THE Trinity can Now be discussed.

[Wrangler]

Idolatry? Aimed at Trinitarians. That seems pretty heavy-handed.

It is what it is. The 1C says to have no other gods before me (singular); This necessarily includes the trinitarian god. The 2C says to not worship IDOLS. This is exactly what trinitarians do, worship their manmade trinitarian doctrine god.

It's an interesting point that the 1C implies the existence of other gods. You don't make laws forbidding what people cannot do. There is a "there" there that God is forbidding in the 1C. Importantly, these are NOT false gods, merely other gods. This explains why 1 COR 8:6 begins, 'For us, there is one God, the Father.' Again, implying other gods that are simply not for us.

Who is the lamb of God?

Trinitarians like to pretend prepositions are verbs. IS God is not the same as OF God. We are all OF God. This does not mean that we (including Jesus) are God.

 

[David in NJ]

You do see the logical inconsistency here, don't you? ONE God yet TWO distinct "individuals"? How do you explain that?

Good Morning,

The best part of your question is the answer to it = God has already explained it for us!!!

However, God's explanation is not what the inquisitive mind of fallen man is seeking to be satisfied with.
For God 's mode of communication between Himself and us is the Word = His Word thru which requires faith unto understanding.
Sin laden mankind demands understanding BEFORE faith.

God's Way is faith leads us to understanding = Hebrews 11:3 = "By faith we understand........."

Genesis is the Beginning of 'The Faith' that pleases God = Genesis 1:1

In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית (bə·rê·šîṯ)
Preposition-b | Noun - feminine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7225: 1) first, beginning, best, chief 1a) beginning 1b) first 1c) chief 1d) choice part

God
אֱלֹהִ֑ים (’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Noun - masculine plural
Strong's Hebrew 430: 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) god, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

Genesis 1:26 - "Let Us make man in Our image according to Our likeness." = 3

This is just the Beginning of God's explanation.

 

[Wrangler]

Absolute hogwash, Brother..I was Born Again..no knowledge of the trinity whatsoever..I rebuke their ridiculous claims that you aren’t Born Again ,if you don’t believe in the trinity

This goes back to post #148. If you can be Born Again without believing in the trinity, why is believing the trinity important?

Given its complete absence in 66 books, it's so odd that trinitarians make it out to be the central message of the Bible.

 

[Johann]

You do see the logical inconsistency here, don't you? ONE God yet TWO distinct "individuals"? How do you explain that? Modalism? Something else?

The assertion from @David in NJ in John 1:1-5 that there are two distinct individuals-God and the Word-does not imply a logical inconsistency or suggest Modalism.

Rather, it supports the doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that God is one in essence but exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit.


1. The Distinction of Persons in John 1:1-5
In John 1:1-5, the text clearly distinguishes between God (the Father) and the Word (the Son). In verse 1, it states:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This shows both the distinctiveness of the Father and the Word (the Son) — the Word is with God, and yet the Word is God. This is not a contradiction but a distinction within the unity of the Godhead.

2. The Unity of Essence
The doctrine of the Trinity holds that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, they share the same divine essence or nature. This means that both the Father and the Son are fully God, but they are not the same person. The oneness of God refers to the essence, while the distinctiveness of the persons refers to their relationship and roles within the Godhead.

In John 1:1, when it says "the Word was God," it affirms the deity of the Word. However, it does not suggest that the Father and the Son are the same person, but that they are both fully God-distinct in person, but united in essence.

3. Addressing the Charge of Modalism

Modalism is a heretical doctrine that claims that God is a single person who reveals Himself in different modes or forms (such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This would imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but different manifestations of the same person at different times.

John 1:1-5 does not support Modalism, as it clearly distinguishes the Word (the Son) from God (the Father), and both are affirmed as being fully God. Modalism would erase the distinct personal relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which the Scripture maintains throughout, including in verses such as John 14:16-17, where Jesus speaks of the Father sending the Holy Spirit as another distinct Person.

4. The Logical Consistency of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is not illogical, but a mystery that transcends human understanding. While it is a profound theological truth, it is not contradictory to say that there is one God (in essence) and three distinct persons. This is a mystery of divine revelation, akin to other truths that may be beyond full human comprehension, such as the incarnation (where Jesus is both fully God and fully man) or the infinity of God.

The key point is that the oneness of God is about essence, while the threeness is about personhood. Both truths are held together in Scripture, and they are not contradictory.


John 1:1-5 presents a distinction between the Father and the Son (the Word), but affirms that both are fully God, sharing the same divine essence. This aligns with the biblical teaching of the Trinity, which maintains that God is one in essence but three in persons. The idea that there are two distinct individuals who are of the same essence is a foundational truth of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and is logically coherent within that framework. It is not a contradiction nor does it imply Modalism.

So @David in NJ is NOT advocating Modalism.

J.

 

[Ritajanice]

This goes back to post #148. If you can be Born Again without believing in the trinity, why is believing the trinity important?

Exactly, it’s not important...that why I don’t discuss it, it has nothing to do with salvation. We’re on the same page there.Praise God.

 

[Ritajanice]

Given its complete absence in 66 books, it's so odd that trinitarians make it out to be the central message of the Bible.

Amen!

 

[RedFan]

The assertion from @David in NJ in John 1:1-5 that there are two distinct individuals-God and the Word-does not imply a logical inconsistency or suggest Modalism.

Rather, it supports the doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that God is one in essence but exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit.


1. The Distinction of Persons in John 1:1-5
In John 1:1-5, the text clearly distinguishes between God (the Father) and the Word (the Son). In verse 1, it states:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

This shows both the distinctiveness of the Father and the Word (the Son) — the Word is with God, and yet the Word is God. This is not a contradiction but a distinction within the unity of the Godhead.

2. The Unity of Essence
The doctrine of the Trinity holds that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, they share the same divine essence or nature. This means that both the Father and the Son are fully God, but they are not the same person. The oneness of God refers to the essence, while the distinctiveness of the persons refers to their relationship and roles within the Godhead.

In John 1:1, when it says "the Word was God," it affirms the deity of the Word. However, it does not suggest that the Father and the Son are the same person, but that they are both fully God-distinct in person, but united in essence.

3. Addressing the Charge of Modalism

Modalism is a heretical doctrine that claims that God is a single person who reveals Himself in different modes or forms (such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This would imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons but different manifestations of the same person at different times.

John 1:1-5 does not support Modalism, as it clearly distinguishes the Word (the Son) from God (the Father), and both are affirmed as being fully God. Modalism would erase the distinct personal relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which the Scripture maintains throughout, including in verses such as John 14:16-17, where Jesus speaks of the Father sending the Holy Spirit as another distinct Person.

4. The Logical Consistency of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity is not illogical, but a mystery that transcends human understanding. While it is a profound theological truth, it is not contradictory to say that there is one God (in essence) and three distinct persons. This is a mystery of divine revelation, akin to other truths that may be beyond full human comprehension, such as the incarnation (where Jesus is both fully God and fully man) or the infinity of God.

The key point is that the oneness of God is about essence, while the threeness is about personhood. Both truths are held together in Scripture, and they are not contradictory.


John 1:1-5 presents a distinction between the Father and the Son (the Word), but affirms that both are fully God, sharing the same divine essence. This aligns with the biblical teaching of the Trinity, which maintains that God is one in essence but three in persons. The idea that there are two distinct individuals who are of the same essence is a foundational truth of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and is logically coherent within that framework. It is not a contradiction nor does it imply Modalism.

So @David in NJ is NOT advocating Modalism.

J.

I don't know what David's view is here, but the logical inconsistency of two distinct individuals as a single God needs to be addressed. Efforts to address this have been around since the Second Century. Are we going to be able to solve the dilemma on this website?

 

[Wrangler]

From today’s devotional reading. Roman’s 5:8 (CEV)
But God showed how much he loved us by having Christ die for us, even though we were sinful.

Emerges the most powerful evidence that Jesus is not God; juxtaposition. It is ubiquitous. God is the subject of the sentence; Christ is the object being acted upon (commanded to die).

1. Who had Jesus die for us? God.
2. Who showed and loved? God
3. Who died at God’s command? Christ.

If they were one and the same, there would never juxtapose them in sentences but it is everywhere in Scripture.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't know what David's view is here, but the logical inconsistency of two distinct individuals as a single God needs to be addressed.

Despite @Johann’s claim, this powerfully undermines the doctrine of the trinity. It’s absurd to assert text that claims 2 supports 3.

 

[David in NJ]

From today’s devotional reading. Roman’s 5:8 (CEV)
But God showed how much he loved us by having Christ die for us, even though we were sinful.

Emerges the most powerful evidence that Jesus is not God; juxtaposition. It is ubiquitous. God is the subject of the sentence; Christ is the object being acted upon (commanded to die).

1. Who had Jesus die for us? God.
2. Who showed and loved? God
3. Who died at God’s command? Christ.

If they were one and the same, there would never juxtapose them in sentences but it is everywhere in Scripture.

Your assumption is easily countered by the many evidences in scripture shouts out to us that "the Word is God" and "the Word became flesh"

Evidence - Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:22-23

“Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”).

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

 

[David in NJ]

Despite @Johann’s claim, this powerfully undermines the doctrine of the trinity. It’s absurd to assert text that claims 2 supports 3.

Please see Post 162 and take note of ending statement - thank you and Good Morning

Fresh Ground Coffee at David's - Every Morning = all who call upon the LORD Jesus Christ are welcome - and those who are seeking

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Idolatry? Aimed at Trinitarians. That seems pretty heavy-handed.

It is what it is. The 1C says to have no other gods before me (singular); This necessarily includes the trinitarian god. The 2C says to not worship IDOLS. This is exactly what trinitarians do, worship their manmade trinitarian doctrine god.

It's an interesting point that the 1C implies the existence of other gods. You don't make laws forbidding what people cannot do. There is a "there" there that God is forbidding in the 1C. Importantly, these are NOT false gods, merely other gods. This explains why 1 COR 8:6 begins, 'For us, there is one God, the Father.' Again, implying other gods that are simply not for us.

Should the first commandment have said "before us"? That would have tracked better with Genesis.

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over
all the creatures that move along the ground.”


St. SteVen said:
Who is the lamb of God?

Trinitarians like to pretend prepositions are verbs. IS God is not the same as OF God. We are all OF God. This does not mean that we (including Jesus) are God.

LOL
That wouldn't make any sense. "Behold the lamb is God."

[

 

[Ritajanice]

St. SteVen said:
Who is the lamb of God?

John.1. [29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

 

[Wrangler]

Should the first commandment have said "before us"? That would have tracked better with Genesis.

Words have meaning. It would contradict Genesis that identifies God as a single being.

To claim otherwise is to read into monotheist text. You are reading into the text who God is talking to.

 

[Wrangler]

That wouldn't make any sense. "Behold the lamb is God."

That would be consistent with the trinity.

 

[Johann]

I don't know what David's view is here, but the logical inconsistency of two distinct individuals as a single God needs to be addressed. Efforts to address this have been around since the Second Century. Are we going to be able to solve the dilemma on this website?

I don't think so-however it is Scriptural.

J.

 

[Ritajanice]

Behold the Lamb Of God mean?

 

[St. SteVen]

Words have meaning. It would contradict Genesis that identifies God as a single being.

I already quoted a text from Genesis. Which you ignored. (denied)
- Who is present in this discussion below?
- Who is the "us" that humankind was made in the image of?
- Why does it say "our" image?
- Why does it say "our" likeness?

Genesis 1:26 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over
all the creatures that move along the ground.”

[

 

[Wrangler]

I already quoted a text from Genesis. Which you ignored. (denied)
- Who is present in this discussion below?
- Who is the "us" that humankind was made in the image of?
- Why does it say "our" image?
- Why does it say "our" likeness?

Try answering those questions without reading trinitarian doctrine into it.

Genesis 1:4​

​

New Living Translation​

​

​

4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.

God is already defined in v4 as a singular being. So, you have to assume who God is talking to AND deny the singular nature of God to use v26 to ‘support’ an anti-Biblical doctrine.

 

[RLT63]

God cannot be his own mediator because he is one of the estranged parties….Jesus role as mediator is to facilitate communication between the two parties….God cannot have direct communication with sinful humans…..that is why we need a mediator in the first place.

Really, how did God communicate with Moses, Noah and Abraham? Were they sinless?