apologize for misreading your question about the Trinity. I answered as I thought you were asking. I have a complete understanding of the Trinitarian viewpoint. I was taught it in Bible College, by Trinitarians, as well as personal study, so yes I completely understand it. I have to admit though, you are the first one to tell me that the Old Testament writers were Trinitarians. Most tell me that they believe that Moses, the prophets, etc. didn't understand the concept of the Trinity and that it wasn't revealed or understood until the New Testament.

I think any Orthodox Jewish histltorian, or Rabbi would disagree with you that Moses or any of the prophets believed that God was a Trinity, as would many Trinitarians.
 

Apple7

New member
I apologize for misreading your question about the Trinity. I answered as I thought you were asking. I have a complete understanding of the Trinitarian viewpoint. I was taught it in Bible College, by Trinitarians, as well as personal study, so yes I completely understand it.

No, you do not, brother.:doh:

You are stalling...

If you knew what the Trinity is, then you could have easily stated what you think it is, already.

As it is, you are no different than any of the other Trinity deniers....as none of them can even tell us what they think it even is....all they know how to do is say that it is somehow 'wrong'...no definition, nothing...no defining premise...nothing...just plain 'wrong'...

Almost comical it is...






I have to admit though, you are the first one to tell me that the Old Testament writers were Trinitarians. Most tell me that they believe that Moses, the prophets, etc. didn't understand the concept of the Trinity and that it wasn't revealed or understood until the New Testament.

There is nothing in the NT that was not first taught in the OT.

A Triune creator is revealed to us in the first three verses of the Holy Bible...and carries through until Revelation.






I think any Orthodox Jewish histltorian, or Rabbi would disagree with you that Moses or any of the prophets believed that God was a Trinity, as would many Trinitarians.

Let's see....would this be the Jews who all the way through their very own Tanakh have divinely inspired scriptures quoting Yahweh, in the first-person singular, constantly chastizing His people for following idols and incorrectly worhipping Him for thousands upon thousands of years?

But now...these same Jews magically have the right recipe for worship?

Lol...not a chance...divinely inspired scirptures state otherwise...
 
Top