The Trinity

[popsthebuilder]

So, popsthebuilder, you are confirming that you fellowship with gt's doctrine.

This is what you, popsthebuilder, are fellowshipping with:
- gt says, that Jesus was water baptized so that gt could be dunked in water.

- gt says, Jesus is the Father with a physical body.

- gt says, Jesus is the Holy Spirit with a physical body.

- gt says, God the Father is called a Son.

- gt says, The Holy Spirit is Jesus with a physical body.

- gt says, James preach the sinner could receive salvation through works.

- gt says, Jesus has TWO bodies.

- gt claims Christ took on a body in heaven that she claims He had BEFORE His incarnation.

- gt claims that the Lord took on a PREINCARNATE body AFTER His resurrection and that it is the resurrection body.



You, popsthebuilder, will probably say you agree with all of gt's doctrine as you have said that you agree that an UNbeliever can OBEY when he/she has NEVER HEARD the gospel of salvation.





So, I would have to assume that you are not in fellowship with Romans 3:10-12,Psalm 14:1-3,Psalm 53:1-3.

Assume what you will; it in no way correlates with the truth of the matter.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[lifeisgood]

He was baptised for a sign to man as far as I can tell.

I'm not too sure that His baptism is a salvific issue though, so why the attempt at strife and to start contention? That's is really rhetorical if you are wondering.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Can you not see what you yourself say write popsthebuilder?

Your response says that you DO NOT fellowship with

Jesus WAS NOT water baptized so that you could be dunked in water gt.

Your response, gt:

He was.

However, you, popsthebuilder, say that you fellowship with that kind of doctrine and then say that you do not agree with it.

Get a grip, popsthebuilder, either agree wholeheartedly with gt's false doctrine or agree wholeheartedly with the Bible, for my Bible says (I do not know what yours say) that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[lifeisgood]

Assume what you will; it in no way correlates with the truth of the matter.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I can sense the Holy Spirit has shown you something.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Can you not see what you yourself say write popsthebuilder?

Your response says that you DO NOT fellowship with



Your response, gt:


However, you, popsthebuilder, say that you fellowship with that kind of doctrine and then say that you do not agree with it.

Get a grip, popsthebuilder, either agree wholeheartedly with gt's false doctrine or agree wholeheartedly with the Bible, for my Bible says (I do not know what yours say) that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

And more attempted contention.

Why is it that you ignore what is written about loving your neighbor, and GOD.

Perhaps you haven't noticed her change though you note her words solely to condemn her, but I do observe and do see. We are not to cut away from those who sincerely seek to please the Lord.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Can you not see what you yourself say write popsthebuilder?

Your response says that you DO NOT fellowship with



Your response, gt:


However, you, popsthebuilder, say that you fellowship with that kind of doctrine and then say that you do not agree with it.

Get a grip, popsthebuilder, either agree wholeheartedly with gt's false doctrine or agree wholeheartedly with the Bible, for my Bible says (I do not know what yours say) that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

There is a thing called learning. It is a process.

As such; for one currently doing such (learning)to vainly proclaim a stance against what they may not be certain of is very foolish.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

I can sense the Holy Spirit has shown you something.

Yet you fight me all the way?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Right Divider]

Wow.... you're actually serious.

Yes, I am serious Mr. Childish.

In reality though I simply googled "person definition", and that was the first and main one.

Well ... how could you go wrong with a simple Google search?

The other was speaking of grammatical uses such as "me, myself, and I".

Indeed and the Father and the Son speak just that way about each other.

You say that is the definition for human person when in reality, person is human in definition.

The attributes of personality are NOT limited to humans. But I understand that you must maintain your childish approach to the discussion.

 

[Tambora]

Well, the one and only God the Father came as a man;

Nope.
The Son was with the Father, and the Father sent the Son as scripture says.

 

[Right Divider]

Indeed the Spirit did dwell in the man Jesus. And the Spirit is eternal.

This is 100% compatible with the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You say that is the definition for human person when in reality, person is human in definition.

While there is but one essence of God, there are three distinctly different modes of subsistence in that essence, which we call Persons. Note that by "modes" here we do not mean the heresy of modalism. The three Persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) coinhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. This means that the divine essence is not at one time entirely manifest as the Father (but not in or as the Son or Spirit), and then at another moment manifest exclusively as the Son, and yet again at another time solely as the Spirit. This would be heretical modalism. Rather, all three persons. . .exist simultaneously

Unfortunately, in this modern era the word person carries much more baggage than it did when the Trinitarian doctrines were being formulated. We tend to think of a person as a separately existing beings from other beings. It is generally admitted that the word person is but an imperfect expression of the idea of the Persons of the Godhead. Hence, in God there are not three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but three personal self-distinctions within the single divine essence, i.e., three modes of subsistence.

Thus we can say that the divine essence does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism.

God’s essence is common to the three Persons of the Godhead, and God’s essence is not communicated from one Person to another Person. Each Person partakes of the essence of God, possessing it as one undivided essence. Portions of the essence of God are not divided up to be enjoyed by each Person, instead the whole essence is enjoyed by each, as “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells” (Col. 2:9, also John 15:16).

For each mode subsisting in the divine essence, each of the Persons has a distinct mode of subsistence, such that we can say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

From this debate, which is worth a read in its entirety:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?97148-One-on-One-AMR-and-God-s-Truth-%97-The-Holy-Trinity

Spoiler

1. There is in the divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essential), see Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5.
2. In this one divine Being there are three personal distinctions (what the church calls persons), or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, see Genesis 1:1, 26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1, Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons, see John 6:27, Romans 1:7, 1 Peter 1:2, John 1:1, 14, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:20, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order, see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, 1 John 4:14, John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, John 16:13-14.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished, see 1 Corinthians 8:6, Revelation 4:11, Revelation 1:1, John 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1, 16:12-15, Matthew 11:27, Revelation 1:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Matthew 1:21, John 4:42, Genesis 1:2, Job 26:13, Psalm 104:30, John 16:12-15, Ephesians 3:5, 2 Peter 1:21, John 3:6, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:2, Isaiah 61:1, Acts 10:38.

Ontologically, there is no difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three, separate, divine essences (or beings). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-participants of the one divine essence. When speaking of the Godhead in formal theological terms, we would properly say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three personal subsistences of the one, divine, essence. I will explain what I mean by this later below.

If you are seeking a definition of Person as relates to the Trinity:

Person, with reference to the Trinity, is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature but possessing in itself the principle of its operation.

I am even content with a more modest description, as long as the caveats implied in my above (e.g., heretical modalism) are maintained:

Person, with reference to the Trinity, means the one divine essence in a specific mode of existence and distinguished by this specific mode of existence from that one divine essence and the other persons.

AMR

 

[Right Divider]

Nope.
The Son was with the Father, and the Father sent the Son as scripture says.

Her idea is that the Son is the Father playing masquerade.

It is well beyond her understanding that they were Father and Son before the incarnation.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes, I am serious Mr. Childish.


Well ... how could you go wrong with a simple Google search?


Indeed and the Father and the Son speak just that way about each other.


The attributes of personality are NOT limited to humans. But I understand that you must maintain your childish approach to the discussion.

I'm sorry you percieve it as childish. It is simple though.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Tambora]

Some misunderstand the one triune GOD and think it is teaching a trio of GODS.

From the very beginning of scripture we have the 'one' GOD saying "Let us make man"
And from the very beginning of scripture we are told 'one' can be a unity of more than one individual, as both Adam and Eve were 'one' flesh.

When one cannot even understand what is said from the beginning, and keep going as if 'one' can only be a single individual, then you automatically start off with the wrong concept of how scripture itself defines 'one', and that will hinder your understanding of the rest of scripture at the get go.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Nope.
The Son was with the Father, and the Father sent the Son as scripture says.

That's odd....I thought it said was with and was....

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

This is 100% compatible with the doctrine of the trinity.

Who's trinity doctrine?

As I have seen; there is evidently not a general consensus on the matter between "trinitarians".

Hopefully we can all come to a singular accord based on the Truth.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

While there is but one essence of God, there are three distinctly different modes of subsistence in that essence, which we call Persons. Note that by "modes" here we do not mean the heresy of modalism. The three Persons (hypostaseis / prosopoi) coinhering in the one divine nature (ousia) exist simultaneously with one another as distinct subsistences or persons. This means that the divine essence is not at one time entirely manifest as the Father (but not in or as the Son or Spirit), and then at another moment manifest exclusively as the Son, and yet again at another time solely as the Spirit. This would be heretical modalism. Rather, all three persons. . .exist simultaneously

Unfortunately, in this modern era the word person carries much more baggage than it did when the Trinitarian doctrines were being formulated. We tend to think of a person as a separately existing beings from other beings. It is generally admitted that the word person is but an imperfect expression of the idea of the Persons of the Godhead. Hence, in God there are not three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but three personal self-distinctions within the single divine essence, i.e., three modes of subsistence.

Thus we can say that the divine essence does not exist independently along with the three Persons. The divine essence has no existence outside of and apart from the three Persons. For if the divine essence did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism.

God’s essence is common to the three Persons of the Godhead, and God’s essence is not communicated from one Person to another Person. Each Person partakes of the essence of God, possessing it as one undivided essence. Portions of the essence of God are not divided up to be enjoyed by each Person, instead the whole essence is enjoyed by each, as “in him the whole fullness of deity dwells” (Col. 2:9, also John 15:16).

For each mode subsisting in the divine essence, each of the Persons has a distinct mode of subsistence, such that we can say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son.

From this debate, which is worth a read in its entirety:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?97148-One-on-One-AMR-and-God-s-Truth-%97-The-Holy-Trinity

Spoiler

1. There is in the divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essential), see Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5.
2. In this one divine Being there are three personal distinctions (what the church calls persons), or individual subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, see Genesis 1:1, 26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1, Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons, see John 6:27, Romans 1:7, 1 Peter 1:2, John 1:1, 14, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8, 1 John 5:20, Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order, see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, 1 John 4:14, John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, John 16:13-14.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished, see 1 Corinthians 8:6, Revelation 4:11, Revelation 1:1, John 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1, 16:12-15, Matthew 11:27, Revelation 1:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Matthew 1:21, John 4:42, Genesis 1:2, Job 26:13, Psalm 104:30, John 16:12-15, Ephesians 3:5, 2 Peter 1:21, John 3:6, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:2, Isaiah 61:1, Acts 10:38.

Ontologically, there is no difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three, separate, divine essences (or beings). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal, co-participants of the one divine essence. When speaking of the Godhead in formal theological terms, we would properly say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three personal subsistences of the one, divine, essence. I will explain what I mean by this later below.

If you are seeking a definition of Person as relates to the Trinity:

Person, with reference to the Trinity, is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature but possessing in itself the principle of its operation.

I am even content with a more modest description, as long as the caveats implied in my above (e.g., heretical modalism) are maintained:

Person, with reference to the Trinity, means the one divine essence in a specific mode of existence and distinguished by this specific mode of existence from that one divine essence and the other persons.

AMR

Thank you.

To be clear; subsistence is synonimous with distinguishable existence through perceivable means by man within your exposition is it not?

And again; thank you for the long awaited response.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Right Divider]

Who's trinity doctrine?

As I have seen; there is evidently not a general consensus on the matter between "trinitarians".

Hopefully we can all come to a singular accord based on the Truth.

Another childish misdirection.

How about we go with the commonly known version of the trinity doctrine instead of ALL the straw-man versions that you keep presenting for destruction?

This is the very basics of the doctrine of the trinity, all of which can be clearly shown from scripture:

• One God.
• The Father is God.
• The Son is God.
• The Holy Spirit is God.
• The Father is not the Son.
• The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
• The Son is not the Father.
• The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
• The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
• The Holy Spirit is not the Son.

These are some of the straw-man arguments that you and others present which are NOT part of the trinity doctrine:

• Three Gods.
• The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are each 1/3 God.
• -- Go ahead and add more here if you like... since the are NOT part of the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you.
To be clear; subsistence is synonimous with distinguishable existence through perceivable means by man within your exposition is it not?

No.

Whether or not man perceives of the three personal subsistences does not obviate that they exist, and have existed eternally.

No: God said it. I believe it. That settles it. <-- a popular bumper sticker in need of correction.

Yes: God said it. That settles it.

AMR

 

[God's Truth]

Really, popsthebuilder?

So, you, popsthebuilder believe like gt that Jesus was water baptized so that you can be dunked in water?


Your response, gt:

We are to imitate Jesus. Jesus was water baptized. We are to get water baptized.

 

[God's Truth]

So, popsthebuilder, you are confirming that you fellowship with gt's doctrine.

This is what you, popsthebuilder, are fellowshipping with:
- gt says, that Jesus was water baptized so that gt could be dunked in water.

- gt says, Jesus is the Father with a physical body.

- gt says, Jesus is the Holy Spirit with a physical body.

- gt says, God the Father is called a Son.

- gt says, The Holy Spirit is Jesus with a physical body.

- gt says, James preach the sinner could receive salvation through works.

- gt says, Jesus has TWO bodies.

- gt claims Christ took on a body in heaven that she claims He had BEFORE His incarnation.

- gt claims that the Lord took on a PREINCARNATE body AFTER His resurrection and that it is the resurrection body.



You, popsthebuilder, will probably say you agree with all of gt's doctrine as you have said that you agree that an UNbeliever can OBEY when he/she has NEVER HEARD the gospel of salvation.





So, I would have to assume that you are not in fellowship with Romans 3:10-12,Psalm 14:1-3,Psalm 53:1-3.

You got most of that right about what you say I said; except for the part about Jesus having two bodies. Unless you count his Spirit as one body and his physical body as another.