Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[APAK]

True is that!

He also emptied himself of the privilege's of being the Son of God (though he was!)...but why?

His calling was to be the Son of Man first, enduring all the sufferings and pains of the flesh. In embracing the role of a servant, Christ remained focused and undistracted by the temptations of being the Son of God, such as misusing His power and authority. Instead, He used them to proclaim the saving Gospel and to confirm it through miracles.

But why?

Isaiah 53:12 (ESV):

"Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death (the true nature of emptying) and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."

Can you see where God's mind was concerning His Son?

Isaiah 49:3 (ESV):

"And he said to me, 'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'"

Isaiah 49:5 (ESV):

"And now the Lord says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength."

If you told a Trinitarian that God's purpose for Christ was not "Sonship" but Servitude, they would strongly reject that teaching.

View attachment 56162

"In the form" implies a "former" – This Servant Son would be GOD's WORK!...not a preexisting Work already done but a New Creation shaped by the Wisdom and Discipline of Yahweh.

Jesus needed to be emptied of all Divine privilege's in order to become the Glorified Son of God.

F2F

Not the title of the Son of God as much as being the fellow human servant son of the people for God's purpose...

 

[APAK]

Do you believe that the Apostle Paul LIED???

Paul did not lie in his words as he meant similar to what I have just written to you. Who lied were the so-called men of the cloth and the so-called church fathers, and even those of today, who have distorted and hijacked Paul's words to take on new exotic meanings like for the destructive trinity paradigm that would make Paul very furious if he had know his words were going to be severely distorted.

 

[David in NJ]

Paul did not lie in his words as he meant similar to what I have just written to you. Who lied were the so-called men of the cloth and the so-called church fathers, and even those of today, who have distorted and hijacked Paul's words to take on new exotic meanings like for the destructive trinity paradigm that would make Paul very furious if he had know his words were going to be severely distorted.

Paul did not lie in his words as he meant similar to what I have just written to you.

Do you understand that it is the Holy Spirit of Truth that created the Holy Scriptures of Truth???

 

[APAK]

He should look in the mirror, take personal responsibility for his emotions and respond to posts to edify not criticize, condemn and complain.

This thread is about trinitarian logic. Predictably, as soon as Marks gets involved, somehow we’re talking about his delicate sensibilities again.

Can you imagine @APAK or @BarneyFife publicly airing complaints about the forum as a whole?

I would never publicly state a forum is not meeting my preferences. It’s shockingly childish. Can you imagine Jesus saying such things?

I think he, marks, and truly another handful have noticeable hang-ups that makes them ill-suited for these types of forums. And for one I have no time or patient to play psychological games or physiatrist, to discuss this nonsense with them. If he wants off the forum by choice then so be it. I wish he would not keep lingering on with it to put it gently and nicely.

 

[David in NJ]

I think he, marks, and truly another handful have noticeable hang-ups that makes them ill-suited for these types of forums. And for one I have no time or patient to play psychological games or physiatrist, to discuss this nonsense with them. If he wants off the forum by choice then so be it. I wish he would not keep lingering on with it to put it gently and nicely.

Faulty assessment

 

[Magdala]

I believe God singular is the Godhead and that He works through a plurality of agents as one.

You misspoke then when you said that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one" regarding God, because the concept of "plurality within unity" means "multiple, distinct, elements, or parts that coexist within a single, unified whole, essentially signifying diversity existing harmoniously within a single entity; it highlights the concept of many different aspects coming together to form one cohesive unit."

 

[Magdala]

You quoted a passage from Matthew to prove that the Trinity was mentioned in scripture. Do deny this now?

Wrangler said, "1. The trinity is not in Scripture." In reply, I said, "The term "Holy Trinity" refers to the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit, and They are in Scripture: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [...]" (Matt. 28:19), and therefore your statement that the Holy Trinity isn't in Scripture is false. It seems that you meant to word your statement as "My understanding of the concept of the Holy Trinity being three separate gods isn't in Scripture", and that would've been true, because the Holy Trinity isn't three separate gods."

You quoted the beginning of that post of mine and replied to it saying, "The passage you reference does not discuss the Holy Trinity as you defined it." Do you see me defining the concept of Holy Trinity using Matt. 28:19? No. You deliberately didn't quote the rest of my post which gave further context, and replied in a way that made it seem like I was.

[...] the absence of an explicit statement concerning a particular doctrine is suspicious

You wouldn't have said that if you really understood that there's more than one way to say something, because you've automatically concluded that the Holy Trinity isn't scriptural solely because it's not explicitly stated in Scripture.

Additionally, Jesus has spoken explicitly about the Holy Trinity on several occasions, back in the 1940's, and probably since then as well, just like you want. However, that won't do you good as long as you're someone who claims to believe in a living God Who stopped revealing truths to humanity, despite that not being explicitly, nor implicitly, stated in Scripture. Are you?

The validity of a truth statement isn't subject to majority rule.

I didn't say that it is, but rather just that it's possible for you to see the Holy Trinity is scriptural like others do.

The issue with the water analogy is that it does not align with the Trinity doctrine, which teaches that God is one being in three persons, rather than a single person appearing in three different modes at various times.

I've told you before that water isn't an exact comparison to God in all respects, but both water and God exist as a plurality within unity:

Water exists in multiple states: solid, liquid, vapor, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water.
God exists in multiple Persons: the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

As for your good question [...]

I asked what's called a "rhetorical question", because I answered after asking it, which was in reply to the following post by you:

"Jesus' instructions concerning baptism focus on the sources of teaching: God the Father, The son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. He wants his apostles to know and understand that when they baptize, they are not making disciples for themselves, they make disciples for God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit because all three of them speak the same exact message [...]"

If Jesus was instructing the apostles to baptize in the name of those who speak God's message, then Jesus would've and should've included all the names of those up to that point who did, but He didn't, because it's about initiating new believers in God in the name of God: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of [...] (Matt. 28:19), and He says the name of the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, because They are God, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

 

[face2face]

You misspoke then when you said that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one" regarding God, because the concept of "plurality within unity" means "multiple, distinct, elements, or parts that coexist within a single, unified whole, essentially signifying diversity existing harmoniously within a single entity; it highlights the concept of many different aspects coming together to form one cohesive unit."

multiple individuals or things can be part of one whole, without undermining its unity

Correct.

Yahweh is the Head of a Divine Family (the whole) He is the Almighty God and beside Him there is none other!

He reveals Himself through an agency ie. Angels, Prophets, Kings and Peoples.

When God is said to be all and in all the Unity will be complete

F2F

 

[Magdala]

multiple individuals or things can be part of one whole, without undermining its unity

Correct.

Yahweh is the Family of a Divine Family (the whole) He is the Almighty God and beside Him there is none other!

He reveals Himself through an agency ie. Angels, Prophets, Kings and Peoples.

When God is said to be all and in all the Unity will be complete

You initially said that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one" regarding God, which isn't the same as what you're now saying which is that God works through a plurality of agents as one, because the concept of "plurality within unity" means "multiple, distinct, elements, or parts that coexist within a single, unified whole, essentially signifying diversity existing harmoniously within a single entity; it highlights the concept of many different aspects coming together to form one cohesive unit." An example of "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water.

 

[face2face]

You initially said that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one"

Correct.

 

[Magdala]

Correct.

Yea you initially said that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one", which isn't the same as what you're now saying which is that God works through a plurality of agents as one, because the concept of "plurality within unity" means "multiple, distinct, elements, or parts that coexist within a single, unified whole, essentially signifying diversity existing harmoniously within a single entity; it highlights the concept of many different aspects coming together to form one cohesive unit." An example of "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water. Therefore, you initially misspoke.

 

[face2face]

Yea you initially said that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one",

Correct.

 

[Magdala]

Correct.

Saying that Scripture shows "a plurality, united as one" regarding God isn't the same as what you're now saying, which is that God works through a plurality of agents as one, because the concept of "plurality within unity" means "multiple, distinct, elements, or parts that coexist within a single, unified whole, essentially signifying diversity existing harmoniously within a single entity; it highlights the concept of many different aspects coming together to form one cohesive unit." An example of "plurality within unity", from a philosophical perspective, is the substance of water, because it exists in multiple states, each distinct, united as one because they are the same substance: water. Therefore, you initially misspoke. Thank you for clarifying yourself.

 

[face2face]

The Oneness is spoken of here:

"There is one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all" Eph 4:6

His spiritual family.

Another principle is that "He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light." 1 Tim 6:16

You cannot separate His Spiritual family in any way shape or form.

Not only is it logical its Scriptural.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Cont...

"WHOM NO MAN HAS SEEN, nor can see" (1 Tim. 6:15; 1:17). And again, "God is spirit" (John 4:24); and He is "incorruptible" (Rom. 1:23). The INCORRUPTIBLE SPIRIT DWELLING IN LIGHT is the scriptural revelation of the undefinable essence of the self-existent Eternal One, who is from everlasting to everlasting, God.

While His essence remains unknown, He has revealed His name and character to us, which is sufficient for humanity to understand. However, to claim that, because He is spirit, He is therefore "immaterial" is utter nonsense; for immateriality signifies nothingness, a concept foreign to God's universe.

@Wrangler @APAK

What is the Divine nature? Who can comprehend it! blood? Is Jesus both flesh and spirit, or is He something else? It's one of the "unknowns" which must be accepted this side of the Kingdom age. It's not "knowledge" which is overly important really, more curiously if anything.

What I do know is all God's children share in His Divine Nature and comes with Eternity in Holiness.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

The Oneness is spoken of here:

"There is one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in all" Eph 4:6

His spiritual family.

Another principle is that "He is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light." 1 Tim 6:16

You cannot separate His Spiritual family in any way shape or form.

Not only is it logical its Scriptural.

F2F

Cont...

"WHOM NO MAN HAS SEEN, nor can see" (1 Tim. 6:15; 1:17). And again, "God is spirit" (John 4:24); and He is "incorruptible" (Rom. 1:23). The INCORRUPTIBLE SPIRIT DWELLING IN LIGHT is the scriptural revelation of the undefinable essence of the self-existent Eternal One, who is from everlasting to everlasting, God.

While His essence remains unknown, He has revealed His name and character to us, which is sufficient for humanity to understand. However, to claim that, because He is spirit, He is therefore "immaterial" is utter nonsense; for immateriality signifies nothingness, a concept foreign to God's universe.

@Wrangler @APAK

What is the Divine nature? Who can comprehend it! blood? Is Jesus both flesh and spirit, or is He something else? It's one of the "unknowns" which must be accepted this side of the Kingdom age. It's not "knowledge" which is overly important really, more curiously if anything.

What I do know is all God's children share in His Divine Nature and comes with Eternity in Holiness.

F2F

Looks like you forgot what we've been talking about. In Gen. 1:26, God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness [...]", and in Gen. 1:27 it states that man was created by God in God's image and likeness, not created by any other, nor in any other's image and likeness. Therefore, the first-person plural words "Us" and "Our" in Gen. 1:26 can only refer to God. Why did the one God speak in the first-person plural? It's because He exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

 

[face2face]

Looks like you forgot what we've been talking about. In Gen. 1:26, God said, "Let Us make man according to Our image and likeness [...]",

Yes, the angels are in the image of God which speaks to the "our".

 

[face2face]

Man was created "in the image" of the Elohim, and since they are "sons of God," this image is divine (though the nature of man is not). James emphasizes that "we are made after the likeness of God," "even the Father" (James 3:9). Concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, it is also said that He is "the exact image of His" not due to nature but character i,e sinless!

The Bible seems to convey God has a bodily existence in heaven. I see no reason to reject this.

F2F

 

[Magdala]

[...] the angels are in the image of God which speaks to the "our".

Genesis doesn't state that man was created in the image and likeness of angels, but rather that man, and only man, was created by God in the image and likeness of God. In Gen. 1:26, God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness [...]", and in Gen. 1:27 it states that man was created by God in God's image and likeness, not created by any other, nor in any other's image and likeness. Therefore, the first-person plural words "Us" and "Our" in Gen. 1:26 can only refer to God. Why did the one God speak in the first-person plural? It's because He exists in three Persons: the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Spirit, each distinct, united as one because They are the same Essence: love.

 

[face2face]

Looks like you forgot what we've been talking about. In Gen. 1:26, God said, "Let Us make man according to Our image and likeness [...]",

Can you see how the Angels are revealed as men in the Bible? This is consistent with the image and likeness spoken of in Gen 1:16.

Here are the verses where the word "likeness" is used in connection with Yahweh and the cherubim:

1. Ezekiel 1:5 - "And from the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man."
2. Isaiah 40:18 - "To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?"
3. Isaiah 40:25 - "To whom then will you liken Me, or shall I be equal? says the Holy One."
4. Isaiah 46:5 - "To whom will you liken Me and make Me equal, and compare Me, that we should be alike?"

A careful examination of these passages reveals that damuth defines capacity, authority, and status. Man was created in the image of the Father, given a position similar to His over creation, and endowed with the capacity to reflect the divine character. Therefore, a man's character should align with his God-like nature, as James indicates (see James 3:9). However, while Adam was created "in the image and likeness of the Elohim," his descendants inherited the consequences of the Fall. Seth was "in the likeness, after the image" of Adam (Gen. 5:3), not of God. As a result, since the Fall, it has been impossible for man to fully reflect divine excellence. This necessitated the formation of a New Man who would perfectly reveal the divine image and likeness, which Christ accomplished by overcoming the flesh (Rom. 1:3; Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:15).

@Wrangler @APAK

Ezekiel 1:5 is an interesting verse when you liken it to "the image and likeness" spoken of in Gen 1:26. Angelic imagery had the likeness of man. This supports the important involvement of the angels in creation and the purpose God had for mankind. Isaiah 40:25 again speaks to the singleness of God as Deity!

Man's uniqueness (above the animals in capacity but not in nature)

Man is different from and superior to the animals in that he alone is made in the image (tselem) and likeness (damuth) of God. This is the only place in the Old Testament where these two terms are used in conjunction with one another. The first Hebrew term comes from a root meaning “to carve, cut off.” The general significance is that man is closely patterned after his Maker. The second term is merely supplementary to or explanatory of the first term. The combination of terms refers to man’s intellectual, spiritual, volitional, and ethical capacity. In short the combination “image and likeness” refers to all that sets man apart from the animal kingdom. Neither term refers to man’s body!

James E. Smith, The Pentateuch, 2nd ed., Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1993), 56–57.