The Trinity The Touchstone of Truth

[dwight92070]

Yes, the Son is subjected to the Father, but He is in no way less than the Father. 1 Cor, 15:28
When Jesus said "... for the Father is greater than I." in John 14:28, He was referring to the fact that He did "empty Himself" of some, likely a HUGE amount of the privileges that He had in eternity past as the Word with God. Remember He also said, "I and the Father are One." They wanted to stone Him for saying that, so it's clear they knew what He was saying. They, the Father and the Son, are not only one in purpose and in thoughts and good works, but they are One in Being.
Even wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, but they are not less than their husbands.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Let's test that out:

If you have a person who is human on one side, whoever stands on the other side is not human.

Test fails.

It does not fail. It is your example which fails, my friend.
Why?
Because the concept "human" (or "house", or "tree") does not preclude the existence of millions of humans (or "houses" or "trees"), which can be on the other side

In contrast, the concept of "God" does preclude the existence of another God.

So, the thesis is sustained:
If God is on one side, whoever stands on the other side is not God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Pancho, please explain why, when all of creation was bowing down "to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb", (Jesus) - why is it that the Lamb Himself DID NOT also bow down to the Father? Revelation 5:13-14

Good afternoon, dwigtht

I guess He does, in his own way. Otherwise:

• Jesus, in his exalted state, would not call God his God four times in the same book you are quoting (Revelation 3:12)
• The author of the book you are quoting would contradict himself when he calls God Jesus's God (Revelation 1:6)
• The Father would not be considered an exception among those who become subject to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27)
• Jesus, in his exalted state, would not subject to God (1 Corinthians 15:28)

If such "subjection" includes a particular sign such as bowing his head, kneeling down, prostrating, raising his hands, singing a song, offering incense or others, is something I don't know.
Bowing the head is a cultural trait of certain cultures. I don't know what is Christ's particular way to show He worships his God. All I know is that he does. Otherwise God wouldn't be his God, don't you think?

If Jesus is part of creation, wouldn't He also bow down "to Him who sits on the throne"?

God does not bow down to Jesus. God does not subject to Jesus.
God is the Creator. His Word (Logos), manifested in Jesus, is his instrument to create.

That's why Christ is said to sit at the right of God... but God is never said to sit at the right of Christ.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes, the Son is subjected to the Father, but He is in no way less than the Father. 1 Cor, 15:28
When Jesus said "... for the Father is greater than I." in John 14:28, He was referring to the fact that He did "empty Himself" of some, likely a HUGE amount of the privileges that He had in eternity past as the Word with God.

When did Jesus recovered all those privileges that He had had as God?

 

[dwight92070]

Good afternoon, dwigtht

I guess He does, in his own way. Otherwise:

• Jesus, in his exalted state, would not call God his God four times in the same book you are quoting (Revelation 3:12)
• The author of the book you are quoting would contradict himself when he calls God Jesus's God (Revelation 1:6)
• The Father would not be considered an exception among those who become subject to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27)
• Jesus, in his exalted state, would not subject to God (1 Corinthians 15:28)

If such "subjection" includes a particular sign such as bowing his head, kneeling down, prostrating, raising his hands, singing a song, offering incense or others, is something I don't know.
Bowing the head is a cultural trait of certain cultures. I don't know what is Christ's particular way to show He worships his God. All I know is that he does. Otherwise God wouldn't be his God, don't you think?



God does not bow down to Jesus. God does not subject to Jesus.
God is the Creator. His Word (Logos), manifested in Jesus, is his instrument to create.

That's why Christ is said to sit at the right of God... but God is never said to sit at the right of Christ.

Wow, now there's a non-answer if I ever heard one. Obviously that passage has you flummoxed. Instead of a direct answer, you give other verses which skirt the issue, never hit it directly. You go everywhere but the obvious - that is, Jesus is not worshiping the Father, because He is God Himself. If that were not true, then ALL of creation would NOT BE worshiping Him in the same way they worship the Father. But of course, you didn't want to admit the truth. That's pretty sad. The sky is blue, but you can't bring yourself to admit that - you insist that it's red.

 

[dwight92070]

Good afternoon, dwigtht

I guess He does, in his own way. Otherwise:

• Jesus, in his exalted state, would not call God his God four times in the same book you are quoting (Revelation 3:12)
• The author of the book you are quoting would contradict himself when he calls God Jesus's God (Revelation 1:6)
• The Father would not be considered an exception among those who become subject to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27)
• Jesus, in his exalted state, would not subject to God (1 Corinthians 15:28)

If such "subjection" includes a particular sign such as bowing his head, kneeling down, prostrating, raising his hands, singing a song, offering incense or others, is something I don't know.
Bowing the head is a cultural trait of certain cultures. I don't know what is Christ's particular way to show He worships his God. All I know is that he does. Otherwise God wouldn't be his God, don't you think?



God does not bow down to Jesus. God does not subject to Jesus.
God is the Creator. His Word (Logos), manifested in Jesus, is his instrument to create.

That's why Christ is said to sit at the right of God... but God is never said to sit at the right of Christ.

Another non-answer. You must still be reeling from the last question. Instead of directly dealing with it, you change the subject.

 

[dwight92070]

When did Jesus recovered all those privileges that He had had as God?

It appears that that happened when He was raised from the dead, (see Matthew 28:18). I don't know of any other scriptural details about that. Maybe someone else does.

 

[dwight92070]

The Bible presents God as distinct from Jesus. We agree on that.
The Bible presents The Father as distinct from Jesus. We agree on that.
But the Bible NEVER presents God as distinct from the Father. Do you agree with me on that?

Please bring to our readers one single verse in which God is presented a distinct from the Father.



Let's read again 1 Timothy 2:5

There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

When you read "one God" in this sentence, what is the first thing you visualized in your mind, my brother? You saw the Father, didn't you?
Well, your visualization was correct. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
However, the verse does not say "The Father". Does it?
Although the text says "God", you thought immediately in the Father. Please ask yourself why.

Christ could not mediate between men and an Assembly in which he is also part. That would make Him judge and advocate at the same time.
Christ can mediate between men and God precisely because He is not God.

Actually no. When I read "one God", the first thing that comes to mind is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His disciples to baptize new believers in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Notice there is ONE NAME that Jesus mentions here, but three "persons". Prior to my being taught about the Trinity and my understanding it (I'm not claiming I fully understand it), yes, I visualized the Father. But not any more

 

[synergy]

It does not fail. It is your example which fails, my friend.
Why?
Because the concept "human" (or "house", or "tree") does not preclude the existence of millions of humans (or "houses" or "trees"), which can be on the other side

There is a dire lack of understanding of the Greek word "θεω" (Theo). The word "θεω" denotes Divine nature, not Person. That is verified by the fact that the Greek word for “God” (θεω) has an energy/nature word structure (an “ω” at the end of the word) as do other Greek energy verbs such as “run” (τρέχω), “see” (διαβλέπω), or “burn” (κατακαίω). The word Greek word “God” itself is a nature/energy word, signifying how we relate to God, through his Divine Nature (Divine Energies, to be more exact). The Greek NT is chalk full of the Greek word energia (energy) and its derivatives.

As such, The word God pertains to the Divine nature/essence and not to the Person. Therefore, the word God does not preclude a number of Persons as God.

In contrast, the concept of "God" does preclude the existence of another God.

So, the thesis is sustained:
If God is on one side, whoever stands on the other side is not God.

So a test of your anti-Greek understanding of the word God fails as such:

If you have a person who is human on one side, whoever stands on the other side is not human.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There is a dire lack of understanding of the Greek word "θεω" (Theo). The word "θεω" denotes Divine nature, not Person....

As such, The word God pertains to the Divine nature/essence and not to the Person. Therefore, the word God does not preclude a number of Persons as God.

Hi, synergy:

A pantheist or a panentheist will not have any problem such a meaning: The universe has a divine nature or essence and can properly called and worshiped as "God". This is because they don't believe in a personal God.
A polytheist will also have no problem with your definition: Many persons can be divine. Hermes can be as θεω as Aphrodite or Hera. The polytheist believes in personal gods (many persons who share the attribute of deity).

The problem is for a monotheist, who believes there is only One Personal God. This is, that God is somebody and not just something.

So you have now two big problems with your explanation:

1. If you worship "God" and "God" denotes "Divine Nature", and not a Person, then you are worshiping an abstract concept: a category or class in which several Persons fit, or... an assembly, a celestial government, a family, a team.
2. If "God" denotes "Divine Nature" and not a Person, hundreds of references in the Bible that treat God as a Person are now to be treated metaphorically, because God was never somebody, but something, an abstraction. For example, in John 3:16, you would have to explain how is that God has a Son (who is a person) if God is not a Person, but a "divine nature"... and how God sent Jesus (who is a person) to the world, if God is not a person, but a "divine nature".

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Actually no. When I read "one God", the first thing that comes to mind is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus told His disciples to baptize new believers in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Notice there is ONE NAME that Jesus mentions here, but three "persons". Prior to my being taught about the Trinity and my understanding it (I'm not claiming I fully understand it), yes, I visualized the Father. But not any more

Thanks for sharing with us your experience.

Before I was taught about the Trinity, I visualized the Father. After I was taught about the Trinity (and learnt to defend it) I kept visualizing the Father. When I became atheist and navigated the waters of atheism for 20 years, I kept thinking in God as the Father (an unexistent Father, but a Father as a concept). When I returned to God, I restarted visualizing God as en existing Father.

My wife, who is an atheist, visualizes God as a Father (inexistent, but a Father as a concept).

During my conversations with Trinitarians, it is extremely frequent than when they find in a verse the word "God", they think about the Father immediately, automatically, even when the text does not say "The Father". For example, if they read that God sent Jesus to the world, they treat "God" as "The Father".

To me, the idea of God as a single person is embedded deep in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Another non-answer. You must still be reeling from the last question. Instead of directly dealing with it, you change the subject.

I gave you the answer to your question, my friend.
The answer is that I believe Jesus bows his head, or uses whatever sign or expression he prefers to show he worships the Father.
Why that particular verse doesn't say that Jesus bows his head to the Father? I don't know. The verse is focusing on the relation of others to the Lamb, not on the relation of the Lamb and his Father.

Do you think the Father worships Jesus?
Do you think Jesus worships the Father?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

It appears that that happened when He was raised from the dead, (see Matthew 28:18). I don't know of any other scriptural details about that. Maybe someone else does.

Thanks for your answer.
Then, if Jesus recovered those powers or attributes upon resurrection, can you please tell me
Why the resurrected Jesus still calls God his God?
Why the Jesus in the Book of Revelation calls God his God?

 

[synergy]

Hi, synergy:

A pantheist or a panentheist will not have any problem such a meaning: The universe has a divine nature or essence and can properly called and worshiped as "God".

Let's go through your errors one by one.

Who said "The universe has a divine nature"? Not me. I can only conclude that it is your belief.

This is because they don't believe in a personal God.

I'm not a Pantheist so that's their problem.

A polytheist will also have no problem with your definition: Many persons can be divine. Hermes can be as θεω as Aphrodite or Hera.

They are created pagan gods. Sorry, that does not align with my definition of God (θεω).

The polytheist believes in personal gods (many persons who share the attribute of deity).

I don't believe in "gods" so you're barking up the wrong tree.

The problem is for a monotheist, who believes there is only One Personal God. This is, that God is somebody and not just something.

I believe in a Personal God who is Three Persons.

So you have now two big problems with your explanation:

With your premises crippled, your conclusions have no ground to stand on.

You on the other hand, are up against the Greek language which the Apostles used to convey Trinitarian truths.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Let's go through your errors one by one.

Who said "The universe has a divine nature"? Not me. I can only conclude that it is your belief.

I'm not a Pantheist so that's their problem.

They are created pagan gods. Sorry, that does not align with my definition of God (θεω).

I don't believe in "gods" so you're barking up the wrong tree.

My friend

Please read my post carefully.
I know that you are not neither a pantheist nor a polytheist.
I'm saying that they, based on their beliefs, would not have any problem with a definition of God as "divine nature". They could assign that "divine nature" to either the universe (in the case of pantheists) or to whatever number of beings (in the case of polytheist).

The problem of accepting that meaning of θεω as "divine nature" is for the monotheist, because a monotheist could not say he worships a One Personal God which is Three Persons.
An assembly, team, family, or government body, is not a Personal God. It is impersonal: an abstraction, a concept used for a collective.

Let me use this example:

• When I submit an application to a company for a job, I am expecting to be hired by the company. The company is an impersonal entity. It doesn't have its own mind or will.
• When I ask my neighbor Brian if I can work for him as his driver, then I am expecting to be hired by a personal entity.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Post deleted because of duplication.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You on the other hand, are up against the Greek language which the Apostles used to convey Trinitarian truths.

The mother tongue or Jesus and his apostles was Aramaic, in which "Marya" conveys the idea of One Single Person. His second language, used to read the sacred texts, was Hebrew, where "Adonai" conveys the idea of One Single Person. Ask any rabbi from your city whether Hashem conveys the idea of One Single Person or a collective of persons or a shared attribute such as "divine nature".

So, neither Jesus nor his apostles could have conveyed the slightest idea of a collective God, because they spoke in their minds of God in Aramaic or Hebrew as a single person, and so they preached to the Jews of his time.

Paul was the only one to know Greek and had the hard task to convey Jewish meaning in Greek terms.
If "Theo" denotes "Divine Nature", may I ask you which Greek word should Paul have used to denote a Single Divine Person?


.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Pancho said: God alone is our savior because salvation cannot come from any other source.

[Dwight -Exactly, which is why all the New Testament writers call Jesus our Savior - because He IS God.]

No.
It is the Father who saves us, through his Servant Jesus.
Jesus is Savior inasmuch as he executes the orders of his God, the God he prostrates to, prays to, and worships.

Who saved Israel from his enemies? Was it God? or was it any particular leader sent by God? Who could be properly called "Savior"?
Let's read:

But Jehoahaz appeased the Lord, and the Lord listened to him. For He saw the oppression of Israel, because the king of Aram oppressed them. So the Lord gave Israel a savior, so that they got out from under the hand of Aram. Then the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before. (1 Kings 13:4-6)

 

[synergy]

My friend

Please read my post carefully.
I know that you are not neither a pantheist nor a polytheist.

I'm happy and releaved to hear that.

I'm saying that they, based on their beliefs, would not have any problem with a definition of God as "divine nature". They could assign that "divine nature" to either the universe (in the case of pantheists) or to whatever number of beings (in the case of polytheist).

If that's the case then they would have to be perpetually bowing down and worshiping everything around them at all times. What a crazy existence that would be.

The problem of accepting that meaning of θεω as "divine nature" is for the monotheist, because a monotheist could not say he worships a One Personal God which is Three Persons.
An assembly, team, family, or government body, is not a Personal God. It is impersonal: an abstraction, a concept used for a collective.

Here in the US, there are many companies that say that you can receive the personal touch if you do business with them. If companies can be personal then God can certainly be personal.

Let me use this example:

• When I submit an application to a company for a job, I am expecting to be hired by the company. The company is an impersonal entity. It doesn't have its own mind or will.
• When I ask my neighbor Brian if I can work for him as his driver, then I am expecting to be hired by a personal entity.

See what I wrote above. Here in the US companies strive to be personal. I guess it's different in Mexico.

Anyways, the Greek stands. If you want to know what the NT truly says, you need to study the Greek. You don't necessarily have to be 100% proficient in the language.

 

[synergy]

The mother tongue or Jesus and his apostles was Aramaic, in which "Marya" conveys the idea of One Single Person. His second language, used to read the sacred texts, was Hebrew, where "Adonai" conveys the idea of One Single Person. Ask any rabbi from your city whether Hashem conveys the idea of One Single Person or a collective of persons or a shared attribute such as "divine nature".

All the Apostles understood Greek and many of them could write in Greek. I would think that Jesus' liinguistic capabilities not only reached the Apostles' capabilities but far surpassed them.

So, neither Jesus nor his apostles could have conveyed the slightest idea of a collective God, because they spoke in their minds of God in Aramaic or Hebrew as a single person, and so they preached to the Jews of his time.

Huh? That area of the world (Eastern Mediterranean) had Greek as its Lingua Franca for centuries before the Roman Empire absorbed it but Greek remained the Lingua Franca of that region.

Paul was the only one to know Greek and had the hard task to convey Jewish meaning in Greek terms.

Huh? Are you seriously saying that Matthew, Peter, Mark, Luke did not write their New Testament books? Seriously?

If "Theo" denotes "Divine Nature", may I ask you which Greek word should Paul have used to denote a Single Divine Person?

Kurios (Lord) comes to mind among many other titles given to Jesus and the Father.