Christians:Is The Trinity Truly Biblical(A Separate Thread) (Jesus, priest)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

John 17:21-23

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me."


The Chruch "can be" made perfect, if they are one with Jesus as he is one with the father ( one in purpose). Hence, my answe to your question, as it is worded is no.

I provide thee with more proof.


Hebrews 12:23
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Just men's spirits are made perfect.

God = divinity you asked?

Id say the Father, the Son and the HS are divine, however Peter said
2 Peter 1:3


"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust
Peter said we can be "partakers of the divine nature. corroborating what John wrote that the chruch is made parfect"

I hope i answered your question, what was your point sir?

And yet, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Why do you you call me good? No one is good but the Father."
Hmmm.....
Methinks further exegesis is needed before leaping to conclusions...

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by sojourner

And yet, Jesus is quoted as saying, "Why do you you call me good? No one is good but the Father."
Hmmm.....
Methinks further exegesis is needed before leaping to conclusions...

Mr Sojourner, you have to atleast make an analternative "interpretation" if you feel that the way i presented the biblical facts are erroneous. showing your skeptism will not bring discussions at a higher level sir.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

To me Jesus was the Word that became flesh. Jesus was with God the Father. The Word was/is God.

I agree 100%, there is a verse with that same thought.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

If Jesus wasn't God, when did the Word become flesh?

Exactly.

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

This is being debated on another thread and I know that it has probably been discussed to death but...
Is it? I never really questioned it until recently. Does the bible truly say that God is "Three Persons of One Essence"? I am not questioning whether Jesus is God because I still believe that with no question.
Any verses and explanations (I would prefer that verses also contain what you get from them if that is possible) are welcome.

I don't believe in a being which has three equal, eternal persons, nor do I see it in the scriptures, so I don't know how to quote something from there. I firmly believe in the divine Son of God, Christ, called Word, and Wisdom, and God, through whom the worlds were created, and in the subordination of Christ to the only true God, our Father. This is how Church Father Eusebius explains it:

"But he teaches that that one [the Father] is alone true when he says, “that they may know you, the only true God” [John 17:3], not as if one only is God, but that one is the (only) true God, with the very necessary addition of true. For also he himself is Son of God, but not true, as God is. For there is but one true God, the one before whom nothing existed. But if the Son himself is true, it is simply as an image of the true God, and he is God, for [Scripture says] “and the Word was God” [John 1:1], but not as the only true God."

Sir Isaac Newton states his reasons for his faith in twelve points:

1. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
2. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
3. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
4. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
5. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
6. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
7. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
8. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
9. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
10. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives fro the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
11. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
12. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

They may seem old and dusty to a modern reader, but they may also provide interesting insight!

If I compared Christ to Father God, then I would use a similar comparison as some of the Church Fathers did, that is, he is like the fire on the end of a stick lit from a bonfire.

You asked before what a modalist is, from what I understand it is someone who believes in unipersonal God who appears with different faces, the Father and the Son being nothing more than roles. Indeed, the water etc. argument is a classic modalist argument, with the water just changing form. It actually argues against the idea of a tripersonal God-being.

Important note: Since this is an extremely sensitive topic, then if it is at all possible I would not like to get into a hot debate with someone who isn't truly interested in this view or has an apologetic motive. I have no wish to fling texts back and forth, and I do not feel it would contribute to the subject at hand. If you, ChristineES, wish to know more then feel free to ask. And if this is nothing but rubbish then feel free to ignore the post.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Lucian

I don't believe in a being which has three equal, eternal persons, nor do I see it in the scriptures, so I don't know how to quote something from there. I firmly believe in the divine Son of God, Christ, called Word, and Wisdom, and God, through whom the worlds were created, and in the subordination of Christ to the only true God, our Father.

If I compared Christ to Father God, then I would use a similar comparison as some of the Church Fathers did, that is, he is like the fire on the end of a stick lit from a bonfire.

You asked before what a modalist is, from what I understand it is someone who believes in unipersonal God who appears with different faces, the Father and the Son being nothing more than roles. Indeed, the water etc. argument is a classic modalist argument, with the water just changing form. It actually argues against the idea of a tripersonal God-being.

Hello, Lucian. Thanks for offering your perspective on this "sensitive topic." It sounds like your understanding of Jesus Christ's relationship to His Father is much the same as mine.

[Scott C.]

If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and that it is to be taken literally, you have to concede that either the "oneness" or the "distinctness" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is figurative, so that the other can be literal. In other words, I believe that only one of the following can be true:

1. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are literally one Being. The separate persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is therefore figurative.

2. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are literally three separate Beings. The oneness spoken of in the Bible is therefore figurative, referring to a oneness of purpose and not a literal oneness of Person.

The same passages of scripture are used by both those who believe in (1) and those who believe in (2). The same verses are used because the literal/figurative interpretation of "one person"/"three persons" are reversed in the minds of the two groups of people.

I believe strongly in concept (2) and that the Bible most strongly argues for literally three Persons who are fully united as a figurative "one" God.

I believe that concept (1) took very strong hold somewhere in Christian history, even though it is not correct. It has been taught so strongly for so many years that it's entrenched in the hearts and minds of many Christians. It appears that many Christians are so convinved of (1) that they can't even see how a reasonable Christian could conclude (2) from the Bible. I believe that difficulty is not because of the Biblical text, but because of tradition that biases the reading of scripture.

This is not intended as an insult to anyone's point of view. It's just my observation of what I think is happening in this debate.

[uss_bigd]

The Question on the thead is

" Is the Trinity BIBLICAL? "

[yousaf]

i wan tto know if christians consider jesus(pbuh) to be god or just god's son please send me a private message