When did God tell the Israelites that He was three persons?

[Wildswanderer]

I have heard many debates about the so-called Trinity God that the greater sect of Christianity is supposed to believe in. However, I cannot find in the scriptures anywhere where God tells anyone that He is three persons.

I know that God tells the Israelites that He is ONE GOD and that they should have no other God but He…, but I can’t see anywhere where it is stated, inferred, conjectured, shown, nor proved to the Israelites, Jews, nor Christian’s, that He is three person!

Are there any such proofs, suggestions, inferences, etc….?

Isaiah 48:16
“Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

John 1:14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

BTW, the new Testament was written for Israel as well as for the gentiles.

 

[cataway]

Isaiah 48:16
“Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.

John 1:14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

BTW, the new Testament was written for Israel as well as for the gentiles.

26 "Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,"
with that in mind , am i a trinity ?

 

[Brian2]

As I set out in the examples, all five Jesuses make it clear they're not God. So either they're indeed not God or they're all liars and deceivers, no?.

The scriptures you gave do not say that Jesus is not God. That is interpretation that contradicts other scriptures which show Jesus is God.

Please explain why one of the three persons of God (each of whom as you know is 100% of God) would think he wasn't God, and ask God for help.

A mistake you made is this phrase >>>(each of whom as you know is 100% of God)<<<
It is not that each of them is 100% of God. It is that each of them is 100% God.
The Son who is 100% God, became 100% man. That does not mean that He is 200%, it means that He was wholly God and wholly man. He is a man who is God.
While on earth He lived as a man only and did not use His God powers. When He needed anything He had to rely on His Father to supply it.
It is interesting that as a man, His Father became His God. This was not the case when God was not a man and happened when He became a man (see Psalm 22:10) This is similar to Him not being the servant of God until He became a man.
Phil 2:6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

 

[Brian2]

(Interjection)
It’s not a situation of not understanding what trinity says: We DO understand what trinity says … it’s the fact that what trinity says is INCOMPREHENSIBLE … WRONG in too many ways!

So you can't comprehend it so it must be wrong.

And Jesus DID SAY that he was not God…

He said he was no more ‘God’ than all the other people that THE GOD OF THE JEWS HIMSELF called ‘Gods’. But, in fact, he HAD ONLY SAID that ‘God is my Father’.

No that is certainly not saying "I am not God" and that does not mean that Jesus was not God, it means that Jesus, as a man, has a God. His Father became His God when He became a man (Psalm 22:10)

Jesus also showed the positional status of God as being greater than his own position: ‘My Father is greater than i…’

Yes the humble suffering human servant of God is in a lesser positional status than God, good thinking. This was also the case for the Son before He became a man because He was and is the Son, the one who is subject to His Father. He was not a servant then however.(see Phil 2:6-8)
But you can't even see that Jesus existed before becoming a man so Philipians 2 has nothing to say to you I guess.

Jesus also stated that anything he did was because of the Father: ‘Father, You will know that everything I have is from you’ (John 17:7)

Yes everything the Son has is from His Father, even His life. THAT is the definition of who the Father is to Jesus. His life comes from His Father. BUT that has been from eternity, because Jesus was not one of the things that came into existence because He always has existed (see John 1:3, Col 1:15,16, Heb 1:1-4 etc)

How do you then say: ‘Jesus is Almighty God’?

The Son is the heir of all that His Father has. It all belongs to Him (John 16:15) and as you should know, Jesus was given all power and authority in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18)
So everyone knows now that Jesus is Almighty God, He is Lord, He is YHWH (name above all names).

 

[blü 2]

The scriptures you gave do not say that Jesus is not God. That is interpretation that contradicts other scriptures which show Jesus is God.

That's simply not true. If Jesus was God then Jesus was also a liar and deceiver ─ all five versions of him, since all five insist they're only God's agent / envoy. I quoted the relevant texts earlier >here<.

A mistake you made is this phrase >>>(each of whom as you know is 100% of God)<<< It is not that each of them is 100% of God. It is that each of them is 100% God.

No, that's not how it works. the way it works is "a mystery in the strict sense" ie incoherent ─ NOT that Father, jesus and Ghost are each 1/3rd of God, NOT that God is a corporation with a board of three, or three shareholders, NOT that God is a club with three members BUT that each member while being a distinct person IS God.

You can see the incoherence. 100% + 100% + 100% = 300% = 3 gods ─ which is clearly the case but which is expressly denied.

If you think God is made up of three parts, what are their respective voting rights? Can Jesus and the Ghost outvote the Father, do you say? Or does the father always have the last word? ─ in which case, why bother to pray to Jesus or the Ghost when, like the Jews you go straight to the top?

The Son who is 100% God, became 100% man. That does not mean that He is 200%, it means that He was wholly God and wholly man. He is a man who is God.

The text doesn't say that. Jesus was not promoted to God status till after the NT was written.

Phil 2:6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Philippians 2:6 says ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ─ "although he began / arose / existed in the form of a god". This is Paul's gnostic-flavored model of Jesus, who (like John's Jesus but not the synoptic Jesuses) pre-existed in heaven with God and in the role of the gnostic demiurge created the material universe. Paul is very clear (as the quotes I linked above show) that eg 1 Corinthians 6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ" ─ Jesus is distinct from the one God, the Father. And again at Philippians 2:11"Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ─ NOT Jesus is God, but Jesus is just Executive Officer.

 

[cataway]

So everyone knows now that Jesus is Almighty God, He is Lord, He is YHWH (name above all names).

1 Cor 15:28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone"
it would seem you are in error. Jesus is not the Almighty God as you insist .

 

[Brian2]

1 Cor 15:28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone"
it would seem you are in error. Jesus is not the Almighty God as you insist .

Matt 28:18 tells us in no uncertain terms that Jesus is Almighty. He has all power and authority and that has been given to Him by His Father. He has inherited that which was, is and always will be His.
He is a man and is the Son of God (equal in nature to His Father but still He is the Son)
So 1Cor 15:28 tells us that the Son is NOT subject to His Father at the moment, He is in His power and ruling as King, but will become subject at the end when basically everything will revert back to how things were before Jesus became a man. Jesus as the Son was subject to His Father. Still God in nature and ruling over the Kingdom of God (all things) but in His natural place of subjection to His Father.

 

[Brian2]

That's simply not true. If Jesus was God then Jesus was also a liar and deceiver ─ all five versions of him, since all five insist they're only God's agent / envoy. I quoted the relevant texts earlier >here<.

Yes Jesus was God's agent/envoy. So. That does not mean that He is not the Son with the same nature as His Father. Jesus is the Son of God with the same nature as His Father.

No, that's not how it works. the way it works is "a mystery in the strict sense" ie incoherent ─ NOT that Father, jesus and Ghost are each 1/3rd of God, NOT that God is a corporation with a board of three, or three shareholders, NOT that God is a club with three members BUT that each member while being a distinct person IS God.

You can see the incoherence. 100% + 100% + 100% = 300% = 3 gods ─ which is clearly the case but which is expressly denied.

If you think God is made up of three parts, what are their respective voting rights? Can Jesus and the Ghost outvote the Father, do you say? Or does the father always have the last word? ─ in which case, why bother to pray to Jesus or the Ghost when, like the Jews you go straight to the top?

The Father is the only true God. His is one, a compound one, united to the Son and the Spirit as one God. Jesus said "I and the Father are one" One is neuter here, it means one thing.
Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" When we see God we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It might be the Spirit who is speaking or doing, it might be the Son, it might be the Father, but all 3 are there in the one God, as the one God, with the Father being called the one true God because it is from Him that the Son and the Spirit come. He is the source and that is how it has been from eternity.
You trip yourself up with mathematics. Each of them are 100% God but not 100% OF God.
300% does not work out, so why do you posit something that is nonsense?

The text doesn't say that. Jesus was not promoted to God status till after the NT was written.

No, Jesus resurrection was the revelation that Jesus was truly the Son of God, equal in nature to His Father. Nobody can become God.

Philippians 2:6 says ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ─ "although he began / arose / existed in the form of a god". This is Paul's gnostic-flavored model of Jesus, who (like John's Jesus but not the synoptic Jesuses) pre-existed in heaven with God and in the role of the gnostic demiurge created the material universe. Paul is very clear (as the quotes I linked above show) that eg 1 Corinthians 6 "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ" ─ Jesus is distinct from the one God, the Father. And again at Philippians 2:11"Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ─ NOT Jesus is God, but Jesus is just Executive Officer.

Jesus is sort of executive officer because He becomes subject to His Father (1Cor 15:28) as the Son should be. At the moment He has all power and authority (Matt 28:18). But things go back to how they were before Jesus came to earth as a man.

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus is given the name above all names, His Father's name, YHWH. (verse 9)
And at that name, the name of Jesus, YHWH, we all worship Him and that glorifies God the Father.
The New Testament in other places shows us that Jesus was YHWH before and during the creation, so there is no promotion of Jesus to that position, it is just revealing that to everyone, it is the Son inheriting all that belongs to Him anyway (see John 16:15)
Once everyone knows He is God along with His Father, we all honor Him as we do the Father, forever.
Why do you say that the synoptic gospels do not agree with John just because they do not give the same information? Why do you think that one gospel cannot proclaim Jesus from a different pov and still agree with what the others say. Same goes for Paul.
Yours is just another way of saying that the story of Jesus is not true. It makes sense to those who do not believe the story and might be believed by them along with the 1001 other ways to pull down the story of Jesus, but does not make any sense really when we consider that the whole New Testament was put together as a bunch of writings that agreed with each other and the teachings of the early Church.

 

[cataway]

Matt 28:18 tells us in no uncertain terms that Jesus is Almighty. He has all power and authority and that has been given to Him by His Father. He has inherited that which was, is and always will be His.
He is a man and is the Son of God (equal in nature to His Father but still He is the Son)
So 1Cor 15:28 tells us that the Son is NOT subject to His Father at the moment, He is in His power and ruling as King, but will become subject at the end when basically everything will revert back to how things were before Jesus became a man. Jesus as the Son was subject to His Father. Still God in nature and ruling over the Kingdom of God (all things) but in His natural place of subjection to His Father.

Matt 28:18 says it was given to him . if he were almighty there would not be a need for it to be given to him

 

[Brian2]

Matt 28:18 says it was given to him . if he were almighty there would not be a need for it to be given to him

He is the Son who owned it anyway (John 16:15) but did not grab it violently (Phil 2) but did what a good Son would do and waited to be given it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which means it was declared that it belonged to Jesus.
Do you say that Jesus was given the name above all names so that means He is not YHWH. No you don't say that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you listen to the lies of the Watch Tower and add the extra word (other) into Phil 2 so that you can say that the name is not YHWH but is a name about all "other" names.
Best you believe the Bible and not the Watch Tower.
Phil 2:9 ...................... and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

 

[cataway]

Phil 2:9 ...................... and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

and kindly gave him the name
note it does not say he took the name .
Jesus is a subordinate . he answers to the almighty God Jehovah

 

[Brian2]

and kindly gave him the name
note it does not say he took the name .
Jesus is a subordinate . he answers to the almighty God Jehovah

Heb 1: 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

You miss the point. Jesus inherits His Fathers name (YHWH) which He owned all along (John 16:15).
Jesus does the will of His Father because Jesus is the exact image of His Father, not because He is a subordinate.
Jesus was not a servant before He became a man
Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Jesus is not subject to God now.(1Cor 15:28)
Jesus is the Son over the house and not a servant in the house.
Heb 3:5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.
Jesus is the Son, the same nature as His Father.
Jesus was not created but ALL THINGS were created through Him. (Col 1:15,16 etc)
Again the Watch Tower lies about this by adding "other" ("all other things were created")
Best you believe the Bible and not the group of men who call themselves God's only voice on earth but have to change the Bible.
Jesus is the Son and is also a man now, so Jesus becomes subject to His Father, God (1Cor 15:28) and Jesus has a God, His Father, who became His God when He became a man (Ps 22:10)

 

[blü 2]

Yes Jesus was God's agent/envoy. So. That does not mean that He is not the Son with the same nature as His Father. Jesus is the Son of God with the same nature as His Father.

That argument might be made for the Jesuses of Paul and John, but not for the Jesus of Mark, who you'll recall was an ordinary Jew until baptized by JtB and adopted by God on the model of David in Psalm 2:7.

The Father is the only true God.

Yes, that's the view expressed by Jesus as a circumcised Jew.

His is one, a compound one, united to the Son and the Spirit as one God. Jesus said "I and the Father are one" One is neuter here, it means one thing.

But as I keep pointing out, nothing of that is in the NT. Jesus isn't promoted to God status till after the NT has been written.

Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me"

I think I've mentioned to you before that as John 17 makes clear, Jesus is one with God in the same way that anyone who believes in Jesus can be one with God. Your hypothesis would leave us with as many persons of God as there are dead Christians, not so much a Trinity as an engorgement.

When we see God we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Only by proxy, as if looking at the envoy you're looking at the principal. As it says,

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known​

You trip yourself up with mathematics. Each of them are 100% God but not 100% OF God.

I stand by my previous remarks. First, that's not what the Trinity doctrine says. Second, why you say threatens to make sense, and if it makes sense then it's no longer "a mystery in the strict sense" ─ which is the churches' title for the situation.

300% does not work out, so why do you posit something that is nonsense?

100% of God + 100% of God + 100% of God = 300% = 3 gods. Except in the Trinity doctrine, which is why it's "a mystery in the strict sense", that's to say, a nonsense.

No, Jesus resurrection was the revelation that Jesus was truly the Son of God, equal in nature to His Father. Nobody can become God.

Of course they can. Herakles became a god. Augustus and Claudius became gods. Jesus was becoming a god by popular demand by the second century CE and was officially so declared before the end of the fourth. All you need is a congregation. Ask any Hindu.

Jesus is sort of executive officer because He becomes subject to His Father (1Cor 15:28) as the Son should be. At the moment He has all power and authority (Matt 28:18). But things go back to how they were before Jesus came to earth as a man.

I love that quote from Matthew, where God retires from active service and is now spending [his] days down at the Celestial Golf Club while Jesus does all the work. Yea! Everyone should have a retirement plan!

Phil 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Yes, the "Kenosis hymn" which you mentioned before (said by experts not to be Paul's words but a quote from earlier Christianity).

But no, it does NOT say "being in very nature God". As I told you above, Philippians 2:6 says ─

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων ─ "although he began / arose / existed in the form of a god".​

Jesus is given the name above all names, His Father's name, YHWH. (verse 9)

No, he's simply given the name Jesus. There's no mention, no hint, that the name Yahweh is involved. Which raises the interesting question, if he wasn't called Jesus until after his death, what was his name when he was alive?

The New Testament in other places shows us that Jesus was YHWH before and during the creation

Yes, I mentioned that before too ─ In Paul and John, but clearly not in Mark, Matthew or Luke, Jesus is the gnostic demiurge who dwelt in heaven with God and created the material universe. (If I was the author of Genesis I'd be soooo offended!)

Why do you say that the synoptic gospels do not agree with John just because they do not give the same information?

Because any attempt to reconcile the five conflicting versions of Jesus only results in a sixth version of Jesus, not a single person. As I keep pointing out, the Jesus of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven, created the material universe, and was born on earth from Jewish parents with a father who was descended from David.

The Jesus of Mark, by contrast, is an ordinary Jew until his baptism and adoption. His birth was not foretold by angel messengers, and he expressly wasn't descended from David.

The Jesuses of Matthew and of Luke, like Mark's Jesus, didn't pre-exist in heaven but were created by the divine insemination of a virgin. They are said, absurdly, to be descended from David because Joseph is said to be descended from David, but Joseph is specifically, out loud and proud, NOT their father. AND the genealogies purporting to show that descent, irrelevant as it is, are neither of them credible and neither of them compatible with the other ─ from an evidentiary point of view a total farce.

But that of course is just the low-hanging fruit, three incompatible and irreconcilable models of Jesus before they even shut the doors and prepare for takeoff.

 

[blü 2]

Anyone can copy and paste a definition of the truth.

There you go again, being instinctively rude. I chose that definition after considering the options carefully, whereas you don't have a definition of truth at all. For you, apparently, truth is anything you'd like to be true.

The proposed premises are Jesus is God or Jesus is not God.

Whether or not they could be called premises here, they're the matter under consideration.

And clearly for Christians Jesus became God after the gospels were written and in general terms before the end of the 4th century CE.

So not whether, but when, did Jesus get elevated to God status?

Your false proposition states: Jesus is not God because He never said, “I am God.”

You don't even read my posts, it appears.

Jesus is not God because ─ as I showed you ─ all five versions of him in the NT state that they're not God. It's then correct to add "And he never claimed to be God."

I gave you some of the relevant quotes, for crying out loud. Are you dyslexic?

 

[blü 2]

Your premises are false. It will lead to false conclusions. I have concluded what I wanted to say.

And you are a dishonest debater, spouting nonsense like this instead of addressing the questions, resorting to rudeness, feigning dismissiveness.

Yes, your departure from the conversation is a good idea.

 

[Soapy]

26 "Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,"
with that in mind , am i a trinity ?

Good question that will receive no viable response!

 

[Soapy]

That is a lie.

Jesus: ‘I said only that God is my Father’.

 

[Soapy]

And you are a dishonest debater, spouting nonsense like this instead of addressing the questions, resorting to rudeness, feigning dismissiveness.

Yes, your departure from the conversation is a good idea.

This is what they do instead of admitting what you said was more correct than their own views - run away!!

 

[Soapy]

There you go again, being instinctively rude. I chose that definition after considering the options carefully, whereas you don't have a definition of truth at all. For you, apparently, truth is anything you'd like to be true.
Whether or not they could be called premises here, they're the matter under consideration.

And clearly for Christians Jesus became God after the gospels were written and in general terms before the end of the 4th century CE.

So not whether, but when, did Jesus get elevated to God status?
You don't even read my posts, it appears.

Jesus is not God because ─ as I showed you ─ all five versions of him in the NT state that they're not God. It's then correct to add "And he never claimed to be God."

I gave you some of the relevant quotes, for crying out loud. Are you dyslexic?

Remember / bear in mind … that a snake will keep slithering about trying to find a way out of a box that it traps itself in. It may go quiet after a long while but as soon as peeked on it will regain its slithering … anger from you wont stop their deceit - in fact they may use it to say that YOU are abusing THEM and get you into trouble! Treat it more like a godly joy when they squirm the way you opponent is doing now since it confirms that they know they are wrong and you are more likely right - but that right(iousness) belongs to God through the word brought from God by Jesus in the scriptures!

 

[Soapy]

I deny all your false premises and conclusions. You come to false conclusions because your presupposition is false.

Take out the word ‘false’… You may claim that a conclusions is false but you cannot claim a premise is false.

You are claiming that ALL THE CONCLUSIONS TO THE PREMISES I presented to you are false?

You are denying everything off hand?

Were none of them true - in any way at all?

Can you present a similar list, then, of what you do think is true - beginning to end of scriptures?