The Trinity in the NT (my belief)

[LightofTruth]

If there is one thing I discovered about Trinitarians, in all my dealings with them, is that they hate being questioned. They HATE it!

And if there is one thing I discovered about intelligent people it's that they have the ability to ask questions.

Why did you just relegate the answer to just Philippians? Is it because if you take the whole of the bible it would say he did pre-exist like in the book of John and others?

Your interpretation doesn't say what you are saying.

The problem I have with Trinitarians is they are very superficial readers when it comes to the Scripture. John 1 is a classic example.

They say "the Word was God" and "the Word became flesh" and that's it. There you have it, Jesus is God. He was with God in the beginning and therefore he existed before he was born.

Let's suppose John was not a trinitarian. The God that the word was with would be the one and only true God. He would even be the God of Jesus.

What we know of the word of God is that it is powerful. When God speaks by the very breath(spirit) of His mouth things get made. Now, lets suppose that John wants to manifest that word or breath of the spirit power of God through God's son Jesus who was born of a woman and made flesh.

One way would be to take that word and apply it to the son of man and call the son "the Word of God" . Give the son the name "the Word of God".

It doesn't stop there. If God's spirit is the way in which God creates. And the son is to be recognized as God's Word, then that Spirit by which God creates is given to the son without measure(timeless). Meaning that the Spirit which is given to the son is the very same timeless Spirit of the Father by which the Father created all things, and to have a measureless amount of that Spirit would mean that he who possesses it is to be viewed as He who created all things even though he wasn't born until after.

God wants us to recognize Jesus as Himself by giving all things God Himself has to His son.

 

[LightofTruth]

Instead of giving Jesus a dual nature with two minds and two wills, why not simply give him the full measure of the timeless Spirit of his Father and call it a day.

 

[Windwalker]

"agent of God" or God?
"agent of manifestation"?

Yes, that is the use of Logos in Jn. 1. Not only was that how Philo used Logos, it's also how the Jews used a similar concept when speaking of the Memra of Jehovah. It's also clear John meant it that way within the prologue of his gospel when he speaks of how all of creation was accomplished through him.

Creation is God manifesting. And God manifesting is the Logos. "In him was Life, and the Light of men... the Light shone in the darkness..." That is not a mere angel, or some other created being.

The problem for the Trinitarian is that the LOGOS was "with God".

Why is that a problem? The Greek word for "with" in Jn. 1:1 is pros. It is used in the sense of "face to face" pointing to an intimate, inseparable relationship with God, like you and your breath. Your breath is not separate from you. It is "with" you, and is you. It is you as a living being. Without it, you cease to exist.

You see, John knows of only ONE GOD not three. Was the LOGOS with your Trinity God?

The Trinity is the ONE GOD, as you all-caps that. It is all God. Not parts of God, not multiple gods.

Let's see how that works:

In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with the Trinity(the one God of trinitarianism) and the Word was the Trinity?

Nope, that don't work for the trinitarian.

Jn. 1:1 is speaking what the Logos is. It's not laying out the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity is formulated in part, by what is spoken of about the Logos in Jn. 1. It's not based in its entirety upon it.

Ok, maybe John was referring to the Father when he said "God". Let's try that one:

In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with the Father and the Word was the Father?

Oops, that don't work for the trinitarian either.

You can't change theos in the last clause of verse 1 to mean God as a person. It's in the anarthrous form, lacking the definite article, and is pointing to the Nature of God, or "Divinity". It could read, "The Logos was Divine". You can't change the language to make it suggest it is Theos with the definite article.

 

[LightofTruth]

Yes, that is the use of Logos in Jn. 1. Not only was that how Philo used Logos, it's also how the Jews used a similar concept when speaking of the Memra of Jehovah. It's also clear John meant it that way within the prologue of his gospel when he speaks of how all of creation was accomplished through him.

Creation is God manifesting. And God manifesting is the Logos. "In him was Life, and the Light of men... the Light shone in the darkness..." That is not a mere angel, or some other created being.


Why is that a problem? The Greek word for "with" in Jn. 1:1 is pros. It is used in the sense of "face to face" pointing to an intimate, inseparable relationship with God, like you and your breath. Your breath is not separate from you. It is "with" you, and is you. It is you as a living being. Without it, you cease to exist.


The Trinity is the ONE GOD, as you all-caps that. It is all God. Not parts of God, not multiple gods.


Jn. 1:1 is speaking what the Logos is. It's not laying out the Trinity doctrine. The Trinity is formulated in part, by what is spoken of about the Logos in Jn. 1. It's not based in its entirety upon it.


You can't change theos in the last clause of verse 1 to mean God as a person. It's in the anarthrous form, lacking the definite article, and is pointing to the Nature of God, or "Divinity". It could read, "The Logos was Divine". You can't change the language to make it suggest it is Theos with the definite article.

If we understand God's word as what comes from His mouth and has the power to create. then that word is no more a person than Wisdom is a she.
However, if I say that Jesus is the Wisdom of God, then I'm identifying a person as the Wisdom of God.

In the same way, the word of God is not a person or a "he". However, if I say Jesus is the Word of God then I'm identifying a person as the Word of God.

All God has to do is apply His wisdom, or His word to a person in order for that person to be called the Wisdom of God or the Word of God.

 

[Kenny]

If there is one thing I discovered about Trinitarians, in all my dealings with them, is that they hate being questioned. They HATE it!

And if there is one thing I discovered about intelligent people it's that they have the ability to ask questions.

Interesting thought. When you encounter these types of people, do you always paint a broad brush on all of those who believe in the Godhead?

I ask the question, maybe because of my intelligence

The problem I have with Trinitarians is they are very superficial readers when it comes to the Scripture. John 1 is a classic example.

They say "the Word was God" and "the Word became flesh" and that's it. There you have it, Jesus is God. He was with God in the beginning and therefore he existed before he was born.

The problem with the first sentence, is that it is a judgment call based on your assumption that you are correct.

Your second sentence is just as superficial as if in as much as it only deals with 2 scriptures. There are multiple scriptures that all work together for the good of understanding.

It also doesn't deal with John 1 in the least. You paint a broad brush with no supportive documentation.

Let's suppose John was not a trinitarian. The God that the word was with would be the one and only true God. He would even be the God of Jesus.

What we know of the word of God is that it is powerful. When God speaks by the very breath(spirit) of His mouth things get made. Now, lets suppose that John wants to manifest that word or breath of the spirit power of God through God's son Jesus who was born of a woman and made flesh.

One way would be to take that word and apply it to the son of man and call the son "the Word of God" . Give the son the name "the Word of God".

It doesn't stop there. If God's spirit is the way in which God creates. And the son is to be recognized as God's Word, then that Spirit by which God creates is given to the son without measure(timeless). Meaning that the Spirit which is given to the son is the very same timeless Spirit of the Father by which the Father created all things, and to have a measureless amount of that Spirit would mean that he who possesses it is to be viewed as He who created all things even though he wasn't born until after.

God wants us to recognize Jesus as Himself by giving all things God Himself has to His son.[/QUOTE

That is a lot of "suppositions". It doesn't address in the least all the scriptures that declare that the Godhead consists of The Father, the Word of God and the Spirit of God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything.
2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all!

I find the mention of 'three' does Not have mean persons or even a person.
Neither God nor Jesus are a neuter "it" as God's spirit is a neuter in that God sends His spirit forth - Psalms 104:30
At Numbers 11:17,25 God's spirit is a neuter 'it' and Not a person. (Newer versions took the liberty to change 'it' to he.
I was taught that the word ' and ' is a conjunctive word between persons. Not referring to the same person.
So, No more than Tom and Dick and Harry are the same person, they are Not three in one person.
Having three subjects named does Not prove in itself that all three posses the same person.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

It also doesn't deal with John 1 in the least. You paint a broad brush with no supportive documentation.

What I find at John 1 is that pre-human Jesus was "IN" the beginning.
Whereas, Psalms 90:2 informs us that God had No beginning being from everlasting.
So, only God was ' before ' the beginning. Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to John at Revelation 3:12.

 

[Kenny]

What I find at John 1 is that pre-human Jesus was "IN" the beginning.
Whereas, Psalms 90:2 informs us that God had No beginning being from everlasting.
So, only God was ' before ' the beginning. Jesus was "IN" the beginning but Not ' before ' the beginning as his God was.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him according to John at Revelation 3:12.

But wouldn't that be at the expense of all other scriptures?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. \
Ps 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth or ever You had formed and given birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting You are God.

I don't see it (what you are trying to say)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But wouldn't that be at the expense of all other scriptures?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. \
Ps 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth or ever You had formed and given birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting You are God. I don't see it (what you are trying to say)

If we continue to read down to Genesis 1:26 we find the word 'us'.
God speaking to pre-human heavenly Jesus said let 'us' make.....
So, God used his first born in the heavens to then be in the creation process - Colossians 1:15
John wrote Revelation and Jesus believes that heavenly Jesus still has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12.

Plus, in dealing with Psalms 110 please notice there are two (2) LORD/Lords mentioned.
The LORD in ALL Upper-Case letters stand for LORD God ( Tetragrammaton )
The other Lord ( in some lower-case letters ) stands for Lord Jesus ( No Tetragrammaton applied )

 

[LightofTruth]

God's spirit is also something that proceeds from Himself. That spirit is not a person but proceeds from a person, namely the Father.

Interesting thought. When you encounter these types of people, do you always paint a broad brush on all of those who believe in the Godhead?

I ask the question, maybe because of my intelligence



The problem with the first sentence, is that it is a judgment call based on your assumption that you are correct.

Your second sentence is just as superficial as if in as much as it only deals with 2 scriptures. There are multiple scriptures that all work together for the good of understanding.

It also doesn't deal with John 1 in the least. You paint a broad brush with no supportive documentation.

I dealt with John 1 in post 24. Creation is attributed to Jesus because he is called The Word of God. It's a name given to him. He didn't exist until he came into existence by being born. That's why he has a Father and he His son. Not only does he have a Father, his Father is also his God. Read about it sometime.

 

[LightofTruth]

I asked a Calvinist, "How is it Jesus has a God?"
He replied, "Jesus doesn't have a God, he is God".
What do you think of that?

 

[LightofTruth]

If we continue to read down to Genesis 1:26 we find the word 'us'.
God speaking to pre-human heavenly Jesus said let 'us' make.....
So, God used his first born in the heavens to then be in the creation process - Colossians 1:15
John wrote Revelation and Jesus believes that heavenly Jesus still has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12.

Plus, in dealing with Psalms 110 please notice there are two (2) LORD/Lords mentioned.
The LORD in ALL Upper-Case letters stand for LORD God ( Tetragrammaton )
The other Lord ( in some lower-case letters ) stands for Lord Jesus ( No Tetragrammaton applied )

A failure to recognize Jesus' God is a failure to know the one true God. Reason loses the day at the Trinitarian camps.

 

[Windwalker]

If we understand God's word as what comes from His mouth and has the power to create. then that word is no more a person than Wisdom is a she.

But we don't understand it that way. That's not how Philo meant it with his Logos. It's not how the Jews meant it with their Memra, and it's not what John meant. It's an attempt to talk about the nature of the Divine itself, how it is unknowable and formless in its Infinite nature, and how that mediating Agent of the Logos, is how God becomes manifested and knowable.

"The invisible things of him through creation are made known (or manifest)" Romans 1:20. God as Manifestation, is Logos. God manifesting is Logos. Jesus the man, was God manifesting as man, goes the teaching of John in his gospel prologue.

However, if I say that Jesus is the Wisdom of God, then I'm identifying a person as the Wisdom of God.

Not exactly. To see Jesus is to see the Father, right? To say Jesus is the Wisdom of God, would be to say he fully manifests that, or rather Wisdom is fully manifest through Jesus. They are one and the same, inseparable.

In that very same sense, Logos was "with God", as Wisdom was with Jesus, and Logos IS God. Inseparable. No division. It's like the rays of the sun are not another sun.

In the same way, the word of God is not a person or a "he". However, if I say Jesus is the Word of God then I'm identifying a person as the Word of God.

Not how I hear it. The person, is the full expression of God's Logos. Jesus, fully manifests the Divine. To look at him and say, he is the Logos, is to recognize his true Nature. "He that has seen me, has seen the Father". Perfect transparency.

The Logos is Infinite. Eternal. God. Jesus was a human being who fully manifest that God, in finite flesh. He was the Divine Human. God manifest in flesh.

All God has to do is apply His wisdom, or His word to a person in order for that person to be called the Wisdom of God or the Word of God.

While humans may let God speak through them, in a myriad of ways, most humans aren't generally seen as perfectly one with the Divine. Most humans struggle with that. The point of calling Jesus that, is to say he did not struggle with that, but was One with the Father.

 

[Kenny]

If we continue to read down to Genesis 1:26 we find the word 'us'.
God speaking to pre-human heavenly Jesus said let 'us' make.....
So, God used his first born in the heavens to then be in the creation process - Colossians 1:15
John wrote Revelation and Jesus believes that heavenly Jesus still has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12.

Plus, in dealing with Psalms 110 please notice there are two (2) LORD/Lords mentioned.
The LORD in ALL Upper-Case letters stand for LORD God ( Tetragrammaton )
The other Lord ( in some lower-case letters ) stands for Lord Jesus ( No Tetragrammaton applied )

I hear what you are saying.... When I took a course about the Godhead, just when there was just one God we hit a stumbling block that He was manifested in three. And just when we establish He was manifested in three, we hit a stumbling block that He was one.

For an example... you mentioned "us"... which would sound like it is one God but He created The Word that did His being.

Eloyhim - is plural.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD - the Existing one - singular

our God - Eloyhim - plural

is one LORD: - the Existing one - singular.

Very specific and with reason. "Us" - is one God but plural at the same time.

As far as capital letters.... did you know that the original Hebraic language had no capital letters?

 

[LightofTruth]

But we don't understand it that way. That's not how Philo meant it with his Logos. It's not how the Jews meant it with their Memra, and it's not what John meant. It's an attempt to talk about the nature of the Divine itself, how it is unknowable and formless in its Infinite nature, and how that mediating Agent of the Logos, is how God becomes manifested and knowable.

"The invisible things of him through creation are made known (or manifest)" Romans 1:20. God as Manifestation, is Logos. God manifesting is Logos. Jesus the man, was God manifesting as man, goes the teaching of John in his gospel prologue.


Not exactly. To see Jesus is to see the Father, right? To say Jesus is the Wisdom of God, would be to say he fully manifests that, or rather Wisdom is fully manifest through Jesus. They are one and the same, inseparable.

In that very same sense, Logos was "with God", as Wisdom was with Jesus, and Logos IS God. Inseparable. No division. It's like the rays of the sun are not another sun.


Not how I hear it. The person, is the full expression of God's Logos. Jesus, fully manifests the Divine. To look at him and say, he is the Logos, is to recognize his true Nature. "He that has seen me, has seen the Father". Perfect transparency.

The Logos is Infinite. Eternal. God. Jesus was a human being who fully manifest that God, in finite flesh. He was the Divine Human. God manifest in flesh.


While humans may let God speak through them, in a myriad of ways, most humans aren't generally seen as perfectly one with the Divine. Most humans struggle with that. The point of calling Jesus that, is to say he did not struggle with that, but was One with the Father.

Are you saying that God was not speaking when the heavens and the earth and all their host were being made?

It seems to me that God spoke and things happened. Like God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". etc.

 

[Windwalker]

Are you saying that God was not speaking when the heavens and the earth and all their host were being made?

It seems to me that God spoke and things happened. Like God said, "Let there be light, and there was light". etc.

The "Word" in John 1 is not about spoken languages, or vocal utterances either. I've covered the scholarship on that in the other posts.

Even in Genesis were God "speaks", the word really shouldn't be taken literally as in vocalizing. For one thing, there was no atmosphere, and you need air in order for sound waves to move, as well as ears to receive sound. You can't "talk" in space where there is no oxygen. So perhaps, when it says "Let there be light", that is more poetry to suggest the power of God's creation through intentional will, and no actual vocalizations took place in reality? Yes, let's go with that. That "sounds" more reasonable.

It's poetry, not science.

 

[LightofTruth]

The "Word" in John 1 is not about spoken languages, or vocal utterances either. I've covered the scholarship on that in the other posts.

Even in Genesis were God "speaks", the word really shouldn't be taken literally as in vocalizing. For one thing, there was no atmosphere, and you need air in order for sound waves to move, as well as ears to receive sound. You can't "talk" in space where there is no oxygen. So perhaps, when it says "Let there be light", that is more poetry to suggest the power of God's creation through intentional will, and no actual vocalizations took place in reality? Yes, let's go with that. That "sounds" more reasonable.

It's poetry, not science.

The Targumists believed that "the word of YHVH" was a Mediator between man and the one true God. They recognized that there were TWO YHVH's spoken of, but they did not believe they were both the one true God.

According to Scripture, the other YHVH was the angel of YHVH who was sent by the one true YHVH.

Since no man has ever seen the one true YHVH, YHVH sent His angel who appeared to men and who carried the name of YHVH and who spoke the words of YHVH.

We can learn a lesson from the angel of the Lord spoken of in the O.T. when it comes to understanding who is Jesus. Jesus is similar to the angel of the LORD but Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant. The old covenant requires strict adherence to the laws of YHVH, whereas the new requires faith and forgiveness of sin that can lead to life eternal because the Mediator who made the way sits at the right hand of the one true YHVH. In other words, the High Priest is still living to make intercession.

 

[Windwalker]

The Targumists believed that "the word of YHVH" was a Mediator between man and the one true God. They recognized that there were TWO YHVH's spoken of, but they did not believe they were both the one true God.

Yes, I mentioned the Memra of Jehovah before. I also mentioned Philo of Alexandria's Logos. The author of John uses both the Jewish view of Memra, and the Hellenized view of Logos as the starting point to talk about John's Logos as Jesus.

He's not intending to be identical to those, which he doesn't do, but is simply using them as a familiar view of God and expanding upon it with his Jesus. His goal with his gospel was to bridge the gap between the Jewish and Greek understandings of God, and introduce Jesus to them.

So citing how the Jews understood Memra, or citing how Philo used Logos, does not mean John's Logos is meant to be identical with either of those. That is not the case, as there are clear differences. He starts with those, but builds upon it with something new to them.

We can learn a lesson from the angel of the Lord spoken of in the O.T. when it comes to understanding who is Jesus. Jesus is similar to the angel of the LORD but Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant.

However one wrestles with understand the nature of what these theophanies of the Lord were, in a sense they do foreshadow the incarnation. But they of course are not the same. These theophanies were like putting on a set of clothes in order to be seen, and taken off and disappearing when done. Jesus was a living human being, from sunrise to sunset, from birth to death, and everything in between. So you don't look at the former, and then conclude the latter should be understand as identically as the former.

But the real intent of John's Logos, riffing off of Philo's Logos, and the Jew's Memra, was about God manifesting himself to the world. The Logos, is God manifesting, not only through Creation itself, but in the person of the human being Jesus, born of woman, not poofed out of thin air like an angel. Jesus the human, is Logos itself as a human being, not as an angel, continuing its eternal role as God's Manifestation, or God manifesting.

The Logos is God manifesting. And God manifesting, is God. While the manifestation may be temporary, the Manifestor is eternal.

 

[LightofTruth]

I might say that God's angels were involved in creation. Many Jewish scholars believed that the "US" in "Let US make man in OUR image" refers to angels.(and God Himself)

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The same LORD God spoken of in the above verse is the same LORD God who commanded Adam.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

And the same LORD God spokenof here:

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice(sound) of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
Gen 3:10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

This LORD God whom Adam and Eve tried to hide themselves from, was most likely the angel of the LORD who is referred to as LORD God. And the same LORD God who appeared to Abraham and ate with him. And the same LORD God who wrestled with Jacob.....and any where else that the LORD God actually appeared to men. Because no man can see or has seen the one true God.

 

[LightofTruth]

I don't have a problem with Thomas referring to Jesus as LORD and God because the angel whom Jesus has now been exalted above was called LORD God. The angel wasn't the one true God, because He no man has seen.

Even Moses spoke face to face to the LORD God, as a man speaks to his friend, but Moses also realized there was a God in heaven who no man can see because Moses went up on the Mount when the one true God descended on it and asked to see God's glory. But the one true God said "no man can see my face a live".