Your Views on The Trinity

[mikesw]

A lot of this is assuming the thing in question. The recipients could just as easily already known that Jesus is not God himself. That’s the whole question at hand isn’t it?

You missed the conditional clause "if the gentiles already know..." Certainly I don't have to tell you in every post that Jesus is the Messiah. That would be wasting ink.

I appreciate that you don’t believe questioners of teh Trinity doctrine are unsaved. It’s only in recent years that I have questioned the Trinity but haven’t shared this with a single person in my church because I don’t want to deal with the fallout. Personally, if I suddenly realized the Trinity was undoubtedly true it would change almost nothing in my Christian walk.

I don't suggest the doctrine is important for your walk. The exception is that you can be more vulnerable to the cult messages if you are not aware of the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead. Your point sort of falls into Pancho Frijoles effort to stir people away from Christianity.

These are disputable points. That God sent his son, a human, could actually be seen as a greater sacrifice than if he just sent himself. It also adds, in my view, to the difficulty Jesus faced. It would add to the devotion to the Father if he were human than if he were God himself. The obedience is even greater, and his relatability to God's children (us) deeper.

I don't see the logic there. The difficulties Jesus faced were there in whatever nature he was. It hardly makes sense that Hebrews would mention him suffering in a way that makes him a priest that understands unless Christ's divinity makes his experience unusual from other priests.

It may help somewhat for you to know that I've listened to many hours of debate, read commentaries, etc. But I think it's important to read the bible through as well. Christians who don't do so have much more difficulty interpreting the unclear in light of the clear which is fundamental to biblical interpretation. I would place the Trinity in the category of unclear. God could easily have made it clear, but he chose not to do so, either because the Trinity is true but he doesn't think it's all that essential to know, or because it's not a true doctrine.

You are not using scriptures that were missed in the council debates on the triune nature of God. We are not left with a clear assertion that Christ is not of the Godhead. My point is that those who want to argue against the triune nature of God would need to come up with sufficient arguments to cover all that shows the divinity of Christ. Otherwise we just have people like Peterlag who calls you a Catholic for accepting the Trinitarian concept of God. There was only the catholic church -- that of all Christians.

 

[MTMattie]

Better go for that 7th time... Following copy and pasted says it...

The problem with machine gunning scriptures is that I don't know where to start, lol. As you can imagine, reading through the bible word for word six times has given me occasion to read these texts at least six times each. It's also allowed me to place these passages in the context of the whole probably a bit better than the average Christian. Most of them don't speak to Jesus' divinity at all. Very few cause any problem to a unitarian (though, let's face it, nearly every doctrine has passages that, on their face, seem to go against it).

None of them is as clear for the Trinity as other passages are for the view that Jesus is not God himself. For example 1 Timothy 2:5, to me at least, seems to make the idea that Jesus is God himself extremely unlikely (if you don't come to it with Trinitarian lenses firmly affixed):

• For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all—the testimony that was given at just the right time.

IMO, you are missing a key element of the Godhead.

which I have not read yours finding fault with that term....????/ Could have missed but have been spending a lot of hours at the rehabe therapy with mom and not a lot of time to read here.

You are aware that The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9. In each of the three verses, a slightly different Greek word is used, but the definition of each is the same: “deity” or “divine nature.” The word Godhead is used to refer to God’s essential nature.

Acts 17:29 For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 2:9 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Read this chapter in full.

WHO EXACTLY DO YOU THINK MAKES UP THE GODHEAD? If there were only one, it would not need to be a Godhead

Webster: Godhead can refer to divine nature or essence, or to the nature of God especially as existing in three persons.

Wiki:
Godhead (or godhood) refers to the essence or substance (ousia) of God in Christianity — God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[1][2]

Appearance in English Bibles​

[edit]
John Wycliffe introduced the term godhede into English Bible versions in two places, and, though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Tyndale New Testament (1525), the Geneva Bible (1560/1599), and King James Version (1611). In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Koine Greek words

Biblical Hermeneutics
In the Godhead, according to traditional Christian thought, there are three persons, each of whom share the same personhood.

The Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead - Christian Courier​

The web page explains the biblical teaching of the Trinity,

https://thewitness.org › what-is-the-godhead

Understanding The Godhead: Exploring The Trinity And ... - The Witness​

Mar 16, 2024Godhead is the divine nature or essence of God, which encompasses His attributes and persons. Learn about the doctrine of the Trinity, the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the significance of the Incarnation

https://bible.org › seriespage › lesson-2-godhead

Lesson 2: The Godhead - bible.org​

Learn about the biblical concept of God as one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Explore the attributes of God, such as spirit, light, love and holiness, and how they reveal His nature and character.

So you have the Godhead clearly stated in the bible.

I wont confuse this issue " seems to make the idea that Jesus is God himself extremely unlikely" with facts like

It is true that Jesus never said the exact words, “I am God.” He did, however, make the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying. For example, in John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”

If you do not believe this then explain it.

OR

John 10:33 KJV - The Jews answered him, saying, For a - Bible Gateway​

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

You better get anther reading along with a good concordance.... You are missing facts.

It is there and so is the Trinity if you would humble yourself enough to let the Holy Spirit teach things to you.

 

[Peterlag]

Detailed data on Philippians 2:6-8

“though being.” Although many translations translate this present participle huparchō (#5225 ὑπάρχω) as “though he was,” it is preferable to keep the present, continuous aspect of the participle. The simple past tense, “though he was in the form of God” could be taken to mean that he ceased to be in the form of God at some later point which the present participle does not communicate.

“appearance of God.” This entry really concerns the entire passage of Phil. 2:6-8. One of the great purposes of Philippians is to encourage the Church to unity and humility, and in fact, unity can only be achieved through humility. (We see Paul’s plea for unity in Phil. 1:27 and 2:2, and see his plea for humility in Phil. 2:3). After telling people to be humble and to look out for other people’s interests, he gives the example of Jesus, saying, “Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). Jesus was in the form of God, that is, as God’s Son he had divine position and authority, but he humbled himself and became a servant to others. Similarly, no matter what your position is in the Church, whether you are an apostle or have a leadership ministry, you are called to humble yourself and serve, not be served.

These verses have been used to support the Trinity, but they do not. Actually, they have caused division among Trinitarians. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point.

First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form” which is the Greek word morphē, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Phil. 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphē to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form” “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual… it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Phil. 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.” Gerard Kittel, TDNT, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphē in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphē should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphē does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.

Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.

More evidence for the word morphē referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphē several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphē) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice” (Job 4:15-16). There is no question here that morphē refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphē in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphē referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphē) of his countenance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphē to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the “Apocrypha” books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. “Apocrypha” literally means “obscure” or “hidden away” and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time, and contain the word morphē. In the Apocrypha, morphē is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in “The Wisdom of Solomon” is the following: “Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms” (18:1). A study of morphē in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

There is still more evidence. Morphē is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphē refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change.

Another reason that morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in this context is that if the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphē? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphē, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphē) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet. We say, “Wow, you’ve lost weight,” or “You have changed your hairstyle,” and point out even minor changes in appearance.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphē) of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphē) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians 2:6-8, schema can be synonymous with morphē, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

Another point we should make is that it has been suggested that since the phrase morphē theou (μορφῇ θεοῦ), traditionally “form of God” is parallel with the phrase in Phil. 2:7, morphēdoulou (μορφὴν δούλου), “form of a slave” that the translation “form of a god” is better than “form of God.” However, it seems more likely that “form of God” is correct since that phrase is governed by the preposition en (“in”) which means the noun Theos does not need to have a definite article before it to be “God” and that is especially true in light of the fact that the second Theos in Phil. 2:6 clearly refers to God and not “a god.” We would say “a servant” because the noun is singular, but “God” is singular by nature whereas saying “a God” or “a god” actually confuses the translation. Also, saying “the form of a god” would miss the point of the verse, because it is not saying that Jesus was “a god” so he did not grasp at equality with God, rather it is saying that he was in outward form God (his actions, his authority, as explained above), yet he did not grasp at equality with God, his Father.

“considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, the phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

Because harpagmos does not have a clear meaning from the Greek sources, people define it according to their theology. So, for example, Hawthorne and Martin give some examples of how theologians have thought about harpagmos. Some theologians believe it means something that is “not yet possessed but desirable, a thing to be snatched at, grasped after, as Adam or Satan, each in his own way, grasped after being equal with God.” We agree with that position, but it presupposes that Jesus was not God. Trinitarian theologians are more apt to think harpagmos means something that is already attained and to be held on to. Thus, if Jesus was God, he would naturally want to hold on to that position, but instead, he gave it up and mysteriously became a God-man. Other Trinitarian theologians think it refers to a “windfall” “piece of good fortune” or “lucky find.” In that case, Jesus did not think that being equal with God was something to be exploited or taken advantage of. Other theologians take the meaning from the verb which is found in 1 Thess. 4:17 and means “suddenly caught up” referring to the “Rapture” of the Church. That makes for a very obscure point in Philippians 2:6, the essence of which is that Jesus was in the form of God but did not think being with God was a “rapture” something that could be done for him because it was his nature to begin with. No spirit could bring him to that state.

The point of showing the above interpretations is to show that the meaning of the noun harpagmos is not clear. Instead, theologians bring their theology to the text and explain harpagmos in terms of what makes sense to them in view of what they believe fits with the scope of Scripture.

However, the most frequent way to translate this phrase by Trinitarians is something close to, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (ESV, NASB, NAB, NET). Although this is not a bad translation, the term “grasped” is ambiguous enough that one of the clear aspects of the word in question, harpagmos (#725 ἁρπαγμός), might be missed. Although a precise meaning of harpagmos is not evident because it is a hapax legomenon, that is, it only occurs here in the New Testament, and it is fairly rare in Greek secular literature, there is an aspect of the word that is clear in every use. It denotes something that one does not currently have. When observing its uses in extra-biblical Greek, a pattern emerges. It refers to “a seizure of property” in Plutarch, and a “prize to be grasped” referring to how Peter viewed his impending death on the cross (quoted in Eusebius) and it is extremely close semantically to the meaning of harpagma which is used 18 times in the Septuagint and means “booty” or “spoil.” Additionally, the verb with essentially the same root harpagē (# 724 ἁρπαγή) means “robbery” or “plunder.” In all of these uses harpagmos and its close semantic neighbors refer to something that one does not already own or possess, rather, it refers to something that is taken, stolen, or acquired. Thus, when Trinitarian translators just simply use the phrase, “something to be grasped” one could understand this to mean that Jesus already possessed it, but simply let go of his equality with God when he “emptied himself.” However, this misses the meaning of the word. It refers to something one does not currently possess, thus, it is best to translate the idea as “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at” which clarifies that Jesus did not possess equality with God.

There is another aspect of this verse that solidifies the Biblical Unitarian understanding even more. Recently, Skip Moen, a Trinitarian, has pointed out that the “not” in Philippians 2:6 does not go with the verb hēgeomai (#2233 ἡγέομαι; “think, consider, deem, reckon”) even though almost all English versions have it that way, but rather it goes with the noun harpagmos. That means the verse does not read, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at” (NIV84), but rather should read, “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, it clarifies that it is not as if Jesus simply did not consider equality with God, but that he considered it and thought that it was not something to be grasped at. In that light, as Moen writes “the implication is that Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable.” Moen goes on: “It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with God voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.” In that light, we can clearly see the contrast between Satan and Christ (or Adam and Christ) because while Satan and Adam were blinded by pride and desire and wanted to be like God, Christ remained humble and retained the clear knowledge that being equal with God was completely unattainable, and was content to fulfill the purpose that God had for him, and joyfully did the will of God.

 

[MTMattie]

Better go for that 7th time... Following copy and pasted says it...

The problem with machine gunning scriptures is that I don't know where to start, lol. As you can imagine, reading through the bible word for word six times has given me occasion to read these texts at least six times each. It's also allowed me to place these passages in the context of the whole probably a bit better than the average Christian. Most of them don't speak to Jesus' divinity at all. Very few cause any problem to a unitarian (though, let's face it, nearly every doctrine has passages that, on their face, seem to go against it).

None of them is as clear for the Trinity as other passages are for the view that Jesus is not God himself. For example 1 Timothy 2:5, to me at least, seems to make the idea that Jesus is God himself extremely unlikely (if you don't come to it with Trinitarian lenses firmly affixed):

• For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all—the testimony that was given at just the right time.

What exactly is there about

John 10:30 ​

I and the Father are one.”

that you find difficult to understand? 6 words from the mouth of Jesus.

DID HE LIE? It IS a yes or no question. He said 6 words yet you don't believe him.

And should you believe John quoted him in error... (as in not from the inspired word of the Father)... then why in the world would you believe a single word of the written Holy book?

 

[Peterlag]

What exactly is there about

John 10:30 ​

I and the Father are one.”

that you find difficult to understand? 6 words from the mouth of Jesus.

DID HE LIE? It IS a yes or no question. He said 6 words yet you don't believe him.

And should you believe John quoted him in error... (as in not from the inspired word of the Father)... then why in the world would you believe a single word of the written Holy book?

John 10:30
There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God." The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance" just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

 

[MTMattie]

A lot of this is assuming the thing in question. The recipients could just as easily already known that Jesus is not God himself. That’s the whole question at hand isn’t it?


I appreciate that you don’t believe questioners of teh Trinity doctrine are unsaved. It’s only in recent years that I have questioned the Trinity but haven’t shared this with a single person in my church because I don’t want to deal with the fallout. Personally, if I suddenly realized the Trinity was undoubtedly true it would change almost nothing in my Christian walk.


These are disputable points. That God sent his son, a human, could actually be seen as a greater sacrifice than if he just sent himself. It also adds, in my view, to the difficulty Jesus faced. It would add to the devotion to the Father if he were human than if he were God himself. The obedience is even greater, and his relatability to God's children (us) deeper.

YOU need a crash course on the spirit side of God, the spirit side of the Holy Spirit, and where the spirit side of Jesus comes in.

YOU are aware that spirits dont bleed? Look it up

Read the following . I am certain you will disagree... but Our Savior coming to earth was far more then you likely will comprehend.

And had the Father taken a hiatus from heaven..... well, first he would not even be the father, now, would he?

I can honestly say I am sorry it is apparent that the Holy Spirit is not in you.... you truly miss many blessing.

Why Jesus Needed the Holy Spirit​

Article by
Mark Jones

Guest Contributor
Many Christians assume that Christ was able to perform miracles because he was God. It certainly is true that he is God. However, if we argue, for example, that Christ’s divine nature necessarily and always acts through his human nature, thus enabling him to perform miracles, a serious problem emerges concerning the many texts that speak of the Holy Spirit’s role in the life of Christ.
If the divine second person of the Godhead is the sole effective agent working on the human nature, then we need to ask ourselves a serious question: What is the point of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ? Many Christians (and even some formidable theologians) seem unsure what to do with the Holy Spirit when speaking about the person and work of Christ.

Savior by the Spirit​

For example, neither Roman Catholic nor Lutheran theologians can adequately account for a meaningful role of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christ if they remain faithful to the basic christology of those traditions. Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians generally do not know what to do with Christ’s gifts and graces (for example, faith and hope).
However, the Puritan John Owen (as well as others) had an insightful way of explaining the relation of Christ’s two natures. To my knowledge, this had not been as clearly articulated by anyone before him. One of his chief concerns was to protect the integrity of Christ’s two natures (divine and human). In so doing, he made a rather bold contention that the only singular immediate act of the Son of God (the divine second person) on the human nature of Christ was the decision to take it into subsistence with himself in the incarnation.
Every other act upon Christ’s human nature was from the Holy Spirit. Christ performed his miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit, not immediately by his own divine power. In other words, the divine nature acted not immediately by virtue of “the hypostatic union” (the joining of two natures in Christ’s singular person) but mediately by means of the Holy Spirit. The conventional way of understanding Christ’s miracles has typically been to argue that Christ performs miracles by virtue of his own divine nature. But on Owen’s (and others’) model, the Holy Spirit is actually the immediate author of Christ’s graces. This manner of understanding the relation of the Spirit to Christ’s human nature preserves his true humanness and answers a host of biblical questions that arise from a close reading of various texts.

He Took a Human Soul​

Some Christians seem to imagine that Christ’s divine nature takes the place of his soul. This idea, though well–intentioned, is wrong. Christ was a perfect man with a rational soul as the immediate principle of his moral actions. In other words, Christ had a human self-consciousness. Some might say that the person of the Son is Christ’s self-consciousness, but as Reformed theologians argued, personality is not an act but the mode or identity of a thing. “Who is Jesus?” refers to his personhood. The answer: “He is the God-man” (which refers to his identity).
Importantly, Christ’s humanity, both body and soul, does not get lost in or “gobbled up” by his divinity. Because of this, Christ’s humanity needed the Holy Spirit in order to have communion with God. His prayers to God were never simply the prayers of a man, nor even the prayers of the God-man to the Father; but more specifically they were the prayers of the Son of God to the Father in the power of the Spirit. Never was a prayer uttered before God from the lips of Christ that did not have the Holy Spirit working powerfully upon his human nature to enable him to speak the words the Father had given him to speak. In this way, we aim to pray as our Lord prayed: in the Spirit.
Christ’s inseparable companion during his earthly ministry as a true man was the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at all of the major events in the life of Christ, the Holy Spirit took a prominent role. The Holy Spirit was the immediate, divine, efficient cause of the incarnation (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). This was a fitting “beginning” for Christ since Isaiah spoke of the Messiah as one endowed with the Spirit (Isaiah 42:1; 61:1).
The New Testament confirms Isaiah’s testimony in several places, noting, for example, that Christ received the Spirit without measure (John 3:34). At Jesus’s baptism the Spirit descended upon him (Matthew 3:16); and the Spirit plays a significant role in leading Christ to and sustaining him before, during, and after his temptation (Luke 4:1, 14). In that same chapter Jesus reads from Isaiah 61:1–2 (“the Spirit of the Lord is upon me”) and announces that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy (Luke 4:21). Christ performed miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:18; Acts 10:38). Hebrews 9:14 may be taken to mean that Christ offered himself up not by his own spirit but by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Like his death, Christ’s resurrection is attributed to the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11), and by it he “was declared to be the Son of God . . . according to the Spirit of holiness” (Romans 1:4; see also 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18).
Because the Spirit was Christ’s inseparable companion during his earthly ministry, there is little doubt that Christ called out (prayed) to his Father by the enabling of the Spirit, which would put an implicit christological emphasis upon Romans 8:26–27. The preponderance of references to the role of the Holy Spirit in the ministry of Christ finds its best explanation in the Reformed interpretative tradition.

He Humbled Himself​

Given the basic christology above, Hugh Martin (1821–1885) argued that Jesus inevitably placed himself, therefore, in a position of acknowledged weakness and infirmity — of absolute dependence on God — a dependence to be exercised and expressed in the adorations and supplications of prayer. He was born of a woman, under the law — under the law of prayer, as of other ordinances and duties — the law by which a man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven, and except the Lord be inquired of for it (Ezekiel 36:37).
Christ exercised, according to his human nature, faith, love, reverence, delight, and all the graces proper to a true human nature in the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, he naturally would have desired to offer vocal requests and supplications to his Father in heaven. He also would have praised God with the knowledge he had of his Father. Additionally, he would have sought God out with a holy determination, making all other duties subservient to the duty of communion with God. In other words, true and proper humanity is realized only in communion with God.

Christ’s Gift to Us​

What does this mean for us? Consider three truths, among others. First, the Spirit’s ministry to us comes from Christ (Acts 2:33). Just as Christ ministered to us on the cross, his heavenly exaltation continues his ministry whereby he pours out the Spirit upon us since he is now the exalted Lord of the Spirit. The Spirit, therefore, comes in his name (“the Spirit of Christ”).
Second, the Spirit makes us like Christ. What is the role of the Spirit who has been given to us from the hand of Christ? He takes the copy of Christ’s religious life in the Spirit and works those same affections and desires in us so that we are truly Christlike (Romans 8:29).
Finally, the Spirit glorifies Christ. The Spirit, who worked in and through Christ during his life on earth, now works in and through us. Just as the Spirit enabled Christ to bring glory to his Father, so now the Spirit enables us to glorify both the Son and the Father. In other words, a true understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work in believers begins and ends with the declaration that we are here on earth to glorify the Son and the Father by the power of the Spirit.
Jesus indeed has not left us as orphans (John 14:18). He has poured out on us and in us the very Spirit through whom he lived perfectly, died sacrificially, and rose victoriously.

It may help somewhat for you to know that I've listened to many hours of debate, read commentaries, etc. But I think it's important to read the bible through as well. Christians who don't do so have much more difficulty interpreting the unclear in light of the clear which is fundamental to biblical interpretation. I would place the Trinity in the category of unclear. God could easily have made it clear, but he chose not to do so, either because the Trinity is true but he doesn't think it's all that essential to know, or because it's not a true doctrine.

IT IS CLEAR! But not all are to understand... just ask Nicodemus

 

[MTMattie]

John 10:30
There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up "one God."

Well, they certainly did not make up 2 Gods... unless you now are into Polytheism.

John 10:30 ​

I and the Father are one.”

The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what they meant... he and his Father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "... he who plants and he who waters are one..." (1 Corinthians 3:8 NKJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being." Christ uses the concept of "being one" in other places, and from them one can see that "one purpose" is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God's children "one." In John 17:11, 21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be "one" as he and God were "one." I think it's obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being in "substance"

YET.. before there was a Jesus God said

Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.​

just as he and his Father were one being or "substance." I believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose.

For me, it is one of the mysteries that will make such a joy to be in eternity.

For you, it must seem like a David Copperfield slight of hand.... and all the reworking of a scripture or part of a verse wont make it so.

 

[AaronH]

You are not using scriptures that were missed in the council debates on the triune nature of God. We are not left with a clear assertion that Christ is not of the Godhead. My point is that those who want to argue against the triune nature of God would need to come up with sufficient arguments to cover all that shows the divinity of Christ. Otherwise we just have people like Peterlag who calls you a Catholic for accepting the Trinitarian concept of God. There was only the catholic church -- that of all Christians.

If creation ex nihilo is true then we all have divinity within us. I'm sure that statement will rile some folks. Nevertheless, it's inescapable.

Therefore all scriptures describing shows of Christ's divinity simply do not help in the effort to prove the Trinity.

So I stand by this: the verses that indicate Jesus is not God himself are much more clear than the verses that purport to say that Jesus is God himself.

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." (Acts 10:38)

God had to anoint someone who was already God with the Holy Spirit? Far be it from me to believe such a thing.

I'll say it again - God could have made the Trinity very clear if he'd wanted, but didn't. Why? Two options:
1) the Trinity is true but God chose to not come right out and say it (as he easily could have).
2) the doctrine is not true

 

[Cyrus]

God did come right out and say it.

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the preeminent and perfect image of God: “The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God” (Hebrews 1:3, NLT; see also 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15). To see Jesus is to see the Father (John 14:9). To know Christ is to know God. Jesus Christ shows us what God meant when He said, “Let Us make man in Our image.”

The original Hebrew word for “God” in Genesis 1 is the plural masculine noun Elohim. God, our Creator, chose to introduce Himself to us with a plural title. In Genesis 1:26—the first time in the Bible that God speaks about Himself—He uses the plural pronouns Us and Our. This passage is not the only instance in which God refers to Himself in plural terms (see Genesis 3:22; 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8). We find the plural Elohim more than 2,550 times in the Bible.

 

[mikesw]

If creation ex nihilo is true then we all have divinity within us. I'm sure that statement will rile some folks. Nevertheless, it's inescapable.

Therefore all scriptures describing shows of Christ's divinity simply do not help in the effort to prove the Trinity.

So I stand by this: the verses that indicate Jesus is not God himself are much more clear than the verses that purport to say that Jesus is God himself.

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." (Acts 10:38)

God had to anoint someone who was already God with the Holy Spirit? Far be it from me to believe such a thing.

I'll say it again - God could have made the Trinity very clear if he'd wanted, but didn't. Why? Two options:
1) the Trinity is true but God chose to not come right out and say it (as he easily could have).
2) the doctrine is not true

I've given some time listening to too many failures by these insufficient excuses to explain passages like John 1 and other passages speaking of Christ's deity. If someone has a better explanation of Christ beyond the divinity of Christ in the Godhead, they need better arguments.

 

[Peterlag]

If creation ex nihilo is true then we all have divinity within us. I'm sure that statement will rile some folks. Nevertheless, it's inescapable.

Therefore all scriptures describing shows of Christ's divinity simply do not help in the effort to prove the Trinity.

So I stand by this: the verses that indicate Jesus is not God himself are much more clear than the verses that purport to say that Jesus is God himself.

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." (Acts 10:38)

God had to anoint someone who was already God with the Holy Spirit? Far be it from me to believe such a thing.

I'll say it again - God could have made the Trinity very clear if he'd wanted, but didn't. Why? Two options:
1) the Trinity is true but God chose to not come right out and say it (as he easily could have).
2) the doctrine is not true

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God.

 

[MTMattie]

If creation ex nihilo is true then we all have divinity within us. I'm sure that statement will rile some folks. Nevertheless, it's inescapable.

Therefore all scriptures describing shows of Christ's divinity simply do not help in the effort to prove the Trinity.

So I stand by this: the verses that indicate Jesus is not God himself are much more clear than the verses that purport to say that Jesus is God himself.

"God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." (Acts 10:38)

God had to anoint someone who was already God with the Holy Spirit? Far be it from me to believe such a thing.

I'll say it again - God could have made the Trinity very clear if he'd wanted, but didn't. Why? Two options:
1) the Trinity is true but God chose to not come right out and say it (as he easily could have).
2) the doctrine is not true

Third option.....

WE have no need to know.!!!

 

[MTMattie]

It seems it would have been clearly stated in the Bible and in the earliest Christian creeds if the doctrine of the Trinity was genuine and central to Christian belief

Did anyone anywhere ever say the belief was central to Christian belief?

Do you even know what belief you need to hold to count for your future eternity? And why?

and especially if belief in it was necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians teach. God gave the Scriptures to the Jewish people, and the Jewish religion and worship that comes from that revelation does not contain any reference to or teachings about a triune God. Surely the Jewish people were qualified to read and understand it, but they never saw the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather just the opposite as all throughout their history they fiercely defended the fact that there was only one God.

 

[Peterlag]

Did anyone anywhere ever say the belief was central to Christian belief?

Do you even know what belief you need to hold to count for your future eternity? And why?

I have provided a paper on belief to answer your question as to if I know what belief is.

It's on the following site in what I call Appendix F...

Data On The Trinity

The Bible teaches there is one God

www.carb-fat.com

 

[David Koberstein]

To those outside the Christian faith, the doctrine of the Trinity seems a very strange teaching indeed. It seems to violate logic, for it claims that God is three and yet that he is one. How can this be? And why would the church propound such a doctrine? It does not appear to be taught in Scripture, which is the Christian’s supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. And it presents an obstacle to faith for those who otherwise might be inclined to accept the Christian faith. Is it a teaching that perhaps was a mistake in the first place, and certainly is a hindrance and an embarrassment to Christianity? Could it be omitted from Christian faith and theology, without any loss and even with considerable gain? I submit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of great importance in our time, and therefore needs to be examined carefully, for several reasons.

First, this doctrine historically was the first that the church felt it necessary to elaborate in a definitive fashion. The church began preaching its message, which entailed the deity of Jesus as well as that of the Father. It had not thoroughly worked out the nature of the relationship between these two persons, however. Christians simply assumed that both were God. Soon some persons began to raise questions regarding just what this meant. The proposals they made in attempting to give some concrete content did not sound totally correct to many Christians, however, so a more complete explanation was worked out. This became the full doctrine of the Trinity, that all three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are divine, but that they are not three Gods, but one. It was deemed essential to the life of the church to hold this doctrine of God’s three-in-oneness.

It was not simply the church of the third and fourth centuries that encountered challenges to this view. Although more than fifteen centuries have gone by since the church took its stand, there are still varieties of Christianity that deny the Trinity. This is still very much an issue in our time, as groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses dispute the full deity of Jesus and thus the doctrine of the Trinity. Numerous cults and sects reject this view, as do some liberal Christians within better known Christian denominations.


Making Sense of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity

The subject for this study is the doctrine of the Trinity, a most important doctrine in the Scripture. Now, let me simply point out that this doctrine is indeed found in the Word of God. We

player.lightcast.com

 

[Ozias]

The doctrine of the Trinity

The subject for this study is the doctrine of the Trinity, a most important doctrine in the Scripture. Now, let me simply point out that this doctrine is indeed found in the Word of God. We

player.lightcast.com

Nice video

 

[David Koberstein]

Nice video

(Toda raba)Thank you
Shalom

 

[MTMattie]

The doctrine of the Trinity

The subject for this study is the doctrine of the Trinity, a most important doctrine in the Scripture. Now, let me simply point out that this doctrine is indeed found in the Word of God. We

player.lightcast.com

@Keiw1 Watch this video ................................................. and learn

 

[MTMattie]

The doctrine of the Trinity

The subject for this study is the doctrine of the Trinity, a most important doctrine in the Scripture. Now, let me simply point out that this doctrine is indeed found in the Word of God. We

player.lightcast.com

Thank you for this. I referred someone to watch it, but they may not.

Well done and understandable.

 

[Peterlag]

The doctrine of the Trinity

The subject for this study is the doctrine of the Trinity, a most important doctrine in the Scripture. Now, let me simply point out that this doctrine is indeed found in the Word of God. We

player.lightcast.com

I disagree with the above video. I believe Colossians 1:16 is referring to the New Creation, and not to the Genesis creation. When the Church started on Pentecost, it needed a structure to run in a godly fashion, and that structure consisted of spiritual beings and people in positions of authority, and God, “in connection with Christ” created those positions. “Thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.” These are some of the authorities in the spiritual world and physical world that God created in connection with Jesus in order to run his church.

“thrones” The Greek is “thrones,” the plural of thronos. Lightfoot writes: In all systems alike these "thrones" belong to the highest grade of angelic beings, whose place is in the presence of God. “Thrones” (likely a metonymy for those beings who sit on the thrones) are a high order of angelic beings, and the position was created by Christ for his Church.

“dominions” The Greek kuriotēs κυριότη from the word kurios “lord” which is the same word for “lord” in the phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ.” It refers to those who have a position that is above or over others. According to the meaning of the word and its close association with the preceding word “thrones” it is likely that these “dominions” refer to very powerful spirit beings who have high positions in God’s kingdom.

“rulers or authorities” Jesus created positions of authority in the Church in both the spiritual and physical realm. The apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers in the Church are part of the physical realm and the human authority structure. Although it could be argued that in this verse “rulers or authorities” only refer to angelic rulers and were created “in the beginning” that is an interpretation. It could just as easily be argued that in this verse the meaning, or part of the meaning, of these words refers to the human authorities in the Church, and that absolutely precludes Jesus creating “in the beginning” because Church authorities did not exist back then.

“have been created” The word “create,” ktizō κτίζω), surrounds and thus defines the things that Jesus created to properly order his Body, the Church. It's noteworthy, however, that the use of ktizō at the beginning of the verse is in the aorist tense, indicating that there was a specific point in time when thrones, lordships, rulers, and authorities were created. At the end of the verse, however, the verb ktizō occurs in the perfect tense, indicating that the things that were once created are still in existence. Thus, we know that the positions of authority that bring order to the Body of Christ were created at a point in time (relatively shortly after his resurrection) and still continue to this day.

“through him and for him.” The Greek phrase is dia autou kai eis auton (δι᾽αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν) where the two Greek prepositions, dia διά) and eis εἰc are joined by the coordinating conjunction kai “and”. What is the connection with Christ? “Through him and for him” explicates the locative sense of the preposition en at the beginning of the verse.