The Trinity

[pearl]

There really is no conflict between the two narratives when one takes into consideration the way the information in each section is laid out.

Right, there is no conflict here, the different accounts represent different ancient traditions both retained in the final editing of the Pentateuch due to the significance and purpose of each.

 

[JayJayDee]

The Bible does however correct, reinterpret itself. There is no belief in an after life in Job.

It is true that Job did not believe an afterlife because God's people were never taught such a thing. They did not believe that they had an a immortal soul that survived death, but rather they believed in the resurrection as a re-establishment of their lives on earth under the awaited kingdom of their Messiah. Job lived long before the nation of Israel was formed and yet he expressed faith in the resurrection even then.

At the height of his suffering, not knowing that the devil was responsible for what was happening to him, Job prayed to God.....

"13 O that in the Grave you would conceal me, That you would hide me until your anger passes by, That you would set a time limit for me and remember me! 14 If a man dies, can he live again? I will wait all the days of my compulsory service Until my relief comes. 15 You will call, and I will answer you. You will long for the work of your hands." (Job 14:13-15)

The "work of (God's) hands" is his earthly creation, which was hijacked by the devil and held to ransom. The ransom price has been paid by the loving sacrifice of God's son and all those like Job who sleep in death, will hear the voice of their king, and rise. (John 5:28, 29) Job's compulsory service was his time in Sheol (the grave) and his relief was his restoration to life....he would respond to the call to rise. (Just as Jesus called Lazarus from his tomb. John 11:11-14)

Every resurrection performed by Jesus and his apostles was back to the life they knew and they were reunited with their families. The general resurrection of the dead is not the heavenly resurrection. Those anointed for life in heaven are resurrected in a completely different way. Like their Lord, these ones experience a spiritual resurrection so as to enter the spirit realm where God himself resides. These, the Bible says, are resurrected "first". (Rev 20:6; 1Thess 4:13-18) They are not resurrected until the second coming of The Lord. So up until that time, they were to "sleep".

Yet there is a Pharisaic belief in resurrection, and finally, the Resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection was an established belief in Judaism and the apostles also expressed belief in it. Jesus raised several people from the dead and so did the apostles. Yet there are only nine resurrections mentioned in the scriptures....two of those were in pre-Christian times.

The account of Lazarus helps us to understand why the apostles had a hard time understanding the resurrection that Jesus said he was going to experience. Even after he was raised, seeing him in the flesh reinforced the fact that he experienced the physical resurrection they were expecting....and yet all was not as it seemed. Jesus' resurrection was different and they would not understand how different until Pentecost when their own anointing with holy spirit opened up their full understanding.
Even up to the time of Jesus' ascension to heaven, his disciples still believed that he would be an earthly king in an earthly kingdom.(Acts 1:6)

There is more than one account of creation etc.

Kolibri has explained that well. There is not more than one account. The two accounts are given from different perspectives indicated by the scriptures themselves.

 

[sojourner]

Kolibri has explained that well. There is not more than one account. The two accounts are given from different perspectives indicated by the scriptures themselves.

There are two accounts. One calls God "YHVH," the other calls God "Elohim." Genesis 2 was written ca. 950 b.c.e Gen. 1 was written ca. 500 b.c.e. They are different stories taken from different ancient source material, not simply different perspectives of the same story.

 

[JayJayDee]

There are two accounts. One calls God "YHVH," the other calls God "Elohim." Genesis 2 was written ca. 950 b.c.e Gen. 1 was written ca. 500 b.c.e. They are different stories taken from different ancient source material, not simply different perspectives of the same story.

YHWH is the personal name of the Creator. (Psalm 83:18; Ex 3:15)

"The Hebrew word ʼelo·him′ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·him′ is the plural of ʼeloh′ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·him′ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·him′ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·him′] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·him′] must rather be explained as an intensive plural,denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The AmericanJournal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208."

Concerning the narratives in Genesis 1&2.....
"Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 2, verse 3, after telling about the creation of the material heavens and earth (Ge 1:1, 2), provides an outline of further creative activities on the earth.

Chapter 2 of Genesis, from verse 5 onward, is a parallel account that takes up at a point in the third “day,” after dry land appeared but before land plants were created. It supplies details not furnished in the broad outline found in Genesis chapter 1.

The inspired Record tells of six creative periods called “days,” and of a seventh period or “seventh day” in which time God desisted from earthly creative works and proceeded to rest. (Ge 2:1-3)

While the Genesis account of creative activity relating to the earth does not set forth detailed botanical and zoological distinctions such as those current today, the terms employed therein adequately cover the major divisions of life and show that these were created and made so that they reproduce only according to their respective “kinds.”—Ge 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25;" (Insight Volumes WTBTS)

 

[moorea944]

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" - Colossians 1:15

"'To the angel of the congregation in La-o-di-ce'a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God:'" - Revelation 3:14

Jesus had a beginning. He was created. He is the oldest individual alive outside of his Father, the "King of Eternity." (1Ti 1:17)

Only-begotten is explained in Colossians 1:16. Jesus is the only creation directly created by his Father. Jehovah used Jesus as a "master worker" to build all other creation.

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,
The earliest of his achievements of long ago.
From ancient times (or "From time immemorial.") I was installed,
From the start, from times earlier than the earth.
...
Then I was beside him as a master worker.
I was the one he was especially fond of day by day;
I rejoiced before him all the time.
I rejoiced over his habitable earth,
And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (or "mankind.")
- Proverbs 8:22,23,30,31

Col 1 v 15 The "image" of the invisible God. And, what creation are you referring to? Adam? Paul talks about two creations. One with Adam and a new one with Christ. But I think your seeing Jesus before Adam. It's talking about the second creation. Spiritual.

 

[Kolibri]

Col 1 v 15 The "image" of the invisible God. And, what creation are you referring to? Adam? Paul talks about two creations. One with Adam and a new one with Christ. But I think your seeing Jesus before Adam. It's talking about the second creation. Spiritual.

Sorry, I left Colossians 1:16 cited and not quoted.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist," - Colossians 1:15-17

"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." - John 1:3
"He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him." - John 1:10
"Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence I have been.'" - John 8:58
"So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." - John 17:5
"Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and became human." Philippians 2:5-7
"Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.'" - Genesis 1:26a

From of all of this and Proverbs 8 quoted earlier, Jesus had a pre-human existence, he would be the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works. Nothing was created before him. All other things he had a share in bringing into existence.

What was Jesus...?

• before being born to Mary: longest-living angel; mortal
• before dying: human; exact equivalent of Adam prior to sin; mortal
• when dead: nonexistent
• upon resurrection: angel; immortal (thus a new creation)

 

[pearl]

There are two accounts. One calls God "YHVH," the other calls God "Elohim." Genesis 2 was written ca. 950 b.c.e Gen. 1 was written ca. 500 b.c.e. They are different stories taken from different ancient source material, not simply different perspectives of the same story.

True, there are different ancient sources, handed down orally eventually developed into a national saga. The first put into writing
was probably what is called the Yahwistic document due to the author's favor of Yahweh for the divine name. After the division of
the kingdom of Solomon the national saga came down to the northern kingdom separately and was put into writing sometime in the
8th cent, this version of the saga is referred to as "E" due to the author's favor for Elohim as the divine name. After the destruction
of the northern kingdom the E document was brought south to Judah and fused with the Yahwistic document. The priests of the
northern kingdom who had come to Jerusalem codified their legal traditions in what we know now as Deuteronomy. Another priestly
document contained the legal traditions of the Jerusalem priesthood, composed of very ancient sources.

 

[2ndpillar]

Height, depth, width equals one item of three dimensions.
Past, present, future equals one timeline.

GOD says that HE is the Alpha and the Omega. He is certainly present...

Dear LN,
The book of Revelation portrays Yeshua as the alpha and omega. Alpha and omega are letters of a written language. John portrays Yeshua as the "word made flesh". The written "word" had a beginning, whereas God is without beginning or end.

 

[Sonofason]

We get our sense of logic from our Creator. The trinity as a doctrine is completely illogical and finds NO support in any direct statement of scripture. It is read into a few verses, but is contradicted by many more. Since the Bible does not contradict itself, then the scriptures that categorically state that Jesus can't be Almighty God must be right and the ones that are open to conjecture must be misinterpreted.

If Jesus didn't once say he was God and Jehovah did not once say his son was equal to himself, then we have no categorical statement to back up the trinity....all we have is a belief based on supposition and a desire to push that belief.

Nowhere are we told to worship the son and nowhere are we told to worship the holy spirit. We are not told to pray to the son or to the Holy Spirit...only to the Father through Jesus.

So where does this ridiculous belief come from and why do people put such great store by it? Why does it have to be true in order for them to hold onto their Christianity. Jesus never was God and Christianity went without a trinity for over 300 years!

Jesus did not have to be God to fulfill his role as Messiah......

I disagree on this point. It seems to me that Jesus is, as stated in scripture, the Word of God. What that is exactly, I do not know. I have to employ reason to ascertain what that means, and of course my reasoning could be flawed. But the scriptures tell us that this Word of God was with God, and that this Word actually was God (past tense).

Why did not the scriptures, if it intended to convey that Jesus is God in the flesh say that (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word IS God)? It didn't. Jesus may have been God come in the flesh, but by coming in the flesh, as a mortal man, He no longer was God. It is quite possible that the Word gave up His Godhood for our sake. And that mortal Word's name became Jesus.

 

[Kolibri]

Why did not the scriptures, if it intended to convey that Jesus is God in the flesh say that (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word IS God)? It didn't. Jesus may have been God come in the flesh, but by coming in the flesh, as a mortal man, He no longer was God. It is quite possible that the Word gave up His Godhood for our sake. And that mortal Word's name became Jesus.

Not all modern translations leave John 1:1 ending with "was God."
There are actually a good sampling that give the sense of "was a god." (in this case "a mighty/powerful one.")
There is some good reason for 'was a god.'

*** w09 4/1 pp. 18-19 Is Jesus God? ***
A Text That Teaches the Trinity?
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?

The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros′] is the world [Greek, ho ko′smos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.

What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”

To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”

Identity of “the Word”?
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

 

[Sonofason]

Not all modern translations leave John 1:1 ending with "was God."
There are actually a good sampling that give the sense of "was a god." (in this case "a mighty/powerful one.")
There is some good reason for 'was a god.'

*** w09 4/1 pp. 18-19 Is Jesus God? ***
A Text That Teaches the Trinity?
One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?

The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros′] is the world [Greek, ho ko′smos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.

What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”

To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”

Identity of “the Word”?
Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

Well, I agree with you that Jesus is not God. But I do not agree that He was never God. All that comes from God was with God, and must have been in part, or some part of God. Yet we having been manifested (created) from God in the flesh are no longer God, but something apart from and separate from God.

 

[Yes]

Well, I agree with you that Jesus is not God. But I do not agree that He was never God. All that comes from God was with God, and must have been in part, or some part of God. Yet we having been manifested (created) from God in the flesh are no longer God, but something apart from and separate from God.

Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son of Man.

Jesus is the author of our lives. God is the Father of our spirits. Everything was made through Jesus; everything was made through God. THAT is what the BIBLE SAYS.

See 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Romans 11:36, and Hebrews 2:10.

You are afraid...perfect love casts out all fear.

 

[Kolibri]

Well, I agree with you that Jesus is not God. But I do not agree that He was never God. All that comes from God was with God, and must have been in part, or some part of God. Yet we having been manifested (created) from God in the flesh are no longer God, but something apart from and separate from God.

At what point does a child stop being his parent? Isn't it at conception?
Jesus would have stopped being Jehovah at the moment he was formed at the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works - much like I stopped being either of my parents the moment I was conceived.

Jehovah created a separate life-form. And yet Jesus had to rely on Jehovah for continued life support for as long as he was mortal.

 

[Yes]

At what point does a child stop being his parent? Isn't it at conception?
Jesus would have stopped being part of Jehovah at the moment he was formed at the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works - much like I stopped being either of my parents the moment I was conceived.

Jesus is God made visible. Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son of Man.

 

[Sonofason]

Jesus is God come in the flesh as a Son of Man.

Jesus is the author of our lives. God is the Father of our spirits. Everything was made through Jesus; everything was made through God. THAT is what the BIBLE SAYS.

See 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Romans 11:36, and Hebrews 2:10.

You are afraid...perfect love casts out all fear.

Then if Jesus was God in the flesh, where was the God He prayed to. And why did God need to pray to Himself in the first place.

Where does the Bible say that "everything was made through God"? Direct quotations would be nice, rather than your own interpretations and paraphrasing.

 

[Sonofason]

At what point does a child stop being his parent? Isn't it at conception?
Jesus would have stopped being Jehovah at the moment he was formed at the very beginning of Jehovah's creative works - much like I stopped being either of my parents the moment I was conceived.

Jehovah created a separate life-form. And yet Jesus had to rely on Jehovah for continued life support for as long as he was mortal.

I tend to agree.

 

[JayJayDee]

I disagree on this point. It seems to me that Jesus is, as stated in scripture, the Word of God. What that is exactly, I do not know. I have to employ reason to ascertain what that means, and of course my reasoning could be flawed. But the scriptures tell us that this Word of God was with God, and that this Word actually was God (past tense).

There is no doubt that the Word is Jesus. In his ride as king and judge, John saw Jesus in vision......

Revelation 19:11-13....."Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one riding it is called Faithful and True, and with justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows except himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God." (Mounce Interlinear)

So this future event is carried out by "the Word of God"....a position Jesus still holds.

"Logos" can mean the spoken word, the written word or it can be used a title as it is with Jesus. This means that Jesus spoke God's words...or that he was a spokesman for his God and Father. (John 7:14-18) Being a spokesman or representative, doesn't make him God.

Why did not the scriptures, if it intended to convey that Jesus is God in the flesh say that (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word IS God)? It didn't.

Understanding the Greek is important. "Theos" is "god" in Greek. This term was not used exclusively for the Father but could describe any "mighty or powerful one".
When the Greek needed to identify the true God using the word "theos" it used the definite article "ho" meaning "THE". So John 1:1 now takes on a new meaning to the orthodox view. Only one "god" mentioned in that verse is "ho theos"......the other is just "theos". That means that the Word was a god-like powerful one...a divine being but he was not "ho theos" (THE God). The Word became flesh...not THE God.

Jesus may have been God come in the flesh, but by coming in the flesh, as a mortal man, He no longer was God.

This is where the trinity falls apart. God never needed to "come in the flesh". God sent his representative; his most trusted son to do the job of offering the perfect equivalent life to atone for Adam's sin.

God cannot die and mere humans cannot put God to death. The very idea is absurd!

It is quite possible that the Word gave up His Godhood for our sake. And that mortal Word's name became Jesus.

The mortal Word did indeed become the man Jesus, but he was not Almighty God and never claimed to be. All he said was that he was "the son of God"....it was an apostate church that turned him into God Almighty. That is blasphemy.

 

[Sonofason]

There is no doubt that the Word is Jesus. In his ride as king and judge, John saw Jesus in vision......

Revelation 19:11-13....."Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one riding it is called Faithful and True, and with justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows except himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is the Word of God." (Mounce Interlinear)

So this future event is carried out by "the Word of God"....a position Jesus still holds.

"Logos" can mean the spoken word, the written word or it can be used a title as it is with Jesus. This means that Jesus spoke God's words...or that he was a spokesman for his God and Father. (John 7:14-18) Being a spokesman or representative, doesn't make him God.

I will agree. Jesus' pre-mortal and post-mortal existence was and is the Word of God. It is most probable that he was also the Word of God during his mortal existence as the only begotten Son of God. It is also possible, maybe even probable that Jesus' pre-mortal existence was as a begotten Son of God. But without reference, this is only my own conjecture.

Understanding the Greek is important. "Theos" is "god" in Greek. This term was not used exclusively for the Father but could describe any "mighty or powerful one".

When the Greek needed to identify the true God using the word "theos" it used the definite article "ho" meaning "THE". So John 1:1 now takes on a new meaning to the orthodox view. Only one "god" mentioned in that verse is "ho theos"......the other is just "theos". That means that the Word was a god-like powerful one...a divine being but he was not "ho theos" (THE God). The Word became flesh...not THE God.

Yes indeed, it is. The verse in Greek reads:
"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος."

No where in this sentence is the words (ὁ Θεὸς), so I'm not certain that your premises are true. In the first mention of God, the words τὸν Θεόν implies that the Word was of God, that is belonging to God, as in a possession of God. In the second instance where God is mentioned, we see that Θεὸς is not preceded by the definite article (the). So, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. No mention of God in this verse refers to "ὁ Θεὸς" as you have stated.

This is where the trinity falls apart. God never needed to "come in the flesh". God sent his representative; his most trusted son to do the job of offering the perfect equivalent life to atone for Adam's sin.

I agree that it would not be necessary. I am only suggesting an alternative possibility to present Trinity concepts.

God cannot die and mere humans cannot put God to death. The very idea is absurd!

Of course, I agree that the idea is absurd, and highly unlikely. But I would not suggest it is not possible. What exactly is God incapable of? Surely, there are things He is not capable of doing. I'm not sure this is one of those things.

The mortal Word did indeed become the man Jesus, but he was not Almighty God and never claimed to be. All he said was that he was "the son of God"....it was an apostate church that turned him into God Almighty. That is blasphemy.

I pretty much agree. I don't believe Jesus the Son is God the Father. And yet, God has given over to Him all power and authority. If you have the power of God, and if you have the authority of God, what is there to distinguish such a person from God Himself?

 

[Kolibri]

Of course, I agree that the idea is absurd, and highly unlikely. But I would not suggest it is not possible. What exactly is God incapable of? Surely, there are things He is not capable of doing. I'm not sure this is one of those things.

2 things that I am aware of. Lying and Dying.

 

[Sonofason]

2 things that I am aware of. Lying and Dying.

Is God capable of creating a stone so heavy that even He can't lift it?

If He can't, He's not omnipotent. If He can He's not omnipotent.