The Trinity

[Lon]

If a tree has bad fruits, it would be better to be cut down, burnt, and destroyed. Remember what matters. Paul tells us that love and charity are the things that matter, and that these shall last far past the scope of knowledge, doctrine, and prophecy. If we want to know about the nature of God, we are told simply, "God is love" and this is said in black and white, this is something we can know for sure.

For me: John 4:23 The conflict, in my estimation, was over 'what is more important? love or truth?' Now certainly I'm reading a bit into it with 'love' but the Samaritan woman was asking if bad doctrine (being a 'despised' Samaritan not worshipping quite right) was a deal-breaker. For me, and I recognize the disagreement, the answer Jesus gave was "yes." However, I would also agree that pure (true) doctrine must certainly love. Another way of understanding Jesus' affirmation, would be: "Both" imho (In order to love God, knowing Him is important, thus doctrine is important and according to my understanding of Jesus' words, essential).

I believe that someone could be completely wrong in their earthly understanding of the "metaphysical" nature of God, but if they understand that God is love, and they have that working faith in Christ Jesus, they will be among the saints and the sheep in the day of judgment. I also believe that someone could have "all knowledge" but if they have not charity, if they bite and consume their neighbors, beat the servants thinking "my Lord delays his coming" than these will be the ones cast out and cut asunder, consigned to eternal fire.

How shall men know that we are his disciples?

Certainly by love for one another BUT we must recognize Matthew 7:21-23 so I agree with this last line but cannot agree on the former premise. To my understanding "spirit" and "truth" amount to love-in-action and being as well as correct knowledge, thus again: "both."

Does love cover a multitude of sins? Yes indeed. Jesus didn't despise the Samaritans, and in fact showed them love and used them to shame Jews with the Good Samaritan, in which your point is well noted that the righteous one was the one who cared for the injured enemy. We Christians often treat our enemies contemptibly. I'd like to think we have some growing up to do but I've also seen many mature in Christ deal gently with adversity. We all need to spend a LOT more time in scripture and prayer than internet forums and entertaining ourselves. We are a distracted people...and I'm off on a bit of a tangent, but one I think worth a moment... The answer, to the best of my understanding is that 'true believers must worship the Father [both] in Spirit and in Truth. -In Him

 

[keypurr]

You cannot see how ludicrous it is what you said.

To you, yes I can.

Your not getting my posts friend.

 

[marhig]

The Holy Spirit only works within the confines of the Cross of Calvary

He only works within the confines of the finished legal work on the Cross of Calvary.

He only works on your behalf within the confines of the finished legal work afforded on the Cross of Calvary.

Can you show me where it says any of this in the Bible? Thanks

 

[God's Truth]

To you, yes I can.

Your not getting my posts friend.

I do understand what you are saying, and it is wrong.

There are not two Sons sent.

Christ means God.

 

[lifeisgood]

Can you show me where it says any of this in the Bible? Thanks

I have already explained it to you in a way that even a child understands.

Being that you have already declared that you REJECT the BLOOD shed on the Cross of Calvary, how do you think I can convince you, as I have already told you that I do not have the power, nor do I want the power, to convince anyone of anything.

The Holy Spirit does not help anybody unless He sees the BLOOD on the door posts of your heart; otherwise, you're on your own.

You, marhig, reject the BLOOD; therefore, rejecting to wash your clothes in the BLOOD, your clothes are dirty and unworthy, instead of white as snow; therefore, deciding that you're better off being on your own instead of being washed in the BLOOD of the Lamb.

You can only come to God through the BLOOD and you have declared that you reject the BLOOD; therefore, placing yourself on your own.

You, marhig, have declared that you REJECT the BLOOD; therefore, the Holy Spirit cannot help you for He only works within the confines of the finished legal work of the Cross of Calvary for Christ came so that He would pay the debt you owe God and cannot even begin to think on how to pay it.

God in His infinite grace and mercy toward His creation, i.e., humankind, decided He would pay YOUR debt; however, you have declared you REJECT the payment which is the shed BLOOD of the Lamb; therefore, closing the only way in which the Holy Spirit has the legal right to help you; barring that, you're on your own, by choice.

No BLOOD, no Holy Spirit help.

You can continue rejecting the BLOOD though; therefore, being on your own.

 

[lifeisgood]

I obey Jesus.

Like this:
"Everything Jesus says stands forever…. Jesus' words are for everyone.....We always have to obey God ...We always have to obey Jesus….........I obey all of Jesus' teachings....I follow all of Jesus teachings, exactly as he says…..Faith is obeying everything that Jesus says....I obey everything Jesus says...."— Courtesy of Saint John W

And then declare that you don't obey what you say you do obey.

Why do you have to accuse to defend your beliefs?

I simply responded with your own words.

 

[Right Divider]

1. The Father
2. The Son of God
3. The Holy Ghost
4. The Lamb of God
5. The Lion of Judah
6. The LORD our Righteousness
7. Melchizedek, the priest of the most High,
8. Alpha and Omega, first and the last, beginning and the end
9. I AM

I would affirm that each and every one of those persons is indeed God and fully God as God is God. That seems pretty simple to me. If we are defining person on our own terms, I see at least eight persons so far and I'm not yet done counting. Up to nine now. That's three times better than any Trinity.

Really? What a cheap parlor trick.

The Lamb of God IS the SON of God, as is the Lion of Judah and the LORD our Righteousness.

Melchizedek was a MAN.

The Alpha and Omega and the I AM are GOD (The Father and the Son BOTH use these terms to describe Themselves).

So, if you had any understanding AT ALL, you'd see that you've actually described THREE persons.

 

[Right Divider]

How does one of us prove a Trinity?

It makes perfect sense that you would not understand it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Really? What a cheap parlor trick.

The Lamb of God IS the SON of God, as is the Lion of Judah and the LORD our Righteousness.

Melchizedek was a MAN.

The Alpha and Omega and the I AM are GOD (The Father and the Son BOTH use these terms to describe Themselves).

So, if you had any understanding AT ALL, you'd see that you've actually described THREE persons.

Paul says that Melchizadek was the priest of the most high God, without beginning or end of days, nor end of life, made like unto the Son of God. Jesus was also a man, our high priest before God, who was in the beginning with God, also described as the Son of God. That these persons were men does not change the fact that they are described in terms reserved for God. And are not God and his angels also described as men, when he appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre, or his angels unto Lot when they traveled further to Sodom?

Argue against scripture if you will, but all of those persons listed were God.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul says that Melchizedek was the priest of the most high God, without beginning or end of days, nor end of life, made like unto the Son of God. Jesus was also a man, our high priest before God, who was in the beginning with God, also described as the Son of God. That these persons were men does not change the fact that they are described in terms reserved for God. And are not God and his angels also described as men, when he appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre, or his angels unto Lot when they traveled further to Sodom?

Argue against scripture if you will, but all of those persons listed were God.

So I noticed that you conveniently skipped your mistaken notion that the Lamb of God is someone other than the Son of God (and also the Lion of Judah). Such fundamental confusion should be addressed before discussing further the far less clear person of Melchizedek.

If you're confused about the Lamb of God, then there is no sense in taking this discussion anywhere.

 

[God's Truth]

Like this:
"Everything Jesus says stands forever…. Jesus' words are for everyone.....We always have to obey God ...We always have to obey Jesus….........I obey all of Jesus' teachings....I follow all of Jesus teachings, exactly as he says…..Faith is obeying everything that Jesus says....I obey everything Jesus says...."— Courtesy of Saint John W

And then declare that you don't obey what you say you do obey.



I simply responded with your own words.

Do you know why Satan accuses?

 

[Rosenritter]

So I noticed that you conveniently skipped your mistaken notion that the Lamb of God is someone other than the Son of God (and also the Lion of Judah). Such fundamental confusion should be addressed before discussing further the far less clear person of Melchizedek.

If you're confused about the Lamb of God, then there is no sense in taking this discussion anywhere.

No, if you noticed my signature I was typing on a cell phone. ALL of those I listed are the same God. I would also add in the Captain of the Lord of Hosts that commanded Joshua to remove his shoes in his presence, for where he stood was now holy ground.

 

[Right Divider]

No, if you noticed my signature I was typing on a cell phone. ALL of those I listed are the same God. I would also add in the Captain of the Lord of Hosts that commanded Joshua to remove his shoes in his presence, for where he stood was now holy ground.

So, AGAIN, you ignore the fact that you are confused about the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah and yet you want to skip that and move on to other "persons".

Let's take the time for you to understand these first, then we can get on to other things.

It's your "shotgun" approach that is so typical of people that just want to "win the argument".

I would suggest that the Captain of the Lord of Hosts is also a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son of God. This is also true of the Angel of the LORD in the burning bush.

 

[steko]

I do understand what you are saying, and it is wrong.

There are not two Sons sent.

Christ means God.

'Christ/Christos/mashiyach' means 'anointed'.

 

[Rosenritter]

So, AGAIN, you ignore the fact that you are confused about the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah and yet you want to skip that and move on to other "persons".

Let's take the time for you to understand these first, then we can get on to other things.

It's your "shotgun" approach that is so typical of people that just want to "win the argument".

I would suggest that the Captain of the Lord of Hosts is also a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son of God. This is also true of the Angel of the LORD in the burning bush.

Just stop trying to "create a fault" where none exists. You're the one that seems to be in an "win an argument" mode. All of the examples I listed (and I could list more) are names, forms, and titles of God. The same God, of the same mind, the same heart, and the same thoughts. Capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and even being in more than one place at a time.

There are proper applications of various names and titles.

For example, the "Son of God" is used when God appears like a man in the flesh. This is why Jesus was said to have "made himself God" when he called himself the "Son of God." This is why Paul speaks of Melchizedek, acknowledges that he is withing beginning or end of days, and says that this Melchizadek is made like the Son of God. The "Captain of the Lord of Hosts" would also be "Son of God" by this measure. God before Abraham in the plains of Mamre would be the "Son of God" as he was God in the flesh, not as invisible spirit, nor far above in heaven.Yet you might call these different "persons" as he used different names each time.

Truthfully, the bible does not support your use of the word "persons." Scripture says God has one person (singular) whereas you say he has three, Jesus is the "express image of his person" (singular.) So if I cut you some slack and play along to allow for extra-biblical meaning of "persons" (and I have found ten or more so far, and still counting) then why should your definition of person be better than anyone else's definition of person? Unless you're just trying to "win an argument" and force someone else to "be wrong" it shouldn't make a difference.

I have a novel idea. How about agreeing to agree upon what scripture actually states implicitly, and spending less time trying to force people to accept a man-made creed that may or may not be completely accurate? Scripture first. Would that really be so bad?


(Braced for yet another angry aggressive set of replies...)

 

[Right Divider]

Just stop trying to "create a fault" where none exists. You're the one that seems to be in an "win an argument" mode. All of the examples I listed (and I could list more) are names, forms, and titles of God. The same God, of the same mind, the same heart, and the same thoughts. Capable of doing more than one thing at a time, and even being in more than one place at a time.

Is the Lamb of God the same PERSON as the Son of God? The simple and SCRIPTURAL answer is: YES!

John 1:36 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:36) And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! ​

The fact that you cannot and will not accept this shows that you do not actually care what the scripture says, only what you WANT it to say (even though you claim otherwise).

There are proper applications of various names and titles.

For example, the "Son of God" is used when God appears like a man in the flesh. This is why Jesus was said to have "made himself God" when he called himself the "Son of God."

This SAME person, Jesus, is called: the Son of God, the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah (among others). And YET you try to make this THREE different persons. Who's making things up? YOU!

This is why Paul speaks of Melchizedek, acknowledges that he is withing beginning or end of days, and says that this Melchizadek is made like the Son of God. The "Captain of the Lord of Hosts" would also be "Son of God" by this measure. God before Abraham in the plains of Mamre would be the "Son of God" as he was God in the flesh, not as invisible spirit, nor far above in heaven.Yet you might call these different "persons" as he used different names each time.

Since you've continued to show your confusion about the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah, I don't think that you have any credibility to discuss the rest of these.

Truthfully, the bible does not support your use of the word "persons." Scripture says God has one person (singular) whereas you say he has three, Jesus is the "express image of his person" (singular.)

The Bible never says that God is ONE PERSON. That is what YOU are trying to force upon it.

The implication of the "express image of His person" is NOT that God is a singular person, but that Jesus has the SAME CHARACTER AS GOD (i.e., He IS GOD).

The Greek word translated "express image" is charakter, from which we get our English word CHARACTER. It has to do with the essence of something.

Most perverters of God's nature will somehow go the route that you take.

So if I cut you some slack and play along to allow for extra-biblical meaning of "persons" (and I have found ten or more so far, and still counting) then why should your definition of person be better than anyone else's definition of person? Unless you're just trying to "win an argument" and force someone else to "be wrong" it shouldn't make a difference.

So what are you a "tenitarian"?

Since you are willing to confuse NAMES with PERSONS, you might get to 100.

God is called by many names, but He is still ONE GOD.

I have a novel idea. How about agreeing to agree upon what scripture actually states implicitly, and spending less time trying to force people to accept a man-made creed that may or may not be completely accurate? Scripture first. Would that really be so bad?

The Bible reveals a trinity and not a tenity. So, yes, your theory is bad.... very bad.

(Braced for yet another angry aggressive set of replies...)

(Braced for another whiny rant from Ms./Mr. Wrong).

 

[Rosenritter]

Is the Lamb of God the same PERSON as the Son of God? The simple and SCRIPTURAL answer is: YES!

John 1:36 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:36) And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! ​

The fact that you cannot and will not accept this shows that you do not actually care what the scripture says, only what you WANT it to say (even though you claim otherwise).


This SAME person, Jesus, is called: the Son of God, the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah (among others). And YET you try to make this THREE different persons. Who's making things up? YOU!


Since you've continued to show your confusion about the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah, I don't think that you have any credibility to discuss the rest of these.


The Bible never says that God is ONE PERSON. That is what YOU are trying to force upon it.

The implication of the "express image of His person" is NOT that God is a singular person, but that Jesus has the SAME CHARACTER AS GOD (i.e., He IS GOD).

The Greek word translated "express image" is charakter, from which we get our English word CHARACTER. It has to do with the essence of something.

Most perverters of God's nature will somehow go the route that you take.


So what are you a "tenitarian"?

Since you are willing to confuse NAMES with PERSONS, you might get to 100.

God is called by many names, but He is still ONE GOD.


The Bible reveals a trinity and not a tenity. So, yes, your theory is bad.... very bad.


(Braced for another whiny rant from Ms./Mr. Wrong).

Very well, please show me any verse that uses the word "Person" or "persons" in reference to God besides this one:

Hebrews 1:3 KJV
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;

To diagram the passage, "his person" points to God. Singular usage of person implies one person. If you can show even one example to back yourself up I will tolerate your angry invective.

 

[Right Divider]

Very well, please show me any verse that uses the word "Person" or "persons" in reference to God besides this one:

Hebrews 1:3 KJV
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;

To diagram the passage, "his person" points to God. Singular usage of person implies one person. If you can show even one example to back yourself up I will tolerate your angry invective.

Firstly, I will again note that you still refuse to understand or admit that Jesus, the Son of God is the SAME person as the Lamb of God and the Lion of Judah.

Secondly, I will note that you are like many that think (and wrongly so) that the Bible must put things into the exact words that you like. Many doctrines in the Bible are well understood even when not worded in the way that some want.

The "express image of his person" is an IDIOMATIC EXPRESSION; something which you apparently do not understand.

 

[Lon]

I have a novel idea. How about agreeing to agree upon what scripture actually states implicitly, and spending less time trying to force people to accept a man-made creed that may or may not be completely accurate? Scripture first. Would that really be so bad?

Not sure if someone has asked. Have you given a brief doctrinal statement as yet? Mormon? Trinitarian with reservation? Modalist? Unit-arian or some variance? Thanks.

 

[steko]

Very well, please show me any verse that uses the word "Person" or "persons" in reference to God besides this one:

Hebrews 1:3 KJV
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;

To diagram the passage, "his person" points to God. Singular usage of person implies one person. If you can show even one example to back yourself up I will tolerate your angry invective.

Actually, the word 'hupostasis', in Heb 1:3, would have better been translated 'essence'.

The use of 'hypostasis' to mean 'person' shows the influence of Nicea on the KJV, IMHO.