Understanding the GodHead.

[TheHC]

I understand that the concept of Trinity was historically necessary to resolve the fact that the NT writers (reflecting church tradition back to the apostles) attributed to Jesus attributes that rightly belonged to God in the OT.

Like what attributes, exactly?

Didn’t Jesus say at Matthew 28:18, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth”?

So we should expect Jesus to have certain attributes, more than any other being, besides God.

Yes, Jesus Christ is the Lord to “whom every knee should bow”, because God “exalted him.”

Again, it was His Father who “kindly” did that, not himself. — Philippians 2:9-11; Psalm 110:1

And the Apostles (and the other first-century Christians) twice stated in their prayer @ Acts 4:24-30, that Jesus was not God, but God’s “Holy Servant.”

No, the Trinity has no support in Scripture, only by changing certain verses and adding Greek philosophical ideas such as “nature” & “essence”.
That is why the concept didn’t begin right away in Christendom, but rather took over 300 years to develop.

Around the time, ie., during Constantine the Great’s rule, when factions of Christendom began killing each other. Ignoring Christ’s explicit commands to ‘love their brother’ & ‘love their enemy.’ - John 13:34,35; Matthew 5:44.

1 John 3:10-16. Matthew 7:21-23

 

[TheHC]

…otherwise it was just a mere man on the cross and man is lost.

No… a perfect man, corresponding to Adam.

Nothing more was needed.

 

[Aunty Jane]

And yet He came, fully man and fully God, that is the basis of Christian belief, otherwise it was just a mere man on the cross and man is lost.

No one can be fully God and fully human at the same time….God is immortal and man is not…so who died?
Did Jesus need to be God in order to redeem mankind? The answer is no! The truth is, Jesus cannot be God and be put to death by mere mortals.

In order to pay the redemption price, which was set with Adam’s sin……Jesus needed to pay back what Adam took away from his children….which was sinless everlasting life on earth….not in heaven.

Jesus was not a “mere man” but he was 100% human….only without sin like Adam was. He had none of Adam’s DNA because he did not have a human father. He was born to a Jewish virgin which gave him the lineage required for him to be Messiah.

 

[Wrangler]

No one can be fully God and fully human at the same time

This is why the trinity is inherently illogical. It requires one to abandon the Law of Mutual Exclusivity and embrace dualism; in and out, up and down, dead and alive, Given and giver all at the same time and reference.

 

[Lambano]

Like what attributes, exactly?

I had three particular sets of verses in mind:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-3; 14)​

​

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17)​

​

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,... (Philippians 2:5-6)​

The early church attributed to Jesus Christ preexistence before Creation in the form and image of God (whatever that is) and co-credit for Creation. Credit for the creation of all things in Jewish monotheism belongs to God and God alone, going all the way back to Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If you want to say that John and Paul overstepped the bounds of traditional Jewish monotheism when they credited Jesus Christ for Creation and that those verses should not be considered as "inspired", I'm okay with that. (Though others may freak out if you say it out loud.) But you have to deal with those verses, which is what Chalcedon and Nicaea were about.

 

[Wrangler]

I had particularly three particular sets of verses:

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

You know this does not refer to Jesus, right?

 

[Runningman]

I had particularly three particular sets of verses:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.... 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-3; 12)​

​

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:15-17)​

​

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,... (Philippians 2:5-6)​

The early church attributed to Jesus Christ preexistence before Creation in the form and image of God (whatever that is) and co-credit for Creation. Credit for the creation of all things in Jewish monotheism belongs to God and God alone, going all the way back to Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If you want to say that John and Paul overstepped the bounds of traditional Jewish monotheism when they credited Jesus Christ for Creation and that those verses should not be considered as "inspired", I'm okay with that. (Though others may freak out if you say it out loud.) But you have to deal with those verses, which is what Chalcedon and Nicaea were about.

How can Jesus be the creator when God didn't speak in the past through the Son, but only spoke through him in these last days, contrary to the Bible saying God spoke in beginning to create the heavens and earth? And how can the Son be the creator when he is an appointed heir? The Creator doesn't need to make Himself an appointed heir of His own creation. I think you're probably reading John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-17, and Philippians 2:5-6 wrong.

Hebrews 1 (Berean literal Bible)
1God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,

 

[TheHC]

…John and Paul overstepped the bounds of traditional Jewish monotheism when they credited Jesus Christ for Creation….

Never does the Bible say that “creation came from Jesus”! Never.

“All things” came from the Father, but through Jesus. 1 Corinthians 8:5,6

Jesus was God’s agent. God’s “master worker”. Proverbs 8:30

Hebrews 1:1,2 states:
“God … hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his [God’s] Son, whom he [God] appointed heir of all things, through whom also he [God] made the worlds;”

So who did Paul say “made the worlds”? God did… through His Son.

Colossians 1:15,16 reads similarly.

Just as a business firm (owner) who wants a structure built, uses a construction company, who follows the blueprints.
The structure comes from the business owner, through the construction company.

It’s the same with the Bible: it was through 40 writers that the Bible came into existence, but they’re not the author(s). God is. It’s His thoughts. He should rightfully get the credit.

I hope you note the difference, my cousin.

 

[APAK]

It's beyond me how, and I know why though, many of a different persuasion who call the Son, God, without real qualification, that the biblical Son of God is the Creator in several verses, including the ones brought up here...John 1:1-2, Colossians 1:15-17, and Philippians 2:5-6.

I mean there seems to be some very brainy and logical folks on the site, and yet these same ones leave their gifts at the door when it come to interpreting scripture, as they also usually ignore context all together of course. They see that only one verse is usually sufficient to capture the essence of what is being said some how...very puzzling, indeed

 

[Lambano]

Jesus was God’s agent. God’s “master worker”. Proverbs 8:30

Who else was there, TheHC?

 

[Lambano]

“All things” came from the Father, through Jesus.

Yep. Before the beginning of time, Christ was there.

What IS Jesus Christ, that he existed from before the foundation of the world and was instrumental in creating all that is?

 

[Lambano]

Jesus was God’s agent. God’s “master worker”. Proverbs 8:30

Yep. Philo of Alexandrea, a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, also made the connection between the Chochmah (the personified "Wisdom of God" in Proverbs 8:22-31 that was there from the beginning of Creation) and the Logos (the principle that orders all of Creation in neo-Platonic philosophy) in John's prologue.

 

[Lambano]

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

You know this does not refer to Jesus, right?

"Outos" is a contraction of "o" ("the") and "autos" ("he") and means literally, "this one". It is translated as "he" 31x in the KJV, depending on whether the context points to a person.

Since it says in verse 14 that the Logos become flesh and dwelt among us, obviously referring to Christ, I have to conclude that the Logos has existential continuity with Christ.

Furthermore, the context of verses 11 and 12 have to refer to Christ, so 10 does also.

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:...

 

[Brakelite]

Yep. Before the beginning of time, Christ was there.

What IS Jesus Christ, that he existed from before the foundation of the world and was instrumental in creating all that is?

The Son of God. No one has been game enough to suggest that somehow a perfect God brought forth a Son Who was less than, or other than, God. What being in all God's universe is of a different species than the one from which He is generated?

 

[KUWN]

I see the Trinity as God having three roles, as my dad was a father, husband, son, lawyer, and other things.

This is modalism. It was deemed heretical with the early church. There are 3 separate Beings in the Godhead. Jesus did not have 2 wills, 2 intellects, etc. He had only the divine attributes, not the human. That is why Paul says that Christ came in the likeness of man.

 

[Wrangler]

"Outos" is a contraction of "o" ("the") and "autos" ("he") and means literally, "this one".

“This” is not Jesus. You know that, right?

He was in the world, and the world was made by him

Bad translation. Through, not by. You must know that.

 

[Lambano]

The Son of God. No one has been game enough to suggest that somehow a perfect God brought forth a Son Who was less than, or other than, God. What being in all God's universe is of a different species than the one from which He is generated?

Okay, so we can conclude that the Son of God is a god?

How much reverence should we give this second god?

You see the problem, and why Nicea had to happen?

 

[Wrangler]

Okay, so we can conclude that the Son of God is a god?

How much reverence should we give this second god?

You see the problem, and why Nicea had to happen?

No. There are many lords and so called gods, including Jesus. However, Jesus said the Father is the only true God. Do you believe Jesus?

 

[Lambano]

Bad translation. Through, not by. You must know that.

Yes, it is "di'", "through", indicating instrumentality, which can be expressed by "by" in English. The Colossians 1:16 quote uses the prepositions en, "in" and eis, "into", as well as di'. For the purposes of this argument, it does not matter. Jesus still has existential continuity with the Logos according to John, and Paul says explicitly that Christ was instrumental in creating all that is. We still have to deal with it.

The question still stands: WHAT is this thing that was instrumental in Creation and has existential continuity with Jesus?

 

[TheHC]

The Son of God. No one has been game enough to suggest that somehow a perfect God brought forth a Son Who was less than, or other than, God. What being in all God's universe is of a different species than the one from which He is generated?

Adam, “son of God.” Luke 3:38

The angels are “sons of God,” who were living before earth's creation. Job 38:7

Although they are His sons (He gave them life), they are not God.