Trinity.

[jriccitelli]

Thanks for the good natured answers, I didn’t know how else to say what I needed to.
I joined the LDS church not knowing they were not Christian, but I never deviated from the bible and never believed their teachings, I came to faith pretty much all on my own with a bible. When they told me God had a father, I asked; well where did that gods father come from, and his father and so on? I was reading thru John one day and it was there I said to myself "Jesus is God". I perceived the circle with the father in the middle, another circle around that being Jesus, and a circle around that being the Spirit. I was satisfied that that idea.

I have posted a link explaining my experience of being LDS here before, here it is again;
http://jriccitelli.blogspot.com/

"Epignosis" I think God has a 'very high demand' on us for precise and correct knowledge, and an immense case of warning about falsehood. As the doctrine of One God and no others is His ‘Command’. And true; our God is big. My understanding of God sees Him as immense. I linked this short video here once before, this video shows the work of the God we know. The thread link was; How big is God? Mind expanding Video/Photos
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... ilit=+NASA

or straight to YouTube at; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxNVpJPEchQ

God Bless you and have a big God day.

[Homer]

Here is something for the co-equal nature of the trinity:

1 John 2:24 (NASB)

24. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.


We have been studying through 1 John in class at church. Last night I was reading through the upcoming material in chapter 2 and noticed the implications of the above verse. How can a person be said to be abiding in the Son and Father simultaneously if they are separate entities (individuals)? How would that make any more sense than abiding in two houses at the same time?

Consider also:

Matthew 28:19 (NASB)

19. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in (Greek is literally into the name) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Surely "the name of" mean's "person of". Again, how can this be if they are three separate persons? And surely this is not about being baptized into two persons and a thing or a force, etc.

I ran across this comment by Alexander Campbell, a Trinitarian who did not like to use the word "trinity":

There is, and was, and evermore will be society in God himself, a plurality as well as a unity in the divine nature.

And I recall when I was reading Francis Schaeffer years ago that he made the same claim. And this would seem to be found in the plural references to God in the Old testament, of which there are at least eight. Notably Psalm 45:6-7, which is applied to Christ in the NT:

Psalm 45:6-7 (NASB)

6. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
7. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

Hebrews 1: (NASB)

8. But of the Son He says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

[Paidion]

How can a person be said to be abiding in the Son and Father simultaneously if they are separate entities (individuals)? How would that make any more sense than abiding in two houses at the same time?

How about a child who is abiding in her playhouse which is located within her parents' house? Would she not be abiding in two houses at the same time?
Jesus said that He was "in the Father". So wouldn't one who was abiding in Christ be abiding in the Father even if they were two different Individuals?

One cannot always determine a spiritual truth from a physical example, such as you gave. Please consider:

Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Col 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

So clearly, we disciples are in Christ and Christ is in us. But how can this be? How would this make any more sense than saying that a man is in a house and the house is in the man at the same time?

However, I have seen a different illustration of it that does make sense. Someone held up a glass. "The glass represents you," he said. Then he filled it with water.
"The water represents Christ. That is Christ in you." Then he picked up the glass of water and placed in in a large jar. "Now," he said, "the water is in the glass and the glass is in the water. Christ is in you, and you are in Christ."

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

Thanks for sharing your story and the links, I'll look at them after work tonight.

@Homer,

This is another interesting conversation itself. Since the Psalmist is addressing a King, the use of elohim in this passage has caused considerable discussion (don't all things?) I'll just post this from my Keil and Delitzsch since I am running off to work now. It's fairly technical, but, what the hay...


"Psalms 45:6-7

In order to avoid the addressing of the king with the word Elohim, Psa_45:6 has been interpreted, (1) “Thy throne of God is for ever and ever,”, - a rendering which is grammatically possible, and, if it were intended to be expressed, must have been expressed thus (Nagelsbach, §64, g);

(2) “Thy throne is God (= divine) for ever and ever;” but it cannot possibly be so expressed after the analogy of “the altar of wood = wooden” (cf. Psa_45:9), or “the time is showers of rain = rainy” (Ezr_10:13), since God is neither the substance of the throne, nor can the throne itself be regarded as a representation or figure of God: in this case the predicative Elohim would require to be taken as a genitive for אלהים כִּסֵּא, which, however, cannot possibly be supported in Hebrew by any syntax, not even by 2Ki_23:17, cf. Ges. §110, 2, b.

Accordingly one might adopt the first mode of interpretation, which is also commended by the fact that the earthly throne of the theocratic king is actually called יהוה כסא in 1Ch_29:23. But the sentence “thy throne of God is an everlasting one” sounds tautological, inasmuch as that which the predicate asserts is already implied in the subject; and we have still first of all to try whether אלהים cannot, with the lxx ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος, be taken as a vocative.

Now, since before everything else God's throne is eternal (Psa_10:16; Lam_5:19), and a love of righteousness and a hatred of evil is also found elsewhere as a description of divine holiness (Psa_5:5; Psa_61:8), אלהים would be obliged to be regarded as addressed to God, if language addressed to the king did not follow with עַל־כֵּן.

But might אלהים by any possibility be even addressed to the king who is here celebrated? It is certainly true that the custom with the Elohim-Psalms of using Elohim as of equal dignity with Jahve is not favourable to this supposition; but the following surpassing of the אלהים by אלהים אלהיך renders it possible. And since elsewhere earthly authorities are also called אלהים, Exo_21:6; Exo_22:7., Psa_82:1-8, cf. Psa_138:1, because they are God's representatives and the bearers of His image upon earth, so the king who is celebrated in this Psalm may be all the more readily styled Elohim, when in his heavenly beauty, his irresistible doxa or glory, and his divine holiness, he seems to the psalmist to be the perfected realization of the close relationship in which God has set David and his seed to Himself. He calls him אֱלֹהִים, just as Isaiah calls the exalted royal child whom he exultingly salutes in Psa_9:1-6, אֵל־גִּבֹּור. He gives him this name, because in the transparent exterior of his fair humanity he sees the glory and holiness of God as having attained a salutary of merciful conspicuousness among men. At the same time, however, he guards this calling of the king by the name Elohim against being misapprehended by immediately distinguishing the God, who stands above him, from the divine king by the words “Elohim, thy God,” which, in the Korahitic Psalms, and in the Elohimic Psalms in general, is equivalent to Jahve, thy God” (Psa_43:4; 48:15; Psa_50:7); and the two words are accordingly united by Munach."

There you go, clear as mud, right?

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[darinhouston]

I was also considering this passage:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also… If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”
Jesus equates Himself with the Father, speaks of them as two, and that the Father does His work through Him. He equates Gods commandments with his own commandments, and yet they were all Gods commandments to begin with. And then while at the same time Jesus is asking them to believe these things, Jesus also tells them the Father will send ‘another’

Jesus "equates" Himself with the Father?! Seriously, conclusory statements like this leave me banging my head against my desk. He doesn't say "I AM the Father." Either I'm missing something or others are. He clearly "associates" Himself with the Father, and does so in a way that speaks to his clear manifestation of who the Father is, but to suggest this is clear equating language seems to betray strong doctrinal bias. Who knows what this meant to the original hearers' ears, but to mine this could be said "come on, haven't you been listening? Who are you to ask to see the Father. You don't need to see the Father. He sent me. That's all you need. I perfectly reflect the character and nature of the Father, and I speak for Him completely and you can see His works through my own since He does them through me." That's not quite he same as equating Himself. Besides, if He's really equating Himself with the Father, that would seem to support a modalistic view.

He goes on to show how we are in Him in the same way He is in the Father. So is He also equating Himself with us in the same way?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

I was also considering this passage:
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. 11 “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. 12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also… If you love Me, you will keep My commandments”
Jesus equates Himself with the Father, speaks of them as two, and that the Father does His work through Him. He equates Gods commandments with his own commandments, and yet they were all Gods commandments to begin with. And then while at the same time Jesus is asking them to believe these things, Jesus also tells them the Father will send ‘another’

Suppose I draw from my pocket a photo of myself and show it to you. You say, "Great". Can you show me another photo of you? Then I pull out a photo from another pocket. "Here's another," I say. Then you say, "But that's not another photo. It's the same photo. For both photos were prints made from the same original negative (or electronic file, if you prefer)."No it isn't," I say. Look there are two photos! One—two!" Because the second photo is exactly the same as the first, you then say that if you have seen the first, you have seen the second. Yet there are two individual prints.

Similarly, Jesus is Another exactly the same as His Father. He is "the exact print of the Father's essence" (Heb 1:3). As His first act, the Father begat His Son—another divine Individual exactly like Himself! Thus if you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. They have exactly the same characteristics. That's how Jesus as a divine Person, born as a human being, revealed the Father as He truly is! One who is kind to ungrateful and evil people—not the angry, vengeful, punishing God which Moses and some of the prophets understood Him to be. So, since the Son is Another, exactly like the Father, the "exact image of the Father's essence, if you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. The Son is another "print" begotten from the same essence as that of the Father. He is the ONLY-begotten Son of God.

[darinhouston]

Ok I'm with you. but how does that possibly support his pre- existence and role in the godhead (so called). ? The first and second prints are good images of the person. But the person is still the only human being.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

I have said nothing about "his pre- existence and role in the godhead". What I have affirmed is that he pre-existed his birth from his mother Mary.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:56-58 NASB)

I have also affirmed that the Father begat Him as the first of his acts. In my opinion that marked the beginning of time, and that prior to the begetting of the Son, there were no events (because there was no "before"). The first event that occurred was the begetting of the Son.

[Homer]

God created everything - all of creation. He spoke it into existence:

Genesis 1 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1. In the beginning God created.... the heavens and the earth.

3. Then God said, “Let there be light"

6. Then God said, “Let there bean expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

7. God made the expanse....

9. Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”....

11. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation.....

14. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night....

16. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also....

17. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth....

20. Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures....

21. God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

22. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures...."

25. God made the beasts of the earth....

26. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness....

27. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him....

31. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.

I think we must say God created by use of words, at least that is the picture we are given. And Jesus appears to be that Word:

John 1:1, 3, 9, (NASB)

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God.

3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
9. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him....

14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory....

And Paul also informs us that all that was created was created by the pre-existent Word:

Colossians 1:13-18 (NASB)

13. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

I'm thinking Jesus and God are "one" in a sense that some here are not acknowledging. If the pre-creation Word was not equal to and coetaneous with God, how do you explain the foregoing scriptures? Was God ever without a word? Were John and Paul in error concerning the creation? Doesn't the plural "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26 fit with the idea of plurality within the Godhead and with what John and Paul have written?

I do not see how you can get around it.