The Trinity

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not that I don't know enough to keep the fight going, but I pretty much used up what I have, and would basically just be repeating myself.  He is better with the deep theology in this particular area.

He studied Augustine... I studied Aquinas.

...and I studied the Bible. 

[Bono]

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:24,28 t[T]hen comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

If there is only one person in God, how can Jesus hand over the Kingdom to God the Father? Under your modalism, God the Father was already reigning when Jesus sat as King, so how can Jesus hand Him the Kingdom?

Moreover, in Matthew 26 and parallel passages, in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus was praying to the Father; the only way your modalism can make sense of this dialogue is to have Jesus stage an elaborate charade and God playing peek-a-boo with himself.

Your problem, jmfcst, is that you are not the least bit interested in knowing what trinitarians actually say; if you did, you'd know that you are only knocking down strawmen, and no trinitarian believes half the things you attribute to us.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your problem, jmfcst, is that you are not the least bit interested in knowing what trinitarians actually say; if you did, you'd know that you are only knocking down strawmen, and no trinitarian believes half the things you attribute to us.

I hear what you are saying – Jesus is one person and the Father is another.  But what you have FAILED to address is the question of “Who is Jesus Christ?”  The Bible’s answer is: He is the entire Godhead manifested in human flesh.

So, instead of “Jesus is one person and the Father is another”, what you have is “Jesus, the entire Godhead manifested in flesh, interacting with the Father, who is the one and only God.”

So, the proper way to go about addressing this issue is to define who it was that lived in the body of Jesus, instead of assuming he is just a single entity of a multi-entity Godhead.

So, Bono, if you want to discuss who actually lived in the body of Jesus Christ, then we have a starting point.  Otherwise we’re stuck with your premature conclusion that what lived in body of Jesus Christ was simply part of the Godhead.

***BONO, IF YOU DON’T THINK I AM LISTENING, THEN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY DOCTRINE****

To me, this debate begins and ends with the question:  “Who lived in the body of Jesus Christ?”  Because, to me, that is the question the Trinity Doctrine was attempting to answer.

Am I approaching the topic from the wrong angle?  If so, show me the correct angle.

Do you agree that the biblical answer to the question “Who lived in the body of Jesus Christ” is “the entire Godhead”?  And, if so, how is the Trinity Doctrine in agreement? Because to me, the Trinity Doctrine sounds like it views Jesus as part of the Godhead and NOT the entire Godhead in bodily form.

---

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:24,28 t[T]hen comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

If there is only one person in God, how can Jesus hand over the Kingdom to God the Father? Under your modalism, God the Father was already reigning when Jesus sat as King, so how can Jesus hand Him the Kingdom?

Moreover, in Matthew 26 and parallel passages, in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus was praying to the Father; the only way your modalism can make sense of this dialogue is to have Jesus stage an elaborate charade and God playing peek-a-boo with himself.

the answer to your question is easily answered by the following verses:

John 14:8-10 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." 9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

 Paul said the same about who lived inside the body of Jesus: “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”  Col 2:9

You may not be able to accept that, but that is what the scripture says.  So, if the person living in the body of Jesus was not the Father, then the scripture is simply wrong.  

For a more in depth answer to your query:  Since Jesus is the entire Godhead manifested in the flesh, Gethsemane is simply a picture of the lesser manifestation of God (Jesus, the Son of God, in whom the entiry Godhead lived in the finite form of man) subjecting himself to the infinite manifestation of God (the Father).

[12th Doctor]

The point that we, the Trinitarians, are making is that they are all the same "God," but in different personifications.  This does not preclude the "oneness" of God.  As you pointed out, that is self-evident.  But it does acknowledge three persons in this arrangement.  Three persons as one; separate, but of the same essence.  Ironically, the classic tale of St. Patrick and the shamrock, while an interesting teaching device, fails to capture the idea, since the three leaves are of separate essences.  The Trinity is not.  The Trinity is one, and whole, but at the same time separate.

As Bono points out, your passages fail to address the real issue, as you assume that we are saying that there are three "gods".  We are not.  One God, three persons, and not just three manifestations, or else the scriptures would not contain all the passages that we presented, which show a clear division.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your problem, jmfcst, is that you are not the least bit interested in knowing what trinitarians actually say; if you did, you'd know that you are only knocking down strawmen, and no trinitarian believes half the things you attribute to us.

you are probably right, maybe I don't understand what the Trinity Doctrine is attempting to say...so, instead of me pointing out what I find unbiblical with the Trintiy Doctrine, may you should point out the unbiblical faccets of my point of view.

Fair enough?  Then here is what I believe:

1) “God” is a single spiritual being who always existed and will always exist.
2) "God" spoke to men and allowed them to discern his presence in many ways in the past (e.g. from within a burning bush)...but in these last days, he appeared in a body, being manifested in the flesh, born of a virgin, having been conceived of himself (meaning God conceived within the virgin Mary the very flesh of the body he would manifest his presence to mankind), manifesting himself in the human body whose identity we know of as “Jesus Christ, the Son of God”
3) So that, “The Life” that lived within the body of Jesus Christ was simply the single spiritual being known as “God”.  (this point is going to ignore the complication arising from Jesus also having a human nature and simply focuses on the God portion  of Jesus’ identity)
4) From the very first day Jesus was born, this manifestation of God in the flesh was referred to as “the Son of God”.  Prior to that, “The Life” that lived within the body of Jesus Christ was not referred to as “the Son of God”, but simply became known as “the Son of God” when it became manifested in the flesh.
5) Believers in Christ can receive “the Holy Spirit”, who is none other than “The Life” that lived in the body of Jesus Christ.

Not to be irreverent, but to put it in human terms....Basically, if we equate God to the term “person” and give him the name “Joe”...then “Joe” is the creator of all things and is therefore the father of all (the Eternal Father, aka... God, the Father), and “Joe” makes his spiritual self spiritually “visible” to men by manifesting himself in a way that is spiritual discernable (the Spirit of God, aka...the Holy Spirit), and “Joe” finally manifested himself in human flesh and lived among us and died for our sins and rose on the 3rd day (Jesus Christ, aka...the Son of God)........now, we can consider the Father/Son/HolySpirit as three separate persons, but they are really simply three manifestations of the single person named “Joe”.

In reality, God’s name is not “Joe”, rather it has been revealed to us in its final form of “Jesus”, and the name “Jesus” is above any other name...the Apostles were willing to suffer and die for the name of “Jesus”...they healed people by explicitly calling upon and mentioning ”in the name of Jesus”...and they fulfilled the Great Commission of “baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” by explicitly baptising “in the name of Jesus”, for, apart from the name of “Jesus”, there is NO OTHER NAME under Heaven given to men by which they MUST be saved.

So, God is a singular being, the Father of all things, who manifested himself to men in Spirit (Holy Spirit) and in flesh ( the Son of God, who was given the name of above all names), and has given us a single name, the name of “Jesus”, by which we are to use in recognition of him manifesting himself in the flesh, for there is now no other path to salvation without recognizing the life death and resurrection of Jesus Chist, God's manifestation of himself in the flesh.  That is why Jesus Christ is to be our focus when we seek God, for it is how God chose to finally present himself to mankind.

And I would ask that any disagreements with my opinion by expressed in scriptural arguments, not the arguments of creeds.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point that we, the Trinitarians, are making is that they are all the same "God," but in different personifications.  This does not preclude the "oneness" of God.  As you pointed out, that is self-evident.  But it does acknowledge three persons in this arrangement.  Three persons as one separate, but of the same essence.  Ironically, the classic tale of St. Patrick and the shamrock, while an interesting teaching device, fails to capture the idea, since the three leaves are of separate essences.  The Trinity is not.  The Trinity is one, and whole, but at the same time separate.

As Bono points out, your passages fail to address the real issue, as you assume that we are saying that there are three "gods".  We are not.  One God, three persons, and not just three manifestations, or else the scriptures would not contain all the passages that we presented, which show a clear division.

if there are really three persons and not simply three manifestations of a single person, then what you have is a God that is a conglomeration of entities instead of a single entity.

in other words, we are obviously saying two separate things, but do you agree that my viewpoint is more monotheistic than yours (for certainly one person is more singular than three persons), and if so, then how could yours be monotheistic at all?

[12th Doctor]

The point that we, the Trinitarians, are making is that they are all the same "God," but in different personifications.  This does not preclude the "oneness" of God.  As you pointed out, that is self-evident.  But it does acknowledge three persons in this arrangement.  Three persons as one separate, but of the same essence.  Ironically, the classic tale of St. Patrick and the shamrock, while an interesting teaching device, fails to capture the idea, since the three leaves are of separate essences.  The Trinity is not.  The Trinity is one, and whole, but at the same time separate.

As Bono points out, your passages fail to address the real issue, as you assume that we are saying that there are three "gods".  We are not.  One God, three persons, and not just three manifestations, or else the scriptures would not contain all the passages that we presented, which show a clear division.

if there are really three persons and not simply three manifestations of a single person, then what you have is a God that is a conglomeration of entities instead of a single entity.

in other words, we are obviously saying two separate things, but do you agree that my viewpoint is more monotheistic than yours (for certainly one person is more singular than three persons), and if so, then how could yours be monotheistic at all?

No, I do not agree that your view point is more monotheistic than mine, because you once again presume that we profess that the three beings are, at their core, separate entities.  We do not.  They are one; connected in a mystical way through a single essence.

If there aren't separate personages, then why have the Son at all?  Why was "the Word with God"?  Why not simply say that the word "was God" and leave it at that?  Why spend any time at all discussing the separate ideas?  To simply say that there are different manifestations doesn't cover it, because it presumes that there is this running narrative across all the scriptures that simply is not there.

This is where you tend to piss me off.  I contend that the scripture is generally very clear in its meaning, if you look at the entire thing, and if there is any confusion from us looking at it, it is because there is something missing in our context.  I also contend that their are narratives that you can extrapolate the general idea from, even if you have to look past the specific details that are context specific.  This is how I maintain the contention of consistency.

On the other hand, you often times pull ideas out of even their neighboring context in the scripture, present them as having meaning by themselves, without an understanding of the whole, and then slap an idea to it and claim that, simply by connecting a couple of short passages, you can extrapolate a narrative.  When people present evidence that disagrees with your argument, you say that the scripture somehow intended to be misleading, and can only be made sense of by someone who has the same mystical understanding that you do.  You then turn around and mock my way of doing things as the product of my supposedly lemming-like devotion to whatever the Catholic Church says and mock the some 2000 years of study that have gone into these issues as the mere product of "tradition" that is to be disregarded for what you call truth.

I am not angry, or attacking you, but that's exactly what it is like arguing with you.

[12th Doctor]

This is also why there are certain issues that I openly admit that I am not an expert on.  Because I don't have time to sit around and study all biblical ideas within their proper context, and refuse to cobble together a weak argument consisting of a handful of verses and try to pass it off as Truth.

[12th Doctor]

My point being that you seem to have a two verse answer for everything, and that's fine, whatever, but I don't think that does any problem, no matter how large or small, any justice.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

you often times pull ideas out of even their neighboring context in the scripture, present them as having meaning by themselves, without an understanding of the whole, and then slap an idea to it and claim that, simply by connecting a couple of short passages, you can extrapolate a narrative.  When people present evidence that disagrees with your argument, you say that the scripture somehow intended to be misleading, and can only be made sense of by someone who has the same mystical understanding that you do.  You then turn around and mock my way of doing things as the product of my supposedly lemming-like devotion to whatever the Catholic Church says and mock the some 2000 years of study that have gone into these issues as the mere product of "tradition" that is to be disregarded for what you call truth...My point being that you seem to have a two verse answer for everything, and that's fine, whatever, but I don't think that does any problem, no matter how large or small, any justice.

If you think I am pulling things out of context or leaving out detail, then simply stir steer (late edit)the ship back on course.  I am willing to give a more in depth explanation about the surrounding context of any verse I use; all you have to do is ask for it...

Example:

The verse I used to prove the identity of Jesus Christ:  Col 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”

And its surrounding context:

The Colossians church was in threat of being led astray from following Christ by the legalism of those who claimed to have knowledge outside of the scriptures (see Col 2:8.)  So Paul approaches them (and approaches us, the reader, because we are susceptible to the same deceit) in this letter by reminding us that Christ is the fullness of God and has supremacy over everything, for Christ is the creator of everything, and that it was Christ who forgave our sins and thus qualified us to share in eternal life (see Col 1:15-20).  Paul reminds us that the opportunity currently available for all people, Jew and Gentile, to receive the presence of Christ within our hearts is what the scriptures over the years had been proclaiming and has finally been made a reality (Col 1:25-27).  He reminds us that our walk with Christ should be in love, self-control, and a laser like focus on Christ. (Col 2:1-5).  Therefore, since our walk with God began with Christ, we should remain in Christ and keep him as our ultimate authority (Col 2:6-7), and so we should not get trapped following the authority of men who claim to be superior but who really only offer the empty shell of legalism and in doing so have lost connection with Christ by superseding Christ’s authority with the idolatry of their own vain imaginations (Col 2:8 ).  Believers only need Christ, the ultimate authority, whom we believers were given when we first believed, because in the body of Jesus Christ lives the entirety of the Godhead, and therefore there is no way to get “more of God” than what is offered in Jesus Christ (Col 2:9-10), therefore there is nothing to be gained in legalism. It was Christ, not the legalists, who freed us from the control of the flesh and it was the death of Christ which we took part in during baptism, and it was our faith in Christ that gave us a new life by the power of God, the power that gave us life was the same power that raised Christ’s body from the grave and is no less of a miracle (Col 2:10-12).  Before we came to Christ, we were dead in our sins, but God gave us the life that lived in the body of Christ by forgiving our sins and cancelled the Law of Moses by the death of Christ on the cross (Col 2:13-14).  And having disarmed and mocked every vain authority, even mocking the supposed authority of the legalists, he triumphed over them through his death on the cross (Col 2:15).  So, since Christ is the reality of God and we have that reality living in us, and since Christ already cancelled the Law of Moses and already mocked the vain authority of the legalists, we should not allow ourselves to be influenced by the ceremonies within the Law of Moses which merely foreshadowed Christ yet lacked the reality of Christ; nor should we be influenced by the supposed authority of men who attempt to conjure up a resemblance of God through their vain ceremonies because these men have no connection with the reality found only in Christ (Col 2:16-19).  And since we died on the cross with Christ to the vain imaginations of this physical world, we should never attempt to conform to its rules that are only made up from someone’s vain imagination.  These rules are simply ceremonial and have no substance and will come to nothing because they have no value in controlling the desires of the flesh (Col 2:20-23). Since we have been given true substance by receiving a new life with Christ, we should stop focusing on the demands of this world and instead focus on the desires of Christ because Jesus is the full authority of God (Col 3:1-2).  We died and have been made alive in the life of Christ, and when Christ, in whom we have life, comes back, we will be joined with him in glory (Col 3:3-4).  Therefore, we should repent and set our focus on Christ, letting love, peace, faith, and hope be our comfort, and doing everything in the name of Jesus Christ while submitting to one another, because that is the only way to please the one true God (Col 3:5-25)...

...so, basically, the verse (Col 2:9) I quoted in our Trinity discussion gives the full identity of Jesus Christ, stating that the fullness of the Godhead lived in him, in order to remind believers, like you and me, that there is no substance of God to be gained beyond what can be found living in Jesus Christ, for in Christ is found the whole “kit and caboodle”, and therefore there is no reason to seek “more of God” through the vain imaginations of empty ceremonies which are only a shadow of Christ but not the substance of Christ.

---

Actually, Supersoulty, when the Catholic Church is brought into our discussions, you’re the one that usually brings it up.  There is much value in study and in tradition, but the biblical record demonstrates that centuries upon centuries of study and tradition passed down to the Sanhedrin did not prevent them from rejecting Christ.  So lineage and tradition are not the end-all-be-all.  That is NOT mocking lineage and tradition; rather it is being honest about its limitations, for it can never replace spiritual discernment, as was proven in the vanity of the Sanhedrin.  The Sanhedrin thought they were the required conduit to God, but God had in mind a personal relationship to guide the believer so that His messengers were simply to be ambassadors attempting to place the hands of believers into the hand of God and not to act like a permanent irreplaceable conduit between the believer and God.  So, since spiritual discernment is what matters and is defined by allowing Christ to be front and center, my standard is not whether I’m in agreement with a particular sect, rather my standard is whether I allow Christ to take center stage and allow him to receive all the focus.

After complaining that I was taking individual verses out of context, are you now pleased with a lengthy contextual discussion, or are you now going to complain that I am even more presumptuous in thinking I could interpret three continuous chapters of scripture than I was when I only quoted Col 2:9 by itself? My dissertation is certainly not exhaustive, for the word of God could never be exhausted, but certainly it should be obvious that I didn’t “pick some random verses out the blue”, but rather picked a verse which attempts to explain the identity of Jesus Christ in relation to the rest of the Godhead.  And even though the context of the chapters isn’t focused on a discussion surrounding the Trinity, the verse is nonetheless applicable to a discussion of the Trinity since it does identify how much of the Godhead lived in the body of Christ.

Did I twist Col 2:9 to suit my own purposes by misconstruing the context or purpose of Col 2:9?  But, most importantly, did my interpretation of the first 3 chapters of Colossians (which may not be 100% correct since it was interpreted without the use of thousands of years of handed down study) lift up Christ alone as the singular focus of reverence, or was the interpretation a vain attempt to place myself between the reader and Christ? Because that is the test – whether or not someone is truly lifting up Christ and simply trying to introduce someone to Jesus, or whether someone is attempting to act as a required conduit to Christ.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If there aren't separate personages, then why have the Son at all?

(A better question is:  if each individual personage has the entire Godhead within it, how do you know it is a separate personage and not a separate manifestation of a single personage?  Because since Jesus had the entire Godhead living within him, you can’t really say that the personage of the Son within the body of Jesus was praying in the Garden while the Father and the HolySpirit, who both were also within Jesus, remained silent.)

The necessity of coming in the flesh wasn’t a function of the makeup of the Godhead, rather the necessity was based upon the state of mankind:

Heb 2:14-18 “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

---

Why was "the Word with God"?  Why not simply say that the word "was God" and leave it at that?  Why spend any time at all discussing the separate ideas?  To simply say that there are different manifestations doesn't cover it, because it presumes that there is this running narrative across all the scriptures that simply is not there.
 

The running narrative across the scriptures is that there is single individual: "You shall have no other gods before / besides me".  The commandment sounds pretty singular in personage to me., as does "There is no God apart from me" (Isa. 45:21)....now if it had used a multiple personage form as in “There is no God apart from us”, then you would have a point, but it doesn’t.

As to your question about the separate ideas of John 1:1, it’s clearly a progression, so please stop me when you disagree:

“1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

“1In the beginning was the Word “ By calling him the Word, it shows that Jesus’ teachings had ultimate authority since were not second hand, but rather were the direct Word of God.  So, first we are presented with the idea that Jesus is the direct word of God, so much so that here is no distinction between what he says and what God says (“The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” John 14:10)  And by saying he existed in the beginning is a statement of eternal pre-existence, having no beginning.

“and the Word was with God”  the writer is now progressing the idea to state that there is NO (late edit) separation between God and Jesus.
 
“and the Word was God.”  Now the writer has progressed all the way into claiming that Jesus is God.

And in the next verse (John 1:2), the writer progresses even further and calls Jesus the creator of all the universe.

So John 1:1-2 goes from calling Jesus the Word of God, to saying that the Word (Jesus) always existed, to saying that Jesus was with God, to saying that Jesus was God, to saying that Jesus was with God in the beginning, to saying that Jesus was the Creator of all the universe….it is simply a progression of thought in order to bring the totally of who Jesus is into focus.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I still don't know how the Trinity can claim the Entire Godhead (which would have to include the 3 "persons" of Father/Son/HolySpirit) lived in the body of Jesus Christ, yet turn right around and claim Jesus Christ is a different "person" than the Father or HolySpirit.

Again, assuming the Trinity views Jesus Christ and the Son of God as the same person, how can the Son be a separate person if the Father and the HolySpirit and Son all dwelt in the body of Jesus Christ?

Unless, of course, the Trinity is attempting to claim that the Father and Holy Spirit did not always live in the body of Jesus, but rather the body of Christ was originally only occupied by the Son...but that would contradict the Trinity's view that the 3 persons are always inseparable.

In fact, since the three are inseparable and all 3 lived in the body of Christ, I don't really know how the Trinity distinguishes between the three, because you surely can't look upon Jesus and say, "There is the person of the Son", since all 3 persons lived in the body of Jesus.  In fact, you can't even tell which one of the three within the body of Jesus is praying in the Garden.

Bottom line:  the bible does explicitly claim that Jesus was and is God and that all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in the body of Christ, and the bible does explicitly use the language of God "manifesting" himself "in the flesh", but it never uses the language of multiple "persons" to describe the Godhead...yet that didn’t stop some Christians from mandating the term “persons” be accepted among all the faithful, with death being the punishment of rejection, for hundreds upon hundreds of years, even though the New Testament condemns church members from carrying out executions based upon acceptance of the Gospel.

Instead, why can’t Christ accept the things the bible doesn’t define as “indefinable” and accept all Christians who accept Jesus as God in the flesh, regardless of their view of the Godhead?  Wouldn’t it be nice to accept each other regardless if some of us believe in one, two, three, or seven persons?