The doctrine of the Trinity

[The Biblicist]

It is one thing not to understand it and quite another thing to deny it. It seems to me that you are saying you don't understand it.

The Scriptures do provide plenty, in fact overwhelming evidence of the Triune nature of God. It does grammatically. It does so by attributing the same non-communicable attributes that make God to be God equally to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. It does so by direct address or explicitly calling the Son God and the Holy Spirit God rather than referring to al Three as "god's". It does so by claiming that the "Godhead" is revealed in creation and it is overwhelming revealed in Creation as this Creation is a Triunity in many different ways.

If we want to talk about "persons" we are obviously speaking of three distinct centers of consciousness that are co-eternal, co-equal and yet one is not the other and all three claim all attributes that belong to "one God."

The Scriptures does not teach "three beings" or "three gods" but one God who consists of three distinctions that cannot be confused with each other but are co-equal, co-eternal but stand in an orderly relationship to each other from Father to Son to Spirit in regard to position or rank. The very statement that God "is love" requires a trinity (1) A lover, (2) A beloved; (3) A spirit of love. The Biblical evidence is overwhelming and yet no human being is able to explain it fully.

One Creation but in Trinity - space, time and matter. Three different aspects but Take one aspect away and this present creation ceases to exist as it is.

Matter = energy, motion and phenomena. Three different aspects but Take one away and Matter ceases to exist

Time = past, present and future. Three different aspects but remove one and time ceases to exist.

Space = length, breadth and depth. Three different aspects but remove one and space ceases to exist.

The Godhead is revealed in Creation - Romans 1:20.

 

[JamesL]

Hank is right, that I'm not the first to have difficulty with the doctrine. I've read the Athanasian creed, as well as the Nicene and Apostles creeds.

Something of note in the Athanasian Creed is that there are NOT three eternals, but one eternal. And NOT three uncreated, but one uncreated.

That's not the same as "3 co-eternal" espoused by most. That's why I've pressed for someone to define Person. Because most would believe there are, in fact, three eternals and three uncreated.


As for scriptural difficulties, it would be good to not jump to a hasty conclusion about my view. Don't put words in my mouth from one sentence.

1Timothy 6:13-16
13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen

In verse 13, Paul speaks of God AND Jesus Christ. Don't think I'm about to deny the deity of Christ, because I'm not.

In verse 15, he says "He who is blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords"

It's easy to think Paul was alluding to God in general (including Father, Son, Holy Spirit) when he said "only Sovereign" and King of kings. After all, we see in Revelation 19:16 that Jesus is called King of kings and Lord of lords.

But verse 16 should give everyone pause, for it says about this only Sovereign "it is He alone who who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light"

And continuing the verse "whom no one has ever seen or can see " should make it clear that Paul is not speaking of Christ.

Many saw the Son, and many more will see Him.

Does this mean Christ is not God? No.
Does this mean Christ is not immortal? No

But Jesus Himself said in John 5:26 "for just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself"

Many have used this verse to purport the notion that Jesus is not God, but earlier in the chapter we read "For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but was also calling God His own Father, thereby making Himself equal to God" (verse 18)

There are plenty of other places which attest to the reality that Jesus is "God with us"

So how could it be that the Father is the only Sovereign, and in Him alone is immortality, and granted the Son to have life in Himself, yet Jesus is God with us? And we read that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ?


continued.....

 

[The Biblicist]

Hank is right, that I'm not the first to have difficulty with the doctrine. I've read the Athanasian creed, as well as the Nicene and Apostles creeds.

Something of note in the Athanasian Creed is that there are NOT three eternals, but one eternal. And NOT three uncreated, but one uncreated.

That's not the same as "3 co-eternal" espoused by most. That's why I've pressed for someone to define Person. Because most would believe there are, in fact, three eternals and three uncreated.


As for scriptural difficulties, it would be good to not jump to a hasty conclusion about my view. Don't put words in my mouth from one sentence.

1Timothy 6:13-16
13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14 that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen

In verse 13, Paul speaks of God AND Jesus Christ. Don't think I'm about to deny the deity of Christ, because I'm not.

In verse 15, he says "He who is blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords"

It's easy to think Paul was alluding to God in general (including Father, Son, Holy Spirit) when he said "only Sovereign" and King of kings. After all, we see in Revelation 19:16 that Jesus is called King of kings and Lord of lords.

But verse 16 should give everyone pause, for it says about this only Sovereign "it is He alone who who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light"

And continuing the verse "whom no one has ever seen or can see " should make it clear that Paul is not soeaking of Christ.

Many saw the Son, and many more will see Him.

Does this mean Christ is not God? No.
Does this mean Christ is not immortal? No

But Jesus Himself said in John 5:26 "for just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son also to have life in Himself"

Many have used this verse to purport the notion that Jesus is not God, but earlier in the chapter we read "For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He was not inly breaking the Sabbath, but was also calling God His own Father, thereby making Himself equal to God" (verse 18)

There are plenty of other places which attest to the reality that Jesus is "God with us"

So how could it be that the Father is the only Sovereign, and in Him alone is immortality, and granted the Son to have life in Himself, yet Jesus is God with us? And we read that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ?


continued.....

The distinction made between God and Jesus Christ is the same distinction Jesus made between himself and God the Father. The terms "Jesus Christ" have reference to the incarnate state where the human nature is involved. Obviously the description of God in the text you are referring to does not refer to an incarnate state of God the Son. Hence, the incarnate state can be referred to as Deity and/or humanity depending on context but it cannot refer to the preincarnate state of existence of God the Son nor especially to the Father, as the Father has never existed in an incarnate state so must always be distinguished from "Jesus Christ" in that sense. However, that does not deny that the deity of Christ does not fit the same description as you say. But it does demand that the distinction is necessary to distinguish the Father and the Spirit from the incarnate State of the Son and always will be necessary to make that distinction.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hank is right, that I'm not the first to have difficulty with the doctrine. I've read the Athanasian creed, as well as the Nicene and Apostles creeds.

Something of note in the Athanasian Creed is that there are NOT three eternals, but one eternal. And NOT three uncreated, but one uncreated.

That's not the same as "3 co-eternal" espoused by most. That's why I've pressed for someone to define Person. Because most would believe there are, in fact, three eternals and three uncreated.

I think you are wrong here. It is true that God is referred to as "one" uncreated being but always in connection with "three" and NEVER apart from THREE and that is precisely why the Athanasian creed coins the word "trinity" or a "triune" being. He is one uncreated Being but never strictly monotheistic as in the muslim doctrine of God, but triune in nature as one uncreated being.

The Hebrew grammar has a singular, a dual and plural (three or more). Moses wrote before the Babylonian influence of "plural of majesties" came into play. Moses repeatedly uses a plural noun with singular verbs and plural pronouns. There is a threesome (noun) but one being in action (verb) with plural pronominal expression.

 

[percho]

Your interlinear translation is wrong. Or stupid at the very list. Unhelpful for sure.

What is the necessity in understanding God as revealed by God?

What is the necessity to understanding creation and redemption in Trinitarian roles?

What is the necessity to understanding our propensity for relationship being created in the image of a relational God?

Great in every respect I'd say.

I fail to see where the interlinear is stupid and or wrong. They are really no different from all others of this verse

NKJV “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! fn

fn being - Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD our God, the LORD is one; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.

Why would they be stupid or wrong?

γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν πνεῦμα ὁ θεός

Translate that above for me, bearing in mind that the one who said that above is, the Son of the one he is speaking of. Is the one being spoken of, the Father, Spirit the God, Holy.

Is this the same one spoken of in Matthew 1:20 who caused the conception?

Would that have been the LORD our God the LORD one?

Is the one who was brought forth from the woman the one speaking concerning his Father above not; Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:6 is he also spoken of as; But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; Acts 3:14

Did the one Spirit the God, create man, Adam in his image, take the woman from that man, for the purpose of the Son of God coming into the world, kosmos, in the flesh?

God, (?) who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Hebrews 1:1,2

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Does that rob Spirit the God or the Son of the living God, both Holy of anything?

 

[The Biblicist]

I fail to see where the interlinear is stupid and or wrong. They are really no different from all others of this verse

NKJV “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! fn

fn being - Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD our God, the LORD is one; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one.

Why would they be stupid or wrong?

γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τοιούτους ζητεῖ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτόν πνεῦμα ὁ θεός

Translate that above for me, bearing in mind that the one who said that above is, the Son of the one he is speaking of. Is the one being spoken of, the Father, Spirit the God, Holy.

Is this the same one spoken of in Matthew 1:20 who caused the conception?

Would that have been the LORD our God the LORD one?

Is the one who was brought forth from the woman the one speaking concerning his Father above not; Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:6 is he also spoken of as; But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; Acts 3:14

Did the one Spirit the God, create man, Adam in his image, take the woman from that man, for the purpose of the Son of God coming into the world, kosmos, in the flesh?

God, (?) who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Hebrews 1:1,2

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

Does that rob Spirit the God or the Son of the living God, both Holy of anything?

The Hebrew reads like this - "Hear, O Israel: the [singular] Yahweh our [plural] Elohim is one [singular] Yahweh."

The Hebrew infers that he is both a singular being named Yahweh but at the same time a plurality in that oneness. In Hebrew the plural demands "three or more" is in view. The Babylonian idea of "plural of majesties" did not exist at the time of Moses. So yes, this text grammatically infers the Trinity. This text does not harmonize with the modualism (oneness doctrine) or with strict monothesism exhibited in the Moslem "allah."

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no question there is some mystery in the Triune nature of God that is beyond our complete understanding, but there can be no doubt the Trinity is Biblical in doctrine. It is impossible for scripture to be construed that he is strictly montheistic as the Mulsim "Allah" or modualistic as the United Pentecostal or Oneness doctrine. The term "tri-une" is the best term available to express the Biblical teaching of God, as anything more or less perverts the Biblical teaching.

As I said before, it is one thing to admit that some mystery exists and no one can fully comprehend or explain it, but it is quite another thing to deny God is Triune in nature.

 

[percho]

The Hebrew reads like this - "Hear, O Israel: the singular Yahweh our plural Elohim is one Yahweh."

The Hebrew infers that he is both a singular being named Yahweh but at the same time a plurality in that oneness.

Thank you for your response and I understand Elohim to be plural and that he is speaking through the prophet Moses to the people.

This plural Elohim also said something else to Moses in Ex, 3:14 How does that Hebrew read and is what Jesus (Yahweh saves) said concerning himself in the Greek of John 8:58 a fulfillment of what the plural Elohim said concerning himself in Ex. 3:14

Are a Spirit Father, Holy and flesh Son, Holy, plural? Does the Holy Spirit come to us, from the Father through the resurrected Son, the last Adam of 1 Cor. 15:45?

 

[The Biblicist]

Thank you for your response and I understand Elohim to be plural and that he is speaking through the prophet Moses to the people.

This plural Elohim also said something else to Moses in Ex, 3:14 How does that Hebrew read and is What Jesus (Yahweh saves) said concerning himself in the Greek of John 8:58 a fulfillment of what the plural Elohim said concerning himself in Ex. 3:14

Many Hebrew scholars believe that the root meaning of "Yahweh" comes from the verb "to be." Thus when God provides compound words with "Yahweh" it is like sayiing "I am" whatever is the word attached. Yahwehshalom for example should be understood as "I am peace" and and so on.

Second, the root idea "to be" infers three incommuicable characteristics that make God to be God. "to be" is continuous action and thus it implies "eternal" existence. "to be" implies immutability. "To be" implies self-sufficiency. These are incommunicable attributes that belong to God and "Yahweh" seems not only to express these core attributes but is the name used for covenant relationship with His people.

These core attributes are equally applied to the Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit without confusing their distinctiveness from each other.

Are a Spirit Father, Holy and flesh Son, Holy, plural? Does the Holy Spirit come to us, from the Father through the resurrected Son, the last Adam of 1 Cor. 15:45?

The incarnation of "the Word" demands a distinction between the Incarnate Word joined with flesh and the Father and the Holy Spirit never incarnate. That distinctive name is "Jesus Christ." However, "Jesus Christ" is both deity and humanity without confusing the two or denying their co-existence. The immediate context determines if the divine or human nature are in view. However, the name "Jesus Christ" is necessary to distinguish the Word in his incarnate state from the Father and the Holy Spirit who are never incarnate.

"the last Adam" has reference to the human nature and its necessity in the redemption of human nature. Unfortunately, there are those who want to pit the human nature against his divine nature (JW's) or want to totally deny his distinctive relationship with the Father and the Spirit (Oneness; United Pentecostal). The Biblical balance is recognition of all aspects without denying any. John 1:1 clearly teaches that the Word existed before anything was created and thus outside of created beings or the uncreated being. It clearly teaches that He was not all of what God is but prior to creation dwelt with God and yet he is everything that makes God to be God in regard to attributes. John 1:14 clearly teaches the union of deity and humanity without confusing the two natures.

 

[OldRegular]

My definition of person:

Man {or woman} is a self-conscious or rational being. He is aware of his existence. He is able to interact and communicate with other men. He recognizes something within himself that distinguishes him from other creatures. That something is his person hood. He is able to discern and perhaps contemplate that which he may call ‘good’, in a moral sense, in the world about him. He is also able to discern that which is less good even ‘evil’ in his world.

 

[The Biblicist]

My definition of person:

Man {or woman} is a self-conscious or rational being. He is aware of his existence. He is able to interact and communicate with other men. He recognizes something within himself that distinguishes him from other creatures. That something is his person hood. He is able to discern and perhaps contemplate that which he may call ‘good’, in a moral sense, in the world about him. He is also able to discern that which is less good even ‘evil’ in his world.

Obviously your definition does not demand a physical body as angels are without material substance. The One Being of God has three coequal, coeternal centers of self-consciousness that are inseparable in one uncreated Being which for substance is "spirit" (Jn. 4:24).

However, those who struggle with this confuse material substance with spirit substance and that is why they struggle to grasp the truth of the Trinity. Obviously material substance divided into three demands three different beings. But spirit substance does not demand material distinctions as spirit substance is not material in nature. Thus three personhoods, as three centers of self-conscious in one spirit substance does not demand three different beings.

I might add, that at the same time "spirit" substance does not demand three centers of self-consciousness either as angels are mononistic in self-consciousness. The point being is that as long as you think in materialisitic substance you can never accept the Trinity as one Being with three centers of self-consciousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

May I reemphasize that the distinctive name "Jesus Christ" is absolutely necessary to distinguish the Second Person of the Godhead from the other Two Divine Persons in regard to the Son's incarnate state, simply because the other Two Divine Persons have not and never will be incarnated.

In addition the name "Jesus Christ" demands both his Deity and humanity in connection with his work of redemption which is unique to the Second Person of the Godhead. The term "Jesus" declares he is Yahwe or "Immanuel" "the God with us" as well as his mission "he shall save his people." The term "Christ" defines his redemptive offices as Prophet, Priest and King. These things are unique to the INCARANATE Son of God.

Thus eternal life is the revelatory knowledge of the true God AND Jesus Christ - Jn. 17:3. As salvation is the internal revelation "in the heart" of "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6). He is the visible expression of the Godhead in the incarnate state and thus eternal life involves this experiential revelatory knowledge of the true God in connection with the manifestation of this True God in the incarnate revelation of Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:16-17; Gal. 1:15-16).

So, in context where the non-incarnate God is being spoken about in connection with the words "Jesus Christ" the writer is speaking about either the Father or the Holy Spirit with the Son being described in his Incarnate state. This is a necessary distinction that must be made to distinguish the Father and the Spirit from the incarnate Son WITHOUT DENYING either the deity or humanity of the Son of God.

 

[convicted1]

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."(Matthew 3:13-17)


"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.(Mark 1:9-11)



Right here are two passages referring to the same instance where Christ was baptized in Jordan. You see Jesus coming out of the water, the Spirit descending to Him, and the Father speaking from heaven. That's the Trinity right here...

 

[The Biblicist]

:thumbs:

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."(Matthew 3:13-17)


"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.(Mark 1:9-11)



Right here are two passages referring to the same instance where Christ was baptized in Jordan. You see Jesus coming out of the water, the Spirit descending to Him, and the Father speaking from heaven. That's the Trinity right here...

:thumbs: That destroys modualism as does the statement by Christ that if he only gave his own witness it would not be true, but he has in addition the witness of the Father and the Spirit. His witness would not be true in keeping with the Biblical demand that there must be at minimum two or three witnesses in a court of law to support a testimony. If the Father and Spirit were the same Person as the Son then he would have no more than one witness rather than two or three witnesses as required by law.

 

[convicted1]

John 11.....


"Jesus saith to her, `Said I not to thee, that if thou mayest believe, thou shalt see the glory of God?' They took away, therefore, the stone where the dead was laid, and Jesus lifted his eyes upwards, and said, `Father, I thank Thee, that Thou didst hear me; and I knew that Thou always dost hear me, but, because of the multitude that is standing by, I said [it], that they may believe that Thou didst send me.' And these things saying, with a loud voice he cried out, `Lazarus, come forth;"(vss 40-43 YLT)



John 17.....


"These things spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to the heaven, and said -- `Father, the hour hath come, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee, according as Thou didst give to him authority over all flesh, that -- all that Thou hast given to him -- he may give to them life age-during; and this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send -- Jesus Christ; I did glorify Thee on the earth, the work I did finish that Thou hast given me, that I may do [it]. `And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee;(vss 1-5 YLT)



John 12....


"And Jesus responded to them, saying, `The hour hath come that the Son of Man may be glorified; verily, verily, I say to you, if the grain of the wheat, having fallen to the earth, may not die, itself remaineth alone; and if it may die, it doth bear much fruit; he who is loving his life shall lose it, and he who is hating his life in this world -- to life age-during shall keep it; if any one may minister to me, let him follow me, and where I am, there also my ministrant shall be; and if any one may minister to me -- honour him will the Father. `Now hath my soul been troubled, and what? shall I say -- Father, save me from this hour? -- but because of this I came to this hour; Father, glorify Thy name.' There came, therefore, a voice out of the heaven, `I both glorified, and again I will glorify [it];'(vss 24-28 YLT)



Either there is a Triune God of Jesus was the worse Schizophrenic I've ever read about. I'll accept the former....

 

[convicted1]

:thumbs::thumbs: That destroys modualism as does the statement by Christ that if he only gave his own witness it would not be true, but he has in addition the witness of the Father and the Spirit. His witness would not be true in keeping with the Biblical demand that there must be at minimum two or three witnesses in a court of law to support a testimony. If the Father and Spirit were the same Person as the Son then he would have no more than one witness rather than two or three witnesses as required by law.

Not to hijack and/or derail this thread, but this was what Jesus' conviction that much worse. All the witnesses that witnessed against Him, none of them could ever come to an agreement with their accusations against Him. Jesus had a trial so lopsided, it made O.J's look like a good trial...

 

[JamesL]

Another difficulty for the "3 co-equal" doctrine is in John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me."

So how is it that Jesus is God, and was with God, and is immortal, yet it is the Father alone who has immortality?

Jesus came forth FROM God (John 16:27-28)


Jesus is the WORD of God (Rev 19:13). And what does scripture say about the Word of God?

“I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance." (Isaiah 45:23)

Sounds very similar to what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:10-11 "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

Also consider Isaiah 55:11 "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."

And Jesus, the Word of God, declared that He was sent by the Father (John 5:23, 36, 37, 6:44, 57, 8:16, 18, 42, 10:36, 12:49, 17:21, 25, 20:21)

This one is also very interesting - "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me." (John 14:24)

We also see in Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible"

And God said 'Let there be light'

Look at Psalm 33:

6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deeps in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast


Jesus is the very Word of God, who proceeds FROM the Father. By whom the heavens were made. Everything visible and invisible (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:15-17)


continued....

 

[percho]

Many Hebrew scholars believe that the root meaning of "Yahweh" comes from the verb "to be." Thus when God provides compound words with "Yahweh" it is like sayiing "I am" whatever is the word attached. Yahwehshalom for example should be understood as "I am peace" and and so on.

Second, the root idea "to be" infers three incommuicable characteristics that make God to be God. "to be" is continuous action and thus it implies "eternal" existence. "to be" implies immutability. "To be" implies self-sufficiency. These are incommunicable attributes that belong to God and "Yahweh" seems not only to express these core attributes but is the name used for covenant relationship with His people.

These core attributes are equally applied to the Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit without confusing their distinctiveness from each other.



The incarnation of "the Word" demands a distinction between the Incarnate Word joined with flesh and the Father and the Holy Spirit never incarnate. That distinctive name is "Jesus Christ." However, "Jesus Christ" is both deity and humanity without confusing the two or denying their co-existence. The immediate context determines if the divine or human nature are in view. However, the name "Jesus Christ" is necessary to distinguish the Word in his incarnate state from the Father and the Holy Spirit who are never incarnate.

"the last Adam" has reference to the human nature and its necessity in the redemption of human nature. Unfortunately, there are those who want to pit the human nature against his divine nature (JW's) or want to totally deny his distinctive relationship with the Father and the Spirit (Oneness; United Pentecostal). The Biblical balance is recognition of all aspects without denying any. John 1:1 clearly teaches that the Word existed before anything was created and thus outside of created beings or the uncreated being. It clearly teaches that He was not all of what God is but prior to creation dwelt with God and yet he is everything that makes God to be God in regard to attributes. John 1:14 clearly teaches the union of deity and humanity without confusing the two natures.

E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes

Verse 14
God ["Elohim] said. This expression occurs twice in Exodus, only here in Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 3:15.

I AM THAT I AM. Hebrew. "ehyeh asher "ehyeh. I will be what I will be (or become). App-48.

I AM. Hebrew "ehyeh = I will be (speaking of Himself).

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

Exodus 3:14 I am that I am. The verb in the Hebrew is in the future tense, “I will be what I will be;” but it is of the same force as the present, except that it designates the perpetual duration of time.

Adam Clarke Commentary

Exodus 3:14 As the original words literally signify, I will be what I will be,

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Exodus 3:14 "I am"F1. Our Lord seems to refer to this name, John 8:58, and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be"F2 the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:





I am asking is Jesus in John 8:58 stating in the Greek (ἐγὼ εἰμί - literally, I Am) that he is the, fulfillment of Elohim saying of himself, "I will become"?

Until tonight I had never looked at the commentaries on this passage before.

 

[convicted1]

Another difficulty for the "3 co-equal" doctrine is in John 6:57 "Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me."

So how is it that Jesus is God, and was with God, and is immortal, yet it is the Father alone who has immortality?

Jesus came forth FROM God (John 16:27-28)


Jesus is the WORD of God (Rev 19:13). And what does scripture say about the Word of God?

“I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance." (Isaiah 45:23)

Sounds very similar to what Paul wrote in Philippians 2:10-11 "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

Also consider Isaiah 55:11 "So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."

And Jesus, the Word of God, declared that He was sent by the Father (John 5:23, 36, 37, 6:44, 57, 8:16, 18, 42, 10:36, 12:49, 17:21, 25, 20:21)

This one is also very interesting - "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me." (John 14:24)

We also see in Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible"

And God said 'Let there be light'

Look at Psalm 33:

6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deeps in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast


Jesus is the very Word of God, who proceeds FROM the Father. By whom the heavens were made. Everything visible and invisible (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:15-17)


continued....

Brother James, all we can go by are the scriptures. These are the means by which God reveals Himself to us. As we grow in grace and knowledge, so does our understanding of Him. Yet all the studying in the world for 1,000,000 years wouldn't even scratch the surface of who He is, imo.

All we know is this....

....In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --(Genesis 1:1)

.....`Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness....(Genesis 1:26)

....In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; this one was in the beginning with God; all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.(John 1:1-3)


All we...I know is that when God spoke this world...universe...into existance, Christ was right there with Him. That's why it states in Genesis 1:26 the words 'Ours' and 'Us'...


None of us has ever known anything before God spoke the world into existance...it's not recorded in the bible what it was like with Him before He made this universe and mankind...


TBS, in 1 John 5:7 it states....because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;

 

[JamesL]

TBS, in 1 John 5:7 it states....because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;

I agree with you, and I agree with the Johannine comma.

The three are One. I never said I deny the tri-unity of God.