Is my concept of the Trinity,heretical?

[shepherdsword]

Yes, Scripture is clear that the Word was God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. My question is, why does that mean they are three different persons? Can the Omnipresent ONE Person exist as various forms/modes at the same time if He so chooses? The reason I ask is because although it is clear that Jesus is God, Scripture is also clear that God is One. I think that means one person. There is nothing in the Old Testament that would hint at God being three persons. It’s always one God throughout.

The plurality of God is established in the OT. Even the use of "echad" to denote "one" implies a unity of plurality. What you need to do is anytime you see the statement "One God" think of the unity and oneness that exists between a man and his wife. This is what "one" means in that context.

Gn 1:26 . And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It's pretty clear hear that this counsel was between the Trinity. We are not created after the similitude of angels.


Here we see one Jehovah raining down fire from another Jehovah which was in heaven

Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Yes, we can use the word one in different contexts to mean different things. But God was always clear that He is the one and only God. The Word was in the bosom of the Father. The Word was brought forth and took on the divine form

You are reading a definition into "bosom" that isn't there. It simply means he was at the side of the Father and was dwelling in his love. It doesn't mean he was trapped like a pre-born fetus inside the Father.

(Phil. 2:6) and thousands of years later, took on the human form (Phil. 2:7). Is it possible that the one Infinite God manifested Himself in the preincarnate Word (the image of the invisible God, Col. 1:15) and became man?

We have many instances of Jesus praying to the Father and the Father answering. So,no,I don't think it's possible.

This would mean that Jesus by identity is God—Jesus is the Person of God. But Jesus is also very much a man with a human nature and a human consciousness. Jesus is distinct from the Father because Jesus is the Infinite God existing as man with a human consciousness in order to experience all the things a man experiences—in order to redeem man. At the same time, the Father continues to exist as the Infinite God. God existing beyond the incarnation and God existing after the incarnation.

This really doesn't make any sense to me but I have heard similar explanations attempted from the "Jesus only" camp.

As far as I know, there is nothing in Scripture that would deny what I’ve suggested above. Do you know of anything? The Trinity (3 persons in 1) can be supported in the NT to an extent (i.e. there are distinctions between Father and Son and they're both God), but what that doesn’t harmonize with is the teaching that God is one God, one Person. But this omnipresent Person certainly could manifest in many ways all at the same time.

The baptism of Jesus was a good place to show the Trinity and it's three distinct personages. Jesus was being baptized,the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove and the Father spoke "This is my beloved Son..."

Are you saying they were all three the same person? When Jesus prays to the Father he is really talking to himself? Sounds "Jesus only" to me.

Maybe we shouldn’t use the word “begotten" for the preincarnate Word, but what does it mean that the Word was “with” God?

To me, that denotes distinction. What is the difference between “being in the bosom” and “being with” God? Whether you call it begotten or not, at some point, the Infinite God distinguished the Word that was previously in the bosom of the Father[/quote].

Not only "with" God but also WAS God. It portrays the distinct and separate personages of the Godhead,just as I have been contemplating. The word was always with God and the word has always been God...that's what the grammar implies.
Do you believe Jesus had a beginning or does he have eternal preexistence?

What is the divine form that Jesus emptied himself of (Phil. 2:6-7, cf. John 17:5)? Why was Jesus existing in a divine form at all? The Infinite God does not exist “in” a divine form; He is divine.

Please quote the scripture that states that God does not have a form. Even "Spirit" is a form of some type. In fact,there is no difference from having a divine form and "being divine". They mean the same thing.

[LookingUp]

The plurality of God is established in the OT. Even the use of "echad" to denote "one" implies a unity of plurality. What you need to do is anytime you see the statement "One God" think of the unity and oneness that exists between a man and his wife. This is what "one" means in that context.

If I think of God like that then I picture three Gods. My husband and I may be one in purpose and intentions, etc., but we're still two persons with two identities.

Gn 1:26 . And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

It's pretty clear hear that this counsel was between the Trinity. We are not created after the similitude of angels.


Here we see one Jehovah raining down fire from another Jehovah which was in heaven

Gn 19:24 . Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Yes, I’m familiar with those passages. These show that there was distinction existing before creation; the Word had been distinguished for the sake of the soon-to-be creation. But what I want to know is why we have to say distinction means there was more than one Person. Why is it not just as possible to say that this one Person existed in more than one form? By doing so, we avoid separating the Person into three persons. It seems just as reasonable to say God is one person existing as the Infinite God and at the same time the same one person existing as the Word (the image of the invisible God, Col. 1:15). I think the main reason there is resistance to this idea is because it seems to make God out to be schizophrenic. So it seems the Trinity (3 persons & 1 God) is the only logical way to reconcile this without making God out to be someone who talks to Himself. But let’s say I wanted to experience life as a dog but at the same I wanted to continue to live as a human. So I place my person within a dog. Same person/personality but living through doggie consciousness. My person/personality being aware of life through a doggie nature. I could then talk to myself, the dog. Still me, but I’d be experiencing life as a dog in addition to experiencing life as a human. Is it possible that this is just what God did when He chose to exist as man? Was the Word the preliminary setting for that existence? This whole idea may sound odd at first, but I don’t think any odder than saying one being can be three persons and still be one being.

You are reading a definition into "bosom" that isn't there. It simply means he was at the side of the Father and was dwelling in his love. It doesn't mean he was trapped like a pre-born fetus inside the Father.

The Son is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created…” (Col. 1:15-16). I don’t think this is a reference to his incarnate state. This context is about the original creation. How could the incarnate Son create the original creation, all things? He didn’t. The preincarnate Word created all things. It is the preincarnate Word who is the image of the invisible God who was the firstborn who created all things. When did the Word become the firstborn and create all things? Even if you think the Word “in the bosom” means “at His side,” the Word was the firstborn of the creation he created; the Word is “the Beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). The Creator could not have been created thousands of years after creation and still be considered the Creator. He became the firstborn of creation just before creating.

We have many instances of Jesus praying to the Father and the Father answering. So,no,I don't think it's possible.

This really doesn't make any sense to me but I have heard similar explanations attempted from the "Jesus only" camp.

The baptism of Jesus was a good place to show the Trinity and it's three distinct personages. Jesus was being baptized,the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove and the Father spoke "This is my beloved Son..."

Are you saying they were all three the same person? When Jesus prays to the Father he is really talking to himself? Sounds "Jesus only" to me.

I hope my explanation above helped answer this. But taking the view of the Trinity, isn’t it still one God praying to Himself? When Jesus prays, isn’t it God praying to God? Some say, well it’s Jesus’ human nature praying to God. Where is his divine nature during this prayer? He sometimes sets it aside and other times he doesn’t? It seems to me that Jesus is not half man and half God. He is wholly man and wholly God. Coming from the Trinity point of view, Jesus is God praying to God. Why does he need God’s help at all? He is fully God. But taking this other view I’m mulling around in my head, Jesus would be God existing as a man with a human consciousness (he is only aware of himself as a human) praying to God existing as the Infinite God with His infinite consciousness.

Not only "with" God but also WAS God. It portrays the distinct and separate personages of the Godhead,just as I have been contemplating. The word was always with God and the word has always been God...that's what the grammar implies.
Do you believe Jesus had a beginning or does he have eternal preexistence?

The man had a beginning, obviously. I’m thinking the preincarnate Word had a beginning, because distinctions are for our benefit. And I’m thinking that the Word always existed within God.

Please quote the scripture that states that God does not have a form. Even "Spirit" is a form of some type. In fact,there is no difference from having a divine form and "being divine". They mean the same thing.

The infinite God is invisible and is omnipresent. I think of this as sort of like air. So, no, I don’t think of God as having a form which would put some kind of limits on Him. But if divine form and being divine are the same thing as you say, are you saying Jesus was not divine after he emptied himself of the divine form (Phil. 2:6-7)?

What is the divine form that Jesus emptied himself of (Phil. 2:6-7, cf. John 17:5)? Why was Jesus existing in a divine form at all?

[shepherdsword]

If I think of God like that then I picture three Gods. My husband and I may be one in purpose and intentions, etc., but we're still two persons with two identities.

And this is true of the Trinity as well. One God in three distinct persons. It's the whole reason "echad" was used.

Yes, I’m familiar with those passages. These show that there was distinction existing before creation; the Word had been distinguished for the sake of the soon-to-be creation. But what I want to know is why we have to say distinction means there was more than one Person. Why is it not just as possible to say that this one Person existed in more than one form? By doing so, we avoid separating the Person into three persons.

There are some who do that. They typically have a "Jesus only" doctrine. United Pentecostals are among their ranks as are the Apostolic Lighthouse churches.
We don't avoid separating them into three distinct persons because when God declared himself one this is what he was saying:

Behold,Oh Israel Your Elohim(plural for El or god) is One(echad a unity of plurality such as man and wife)

It seems just as reasonable to say God is one person existing as the Infinite God and at the same time the same one person existing as the Word (the image of the invisible God, Col. 1:15).

No,that goes a bit beyond reason since you brought logic into it.You cannot be the Father of your son and be that son at the same time. That defies logic.

I think the main reason there is resistance to this idea is because it seems to make God out to be schizophrenic.

Well,schizophrenic isn't quite the correct psychological term,more like "multiple personality disorder"

So it seems the Trinity (3 persons & 1 God) is the only logical way to reconcile this without making God out to be someone who talks to Himself.

It pretty much is and that's what the Hebrew seems to imply.

But let’s say I wanted to experience life as a dog but at the same I wanted to continue to live as a human. So I place my person within a dog. Same person/personality but living through doggie consciousness. My person/personality being aware of life through a doggie nature. I could then talk to myself, the dog. Still me, but I’d be experiencing life as a dog in addition to experiencing life as a human. Is it possible that this is just what God did when He chose to exist as man? Was the Word the preliminary setting for that existence? This whole idea may sound odd at first, but I don’t think any odder than saying one being can be three persons and still be one being.

You lost me with the doggie thingie but as I said before. When you try to get into to much detail on the Trinity it inevitably leads to deception. The hebrew and greek texts both reveal the trinity. I guess the best approach is too present the verses that prove it,say that it is,and not talk too much about little doggies

The Son is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created…” (Col. 1:15-16). I don’t think this is a reference to his incarnate state. This context is about the original creation. How could the incarnate Son create the original creation, all things? He didn’t. The preincarnate Word created all things. It is the preincarnate Word who is the image of the invisible God who was the firstborn who created all things. When did the Word become the firstborn and create all things? Even if you think the Word “in the bosom” means “at His side,” the Word was the firstborn of the creation he created; the Word is “the Beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14). The Creator could not have been created thousands of years after creation and still be considered the Creator. He became the firstborn of creation just before creating.

The "pre-carnate word" and the word incarnate are both the same person,without beginning or end. He is the "firstborn of creation" in the sense he was the first one gloriously resurrected and is the firstborn of the new creation,the new heavens and the new earth. If he had any beginning at all then he doesn't have eternal preexistence ,if he doesn't have that he cannot be God.

I hope my explanation above helped answer this. But taking the view of the Trinity, isn’t it still one God praying to Himself? When Jesus prays, isn’t it God praying to God?

He was praying as a man and for the benefit of those around him but he worshiped the Father as well. So yes,God was worshiping God but let's not forget since the incarnation he is also man as well as God.

Some say, well it’s Jesus’ human nature praying to God. Where is his divine nature during this prayer? He sometimes sets it aside and other times he doesn’t? It seems to me that Jesus is not half man and half God. He is wholly man and wholly God. Coming from the Trinity point of view, Jesus is God praying to God. Why does he need God’s help at all? He is fully God. But taking this other view I’m mulling around in my head, Jesus would be God existing as a man with a human consciousness (he is only aware of himself as a human) praying to God existing as the Infinite God with His infinite consciousness.

When he prays he prays as a man. He doesn't have to lay aside his divine nature to do that.

The man had a beginning, obviously. I’m thinking the preincarnate Word had a beginning, because distinctions are for our benefit. And I’m thinking that the Word always existed within God.

I am not following you here. You seem to be saying that the Word had a beginning and yet it always was.

The infinite God is invisible and is omnipresent. I think of this as sort of like air. So, no, I don’t think of God as having a form which would put some kind of limits on Him. But if divine form and being divine are the same thing as you say, are you saying Jesus was not divine after he emptied himself of the divine form (Phil. 2:6-7)?

God has a form. The Father sits on a throne and if he does that he must have a form.

What is the divine form that Jesus emptied himself of (Phil. 2:6-7, cf. John 17:5)?

Well,the divine form is the ...divine form! I haven't seen it yet so I can only speculate

Why was Jesus existing in a divine form at all?

The only reason I can think of is....because he is divine!

[Servant89]

... they were all co-equal in power and authority. I believe the respective offices and differences of position we now see are as a result of creation and the redemptive work.

Is this in error? If it is what scriptures refute it?

They are still co equal in power and authority... Just like Obama and me. Obama is greater than me in position, but he can not claim that he is BETTER than me because he is a human being just like me... Same substance.

god the father is greater in position than Jesus, but he never claimed to be BETTER.

Peace

[LookingUp]

And this is true of the Trinity as well. One God in three distinct persons. It's the whole reason "echad" was used.

Maybe. You must keep in mind that the Hebrew word for "one" operates as does the word “one” in English. You can have one thing, one person and you can have one family, one people (a single unit composed of two or more).

Now, if your understanding of echad when used for God was so obvious, how come thousands of years of theologians didn’t know this until Christ? When ancient Jews worshipped, they worshipped one person. They in no way thought God was more than one person/personality/identity. They still don’t. They had it wrong for thousands of years? Maybe, maybe not. We have it right (i.e. the Trinity) because Jesus displayed obvious distinctness from His Father yet is called the exact representation of the nature of God and the complete revelation of God? Maybe, maybe not. We feel without another way to explain how to reconcile these things. I’m sure you realize we are using our finite minds to comprehend an infinite Being. So, I hope you realize we can both be wrong here. All we are doing is trying to come up with the most convincing, harmonious, rational and complete understanding of how God has revealed Himself to us. No matter what we come up with, we will both come up lacking. That, however, doesn’t stop me because I enjoy the pursuit and learn more Scripture and more about this God through the process. So, when you say that this is what “echad” has meant all along, I don’t automatically jump on that wagon without asking myself some serious questions. Your suggestion is possible but it still has some holes. If you completely ignore the holes, you may miss something important.

There are some who do that. They typically have a "Jesus only" doctrine. United Pentecostals are among their ranks as are the Apostolic Lighthouse churches.
We don't avoid separating them into three distinct persons because when God declared himself one this is what he was saying:

Behold,Oh Israel Your Elohim(plural for El or god) is One(echad a unity of plurality such as man and wife)

Elohim is also used to describe the false god Dagon yet no one imagines that Dagon is a plurality. In Hebrew, the plural form is used (you will find it used throughout the Old Testament) to stress exaltation.

Why were the Jews so emphatic about this verse you’ve given if it merely meant union? This idea that God was one person was ingrained in their heads for thousands of years BECAUSE of this verse.

No,that goes a bit beyond reason since you brought logic into it.You cannot be the Father of your son and be that son at the same time. That defies logic.

God is “Father” because He fathered a human child. "Father" would be used as God’s existence beyond the flesh and “Son” would be used of God’s existence in the flesh. The Father is only Spirit and the Son, who has the deity of the Father, is a human being. “Father” is attributed to God to distinguish between God’s existence as a man and His existence as the omnipresent Spirit. Jesus didn’t say, “When you see me you see God” he said, “When you see me you see the Father.”

Well,schizophrenic isn't quite the correct psychological term,more like "multiple personality disorder"

Right, that’s sounds more like it. You get the idea.

It pretty much is and that's what the Hebrew seems to imply.

There are many scholars who disagree. Do you ever wonder why it took thousands of years to finally see that implication? There are even many Hebrew scholars who realize that this argument is weak and quite unconvincing but still adhere to the notion of the Trinity. In other words, you will always find convincing opposition to this particular argument for support of the Trinity. There are other arguments that are more convincing.

You lost me with the doggie thingie but as I said before. When you try to get into to much detail on the Trinity it inevitably leads to deception. The hebrew and greek texts both reveal the trinity. I guess the best approach is too present the verses that prove it,say that it is,and not talk too much about little doggies

The doggie analogy was not to show the Trinity; it was to show the other view. The egg (shell, yolk, egg white) and water (solid, liquid, gas) illustrate the Trinity. Sure, any analogy breaks down at some point but it was simply meant to give you an idea of how it might look.

The "pre-carnate word" and the word incarnate are both the same person,without beginning or end.

Was the preincarnate Word existing during the incarnation according to your view?

He is the "firstborn of creation" in the sense he was the first one gloriously resurrected

Well…that would relate to the new creation. The resurrection relates to the new creation. What about the original creation? You can’t be the firstborn of the original creation thousands of years after creation began. Show me the verse you have in mind and in what way it specifically supports your view here. And remember Rev. 3:14 says he is the “beginning of the creation of God.” This refers to the original creation.

and is the firstborn of the new creation,the new heavens and the new earth. If he had any beginning at all then he doesn't have eternal preexistence ,if he doesn't have that he cannot be God.

The man, Jesus, had a beginning and he was/is still God. So why couldn’t the personal Spirit, the Word, have a beginning and still be God?

Picture this…uh oh, another analogy. :-) Air fills up all things. Let’s say the air is eternal. Put some of the air into a balloon and the air inside the balloon is exactly the same as the air outside the balloon. It’s the same eternal air and the air outside of the balloon continues to exist alongside the air inside the balloon. The flesh of Jesus had a beginning, but his identity was God, who is eternal. The divine form of the Word had a beginning, but his identity was God, who is eternal. It is not the form or manifestation or image that is eternal, it’s the person/identity of that form who is eternal.

He was praying as a man and for the benefit of those around him but he worshiped the Father as well. So yes,God was worshiping God but let's not forget since the incarnation he is also man as well as God.

Right, and in the view I’m suggesting God in the human form with a finite human consciousness was praying to God in Spirit with an infinite consciousness.

When he prays he prays as a man. He doesn't have to lay aside his divine nature to do that.

When he prays as a man, does he know all things?

I am not following you here. You seem to be saying that the Word had a beginning and yet it always was.

Did Jesus, the man, have a beginning yet always was?

God has a form.

Since when?

The Father sits on a throne and if he does that he must have a form.

Before creation (angels, humans, etc.), did the Father “sit” on a throne? If so, for whose benefit? Was God in a visible form before creation? If so, why?

How does an omnipresent being have a form? Wouldn’t that simply be another manifestation?

Well,the divine form is the ...divine form! I haven't seen it yet so I can only speculate

But you agree that Jesus emptied himself of a divine form? When did he do that? Why did he do that?

The only reason I can think of is....because he is divine!

Wasn’t he divine after he emptied himself of the divine form? So again, what was the purpose of the divine form that Jesus existed in prior to him emptying himself of it before he came in the form of man?

Before incarnation: Jesus existed in divine form and emptied himself of it
After incarnation: Jesus is divine

Therefore, the divine form and being divine cannot be the same exact thing.

After the incarnation, Jesus existed in the HUMAN FORM. What was the divine form he previously existed in?

[shepherdsword]

Maybe. You must keep in mind that the Hebrew word for "one" operates as does the word “one” in English. You can have one thing, one person and you can have one family, one people (a single unit composed of two or more).

You need to keep in mind that the hebrew isn't saying what you are implying.

Now, if your understanding of echad when used for God was so obvious, how come thousands of years of theologians didn’t know this until Christ? When ancient Jews worshipped, they worshipped one person. They in no way thought God was more than one person/personality/identity. They still don’t. They had it wrong for thousands of years? Maybe, maybe not. We have it right (i.e. the Trinity) because Jesus displayed obvious distinctness from His Father yet is called the exact representation of the nature of God and the complete revelation of God? Maybe, maybe not. We feel without another way to explain how to reconcile these things. I’m sure you realize we are using our finite minds to comprehend an infinite Being. So, I hope you realize we can both be wrong here. All we are doing is trying to come up with the most convincing, harmonious, rational and complete understanding of how God has revealed Himself to us. No matter what we come up with, we will both come up lacking. That, however, doesn’t stop me because I enjoy the pursuit and learn more Scripture and more about this God through the process. So, when you say that this is what “echad” has meant all along, I don’t automatically jump on that wagon without asking myself some serious questions. Your suggestion is possible but it still has some holes. If you completely ignore the holes, you may miss something important.

I admit my "holes". Although yours are much broader due to the fact that you are trying to precisely define something that is almost impossible to define.I note your entire lack of scriptural justification for your opinion and yet you demand proof for mine.
As for the mystery of the trinity...there are several mysteries that were plainly stated in the OT that were not fully revealed until Christ came and the NT written.
The gentile church for one...it was missed. The suffering messiah coming as the atonement for sin is another...the jews still miss that as well.

Elohim is also used to describe the false god Dagon yet no one imagines that Dagon is a plurality. In Hebrew, the plural form is used (you will find it used throughout the Old Testament) to stress exaltation.

*sigh* This is why Dagon is referred to as a plurality. From wiki:

wiki:The god Dagon first appears in extant records about 2500 BC in the Mari texts and in personal Amorite names in which the gods Ilu (Ēl), Dagan, and Adad are especially common.

At Ebla (Tell Mardikh), from at least 2300 BC, Dagan was the head of the city pantheon comprising some 200 deities and bore the titles BE-DINGIR-DINGIR, "Lord of the gods" and Bekalam, "Lord of the land". His consort was known only as Belatu, "Lady". Both were worshipped in a large temple complex called E-Mul, "House of the Star". One entire quarter of Ebla and one of its gates were named after Dagan. Dagan is called ti-lu ma-tim, "dew of the land" and Be-ka-na-na, possibly "Lord of Canaan". He was called lord of many cities: of Tuttul, Irim, Ma-Ne, Zarad, Uguash, Siwad, and Sipishu.

Why were the Jews so emphatic about this verse you’ve given if it merely meant union? This idea that God was one person was ingrained in their heads for thousands of years BECAUSE of this verse.

Why do the Jews reject the messiah? Why did the Jews who even believed in the Messiah miss the gentile church? All for the same reason...spiritual blindness.

God is “Father” because He fathered a human child. "Father" would be used as God’s existence beyond the flesh and “Son” would be used of God’s existence in the flesh. The Father is only Spirit and the Son, who has the deity of the Father, is a human being. “Father” is attributed to God to distinguish between God’s existence as a man and His existence as the omnipresent Spirit. Jesus didn’t say, “When you see me you see God” he said, “When you see me you see the Father.”

I guessed you missed it when I pretty much said the same thing in my OP.

There are many scholars who disagree.
Do you ever wonder why it took thousands of years to finally see that implication? There are even many Hebrew scholars who realize that this argument is weak and quite unconvincing but still adhere to the notion of the Trinity. In other words, you will always find convincing opposition to this particular argument for support of the Trinity.

There are many scholars who deny the existence of God altogether and claim the bible is just a collection of myths gathered from the surrounding area of Canaan.
Do you believe them? There are plenty of hebrew scholars who deny Jesus is the messiah...do you believe them?

There are other arguments that are more convincing.

Then please state them because I have yet to hear them

The doggie analogy was not to show the Trinity; it was to show the other view. The egg (shell, yolk, egg white) and water (solid, liquid, gas) illustrate the Trinity. Sure, any analogy breaks down at some point but it was simply meant to give you an idea of how it might look.

I didn't get where you were trying to lead with that analogy. It didn't make sense at all.

Was the preincarnate Word existing during the incarnation according to your view?

The preincarnate word became the incarnate word. It's that simple. John 1:1 the Word was with God and the Word was God...John 1:14...the Word BECAME`flesh and dwelt among us.

Well…that would relate to the new creation. The resurrection relates to the new creation. What about the original creation? You can’t be the firstborn of the original creation thousands of years after creation began. Show me the verse you have in mind and in what way it specifically supports your view here. And remember Rev. 3:14 says he is the “beginning of the creation of God.” This refers to the original creation.

He is the beginning of the creation of God,in fact he is the creator of it himself. I suggest you go and read the entire first chapter of the gospel of John.
Your views are beginning to look suspiciously non-christian. Are you a Jehovah's witness by chance? Not meant as an insult,it's a valid question. The believe that Jesus is a created being just as you seem to be suggesting. If not a JW,do you belong to any denomination?

The man, Jesus, had a beginning and he was/is still God. So why couldn’t the personal Spirit, the Word, have a beginning and still be God?

The Spirit and the word are two different persons. Niether can have a beginning because once you assign that to them you make them no longer " I am that I am"
meaning always was,always is and always will be. That is one of the criteria for deity.

Picture this…uh oh, another analogy. :-) Air fills up all things. Let’s say the air is eternal. Put some of the air into a balloon and the air inside the balloon is exactly the same as the air outside the balloon. It’s the same eternal air and the air outside of the balloon continues to exist alongside the air inside the balloon. The flesh of Jesus had a beginning, but his identity was God, who is eternal. The divine form of the Word had a beginning, but his identity was God, who is eternal. It is not the form or manifestation or image that is eternal, it’s the person/identity of that form who is eternal.

Can you present your concepts with scripture? Your analogies are lost on me.

Right, and in the view I’m suggesting God in the human form with a finite human consciousness was praying to God in Spirit with an infinite consciousness.'

That what the doctrine of "kenosis" suggests.

When he prays as a man, does he know all things?

He didn't know the day or the hour of his return did he? His knowledge was limited by his "kenosis" and becoming human. This was so he could be in all manner tested and tried as we are and even learning as we learn...by suffering.

Did Jesus, the man, have a beginning yet always was?

He told the jews...before Abraham was ..I AM...not I WAS....you figure it out.

Since when?

Tell me how you think a formless being can have a face and sit on a throne.

Before creation (angels, humans, etc.), did the Father “sit” on a throne? If so, for whose benefit? Was God in a visible form before creation? If so, why?

Did you read my OP? I have already answered that.

How does an omnipresent being have a form? Wouldn’t that simply be another manifestation?

I'm not sure what you mean by "manifestation".

But you agree that Jesus emptied himself of a divine form? When did he do that? Why did he do that?

When he was born as a baby and for the purpose of being tempted and tested just as we are.

Wasn’t he divine after he emptied himself of the divine form? So again, what was the purpose of the divine form that Jesus existed in prior to him emptying himself of it before he came in the form of man?

Divine in nature and yet not in power. Like I said,it was to be tested as we are tested.

Before incarnation: Jesus existed in divine form and emptied himself of it
After incarnation: Jesus is divine

Therefore, the divine form and being divine cannot be the same exact thing.

After the incarnation, Jesus existed in the HUMAN FORM. What was the divine form he previously existed in?

The form relates to omnipresence ,omniscience and omnipower. Everything he did that was supernatural was done by the Spirit. That is what he laid down for us. Nature relates to virtue and character.

[LookingUp]

You need to keep in mind that the hebrew isn't saying what you are implying.

According to some. You are free to deny that many other acclaimed Christian scholars think differently than you on this, but ignoring that reality doesn’t help your case.

I admit my "holes". Although yours are much broader due to the fact that you are trying to precisely define something that is almost impossible to define.

I don't know what you mean here.

I note your entire lack of scriptural justification for your opinion and yet you demand proof for mine.

I’m familiar with the Trinity and do not need Scriptural proof for its justification, so I’d be surprised if you can find a post where I asked for it. Both of these views use the same Scriptures. That is that God is one and yet Jesus was clearly distinct from His Father. The Trinity attempts to keep God one by saying that He is one unity and three persons. I feel there is something suspiciously off in this definition. Many do—I’m certainly not alone in this. This other view is simply another attempt to keep God one in Person by saying that He is capable of existing in more than one mode of existence at a time. One of these views could be correct or both could be wrong.

As for the mystery of the trinity...there are several mysteries that were plainly stated in the OT that were not fully revealed until Christ came and the NT written.
The gentile church for one...it was missed.

I, personally, don’t feel you can use that particular mystery as an example since it is clearly stated in Scripture that it was withheld from the Jews until its revelation by the Apostle Paul. So it wasn't "missed" at all.

The suffering messiah

The Jews did/do believe in a suffering Messiah.

coming as the atonement for sin is another...the jews still miss that as well.

Yes, as far as I’m aware, this was missed.

*sigh* This is why Dagon is referred to as a plurality. From wiki:

Well Smith’s Bible Dictionary disagrees with “wiki.” But do you really think this is the only one? The Old Testament is full of this kind of plurality—it’s used for the false gods Chemosh, Ashtarte, Milcom as well, for example. And elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by Israel in the wilderness. And these are only a few examples. Look it up if you want to. I'm just trying to explain why I remain unconvinced on this one.

Why do the Jews reject the messiah?

They didn’t. The Jews were the ones who started the Christian Church.

Why did the Jews who even believed in the Messiah miss the gentile church?

Because it was a mystery (i.e. deliberately withheld from them) until revealed to the Apostle Paul.

All for the same reason...spiritual blindness.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to compare here. Are you saying that Noah, Moses, Joshua, David, etc. didn’t know God was three Persons because they were spiritually blind? For thousands of years God allowed them to worship Him as one Person in spiritual blindness? Why did He allow that? That one very important verse (the sh’ma) was made paramount by God Himself so they would not forget that He was one Person.

I guessed you missed it when I pretty much said the same thing in my OP.

Um…I was just answering your question to me.

There are many scholars who deny the existence of God altogether and claim the bible is just a collection of myths gathered from the surrounding area of Canaan.
Do you believe them? There are plenty of hebrew scholars who deny Jesus is the messiah...do you believe them?

As I wrote, I was not talking about non-Christians. There are many Christian scholars who would disagree with your take one these words. I would think that would at least give you pause.

Then please state them because I have yet to hear them

Well, I did give you one example and above there are a few others, but I’m telling you this not to convince you but to explain why I’m not convinced by your understanding of these words. If you really want to discover other Christian scholars’ understandings of these words, just look them up online. And some of these Christian scholars still believe in the Trinity, so this doesn’t mean the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls on this one argument.

I didn't get where you were trying to lead with that analogy. It didn't make sense at all.

You can’t fathom how the Infinite God could manifest Himself in the man, Jesus? It’s the same way you think the 2nd Person of the Trinity manifested himself in the man, Jesus.

Do you think the entire being of the 2nd person squeezed himself into the man, Jesus, or do you think the 2nd person manifested himself in the man, Jesus, while continuing to exist as the eternal Word with God?

The preincarnate word became the incarnate word. It's that simple. John 1:1 the Word was with God and the Word was God...John 1:14...the Word BECAME`flesh and dwelt among us.

So the preincarnate Word completely transmuted into the man, Jesus? The Word (2nd Person), who is God, changed from one form and into another form (i.e. the previous form completely gone)?

He is the beginning of the creation of God,in fact he is the creator of it himself. I suggest you go and read the entire first chapter of the gospel of John.

I am in total agreement that He is the creator of all things. What I question is that our God who said He is ONE is really three. You misunderstand and allow your misunderstanding to immediately go to labeling me as something I am not (as we see below).

So, if you can, tell me how the Word is the beginning of creation and still the creator of it?

Your views are beginning to look suspiciously non-christian.

Since you know I am Christian by confession that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, Lord and Savior, let’s refrain from those kinds of inappropriate judgment calls. It’s fine to say if you think my view(s) is not in alignment with Scripture but completely inappropriate to say it’s “non-Christian.” That’s getting way too close to a salvation judgment call. And even if you’re going to say it doesn’t harmonize with Scripture, the respectable response is to demonstrate how it does not do this using Scripture rather than opinion.

Are you a Jehovah's witness by chance?

No, I’m not. And would I hope that if I were you would continue to discuss this with me. I hope that if I were “anything” in particular you would continue to discuss this with me. I’m not sure why “names” and “labels” are necessary when Scripture, humility and kindness are available to us.

Not meant as an insult,it's a valid question. The believe that Jesus is a created being just as you seem to be suggesting. If not a JW,do you belong to any denomination?

I’m completely stunned you think that I would believe that Jesus is a created being when I’ve been suggesting all along that he was God Himself existing as man, and is now God as resurrected, glorified man. If you would like to read my post(s) again to try to understand what I’ve written, that would be fine. But let me try to clarify here and say, the created thing I’m referring to is not the Word but the divine form which the Word took on. My proposal is that the Word was brought forth from the bosom of the Father. This idea is similar to the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father (John 15:26). The Holy Spirit is not created but he does proceed from the Father. And let me also say that no denomination taught me any of this; it is something I’ve come upon in my own private studies.

The Spirit and the word are two different persons. Niether can have a beginning because once you assign that to them you make them no longer " I am that I am"
meaning always was,always is and always will be. That is one of the criteria for deity.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Let me start over. Did the man, Jesus, have a beginning? Or do you believe that the man, Jesus, was existing as a human man with God from eternity?

Can you present your concepts with scripture? Your analogies are lost on me.

Can you show me the egg shell, egg white, yolk analogy from Scripture? No, you can’t. It’s an analogy to help explain the idea of the Trinity, because that idea is not directly taught in Scripture. Do you also have trouble understanding the analogies offered to illustrate the Trinity?

That what the doctrine of "kenosis" suggests.

He didn't know the day or the hour of his return did he? His knowledge was limited by his "kenosis" and becoming human. This was so he could be in all manner tested and tried as we are and even learning as we learn...by suffering.

Then these views have this in common.

He told the jews...before Abraham was ..I AM...not I WAS....you figure it out.

It sounds like you are saying that the human man, Jesus, existed eternally with God. Or do you believe it was the 2nd Person (the Word who became man) that existed eternally with God? I hope it’s the second. If so, you can see then that it’s the form of a human, called Jesus, that had a beginning (it's not the 2nd person, the Word, who had a beginning). My suggestion regarding the Word is no different than this idea.

You believe the Word is the 2nd Person who became flesh. I'm saying that the "1st Person" (since there is only one in this view) became the Word who then became flesh. The divine form that the Word took on had a beginning just as much as the human form that the Word took on had a beginning. This is how the Word is the beginning of creation and still the creator of it. This is how the Word is the firstborn of creation and still the creator of creation.

Tell me how you think a formless being can have a face and sit on a throne.

You are the one who told me that he does. So you can explain that to me if you'd like.

Did you read my OP? I have already answered that.

I’m sorry. Have you ever forgotten something you’ve read or misunderstood what you’ve read? If this is the unproductive direction this is going, we can call it quits now. Usually if the other person is feeling defensive, they begin labeling and writing things such as, “I’ve already written that and refuse to write or explain it again.” This kind of response will not lead to growth. And I've had to rewrite things you haven't been able to grasp and yet didn't write, "Well, go to post such and such...I refuse to write another explanation for you!"

I'm not sure what you mean by "manifestation".

To make known by revealing or making visible.

When he was born as a baby and for the purpose of being tempted and tested just as we are.

I agree.

Divine in nature and yet not in power. Like I said,it was to be tested as we are tested.

I agree.

The form relates to omnipresence ,omniscience and omnipower. Everything he did that was supernatural was done by the Spirit. That is what he laid down for us. Nature relates to virtue and character.

I agree. So “divine form” is not the same exact thing as “being divine.” Obviously the one in the divine form is divine. However, being divine doesn’t mean one is in the divine form. So, as I said, He, the Word, emptied Himself of the Divine Form. Before He emptied Himself of the divine form, He was God and was with God. The Word became flesh and took on human form. The Word, still divine, was now in the human form.

edit to add: I just want you to know I'm not out to change your mind. I am testing the Trinity through you (one who adheres to it) as much as I'm testing this other view (I don't even know if it has a name) through you. That's all I'm doing. If you're not interested, we don't have to continue.

[shepherdsword]

edit to add: I just want you to know I'm not out to change your mind. I am testing the Trinity through you (one who adheres to it) as much as I'm testing this other view (I don't even know if it has a name) through you. That's all I'm doing. If you're not interested, we don't have to continue.

Gotcha...now it makes sense. Yes,we can continue. I need to post my article and you can use this method on it if you like.

You had me worried...now I see what it's all about

[Helovesme]

I have a question about the trinity doctrine which says that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are what make up the Godhead of the trinity, and that Jesus is in the Godhead, but the scriptures do not say that all, in fact the scriptures say's that the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus, and the fullness means all of the Godhead, so here we have a doctrine that says Jesus is in the Godhead, but the scriptures say that the Godhead is in Jesus instead, so why is this? these are two totally different things that do not even mean the same thing..

[BroRog]

I have a question about the trinity doctrine which says that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are what make up the Godhead of the trinity, and that Jesus is in the Godhead, but the scriptures do not say that all, in fact the scriptures say's that the fullness of the Godhead is in Jesus, and the fullness means all of the Godhead, so here we have a doctrine that says Jesus is in the Godhead, but the scriptures say that the Godhead is in Jesus instead, so why is this? these are two totally different things that do not even mean the same thing..

If you are talking about what Paul said in Colossians, the phrase "the fullness" refers to the sum total of all believers, both Jew and Gentile.

[Helovesme]

Yes I am referring to Colossians, so let's look at your interpretation used in a sentence shall we. since the sum total of all believers are also referred to as the body of Christ,BTW that's actually from the bible, then the scripture could read like this>>> The body of Christ of the Godhead dwells in the body of Christ.
So is our God a God of confusion?
besides the fact that if you look at strong's use of this particular word fullness, everywhere else it is used, it refers to all of something and that something is the subject and in this case the subject is the Godhead.


or look at it like this, in Romans 11;25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


now remember you said that the fullness refers to the sum total of all believers of the Jews and Gentiles

so let's look at another sentence using your interpretation.

blindness in part has happened to Israel until all of the Jewish and Gentile believers of the Gentiles have come in. well that is clear as mud.....no confusion there either huh?

[BroRog]

Yes I am referring to Colossians, so let's look at your interpretation used in a sentence shall we. since the sum total of all believers are also referred to as the body of Christ,BTW that's actually from the bible, then the scripture could read like this>>> The body of Christ of the Godhead dwells in the body of Christ.
So is our God a God of confusion?
besides the fact that if you look at strong's use of this particular word fullness, everywhere else it is used, it refers to all of something and that something is the subject and in this case the subject is the Godhead.


or look at it like this, in Romans 11;25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


now remember you said that the fullness refers to the sum total of all believers of the Jews and Gentiles

so let's look at another sentence using your interpretation.

blindness in part has happened to Israel until all of the Jewish and Gentile believers of the Gentiles have come in. well that is clear as mud.....no confusion there either huh?

Yes, I said that the term "fullness" refers to the sum total of all believers. And BTW this is ALSO from the Bible, but I'll wait until you are ready.

[Helovesme]

ok, show me where in the bible? cause I am plenty ready, you however are not , cause you didn't even attempt to give an answer for what your ridiculous and unbiblical definition of the term fullness has done to the scripture, how about at least trying to back up what you say with some scripture, cause that's what I will be doing.

[BroRog]

ok, show me where in the bible? cause I am plenty ready, you however are not , cause you didn't even attempt to give an answer for what your ridiculous and unbiblical definition of the term fullness has done to the scripture, how about at least trying to back up what you say with some scripture, cause that's what I will be doing.

You don't seem ready yet. Are you?

[Helovesme]

bring it on , produce the scriptures brother, I am still waiting, you won't know if I am ready or not, until you produce something that is even debatable, will you?