Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?

Same entity; different persons. Seriously, anyone with 2 cents of knowledge about Trinitarianism would know this. How can you be this ignorant?

How about you deal with Jesus also being "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." cf Colossian 1:15-17?

God Bless

If God is a Trinity as you suppose, and given the fact that Christ is the image of the invisible God, then why doesn't he have three heads?

Adam was made in God's image, so why wasn't Adam three persons?

Why is God always the Holy One and not the Holy Three?

Why is the number three NEVER used in scripture in reference to God?

Is Christ in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Christ?
 
Same entity; different persons. Seriously, anyone with 2 cents of knowledge about Trinitarianism would know this. How can you be this ignorant?

How about you deal with Jesus also being
"the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." cf Colossian 1:15-17?

If God is a Trinity as you suppose, and given the fact that Christ is the image of the invisible God, then why doesn't he have three heads?

Why would you think Jesus would need to have three heads to be the image of God the Father?

Adam was made in God's image, so why wasn't Adam three persons?

Adam was made in God's image, and Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Those concepts are different. Adam being made in God's image means, minimally, that some of God's attributes were communicated and expressed in Adam. There is no reason to think all attributes of God must be communicated in order to Adam to be made in God's image.

Why is God always the Holy One and not the Holy Three?

Easy, because God is one in nature/being; there is only one God.

Why is the number three NEVER used in scripture in reference to God?

Why would the number three need to be mentioned? The doctrine of the Trinity is not but the belief that:
  1. There is only one God.
  2. The Father is that God.
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God.
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.

Is Christ in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Christ?

Christ is in the Godhead as the word Godhead is defined by those who translated the King James Bible. BTW, they were all Trinitarians. The phrase "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead" literally communicates, in 17th century English, that the person living as the man has all the attributes that makes one God. Perhaps a modern Translation will help:
  • "the whole fullness of deity dwells" NRSV
  • "all the fullness of Deity dwells" NASB
  • "the whole fullness of deity dwells" ESV
  • "all the fullness of the Deity lives" NIV
  • etc.
God Bless
 
What part of "I am a Calvinist" do you not understand? I believe "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Romans 8:29-30. I hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith which states:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing His decree. Ch 3.1
So, I believe God knew the man, Jeremiah, before he was conceive, and knew Jesus as a man before he was conceived. But, The Father knew Jesus differently too; Jesus is the second person in the Trinity. I believe both/and; you're the weird one only believing parts of what Scripture says.

God Bless
Question...can God predestine a human being and pre-know them at the same time or is God bound by His creation of time?

Bonus question. Did God(the other 2 persons) pre-know the 2nd person and not the flesh(human nature) of the 2nd person until the flesh(human nature) of the 2nd person was born?
 
Why would you think Jesus would need to have three heads to be the image of God the Father?



Adam was made in God's image, and Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Those concepts are different. Adam being made in God's image means, minimally, that some of God's attributes were communicated and expressed in Adam. There is no reason to think all attributes of God must be communicated in order to Adam to be made in God's image.



Easy, because God is one in nature/being; there is only one God.



Why would the number three need to be mentioned? The doctrine of the Trinity is not but the belief that:

  1. There is only one God.
  2. The Father is that God.
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God.
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.



Christ is in the Godhead as the word Godhead is defined by those who translated the King James Bible. BTW, they were all Trinitarians. The phrase "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead" literally communicates, in 17th century English, that the person living as the man has all the attributes that makes one God. Perhaps a modern Translation will help:
  • "the whole fullness of deity dwells" NRSV
  • "all the fullness of Deity dwells" NASB
  • "the whole fullness of deity dwells" ESV
  • "all the fullness of the Deity lives" NIV
  • etc.
God Bless

It says He is the image of the invisible God. Why do you assume it means the Father? You see, this is another example of inconsistency and a square peg in a round hole notion. It sort of fits if you force it and get a couple corners jammed in, but it's not a good fit. Why not the whole Trinity or the Holy Spirit. Why do you assume Father? Is the Father a little bit more God than the others?

Adam is one person. Besides, why isn't the man Jesus Christ the image of God the Son? He's co-equal with the Father in the Godhead.

You've inverted the question about the number 3. It doesn't have to because nothing in the Bible even tries to formulate three persons in the Godhead, which is the do or die statement of Trinitarians.

Your modern version of Colossians 2:9 doesn't help you because it too contradicts the essence of the Trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity puts the distinctions of persons up in the Godhead (which is never stated like this in scripture), in the eternal. But the truth of Colossians 2:9 is that the emphasis is on where the deity is dwelling - bodily in the man Jesus Christ. The "fullness dwells" bodily.

You can try to force the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is not a good fit. You can score a few points on a superficial, worldly view level, but it really doesn't work in harmony with the whole of scripture. It has some truth, but it's main point about three person in a Godhead is a radical mischaracterization of God.

God is HE, HIM, ME, MY, NONE BESIDE ME and he is not a con-artist misleading people to have to depend on Greek philosophy to explain him. If the God who declared Himself as the I AM meant for us to understand Him as a Trinity, he would have clearly taught it in the NT. That a questionable guy named Tertullian had to coin the terms you would think that God is like a mushroom growing in a dark cave waiting to be truly uncovered, not by the Apostles but by these European philosopher's years after the NT was written.
 
Question...can God predestine a human being and pre-know them at the same time

Of course.

or is God bound by His creation of time?

Never.

Bonus question. Did God(the other 2 persons) pre-know the 2nd person and not the flesh(human nature) of the 2nd person until the flesh(human nature) of the 2nd person was born?

The Father and the Holy Spirit knew the Son relationally prior to creation, including time, and the Father and Holy Spirit forknew the Son in the Son in flesh too. Not that any of this is relevant to the possibility or impossibility of the Father created through part of the creation he is creating.

Still waiting on you to explain how a creature "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.


God Bless
 
Why would you think Jesus would need to have three heads to be the image of God the Father?

Adam was made in God's image, and Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Those concepts are different. Adam being made in God's image means, minimally, that some of God's attributes were communicated and expressed in Adam. There is no reason to think all attributes of God must be communicated in order to Adam to be made in God's image.

Easy, because God is one in nature/being; there is only one God.

Why would the number three need to be mentioned? The doctrine of the Trinity is not but the belief that:

  1. There is only one God.
  2. The Father is that God.
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God.
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.

Christ is in the Godhead as the word Godhead is defined by those who translated the King James Bible. BTW, they were all Trinitarians. The phrase "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead" literally communicates, in 17th century English, that the person living as the man has all the attributes that makes one God. Perhaps a modern Translation will help:

  • "the whole fullness of deity dwells" NRSV
  • "all the fullness of Deity dwells" NASB
  • "the whole fullness of deity dwells" ESV
  • "all the fullness of the Deity lives" NIV
  • etc.
It says He is the image of the invisible God. Why do you assume it means the Father? You see, this is another example of inconsistency and a square peg in a round hole notion. It sort of fits if you force it and get a couple corners jammed in, but it's not a good fit. Why not the whole Trinity or the Holy Spirit. Why do you assume Father? Is the Father a little bit more God than the others?

You believe the invisible God in this passage is the Father. So, why are you giving me this grief? Talk about having different standards for other's than you use for yourself. Reasons why one might look at this "invisible God" as the Father:
  1. If you are asking who the Son is the image of, your opinions are the Father and the Holy Spirit. And, given that the Father is the subject under discussion far more often than the Spirit, it's most likely talking about the Father.
  2. John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." defining the person who is God that no one has seen as the Father, aka the invisible God.
  3. You take the invisible God as the Father as opposed to the visible God walking around in the Flesh. It only makes sense for me to agree with majority opinion, which you are a part of, when in doubt.
So, why do you think this isn't a reasonable way to read Scripture? As opposed to mindless accusing Trinitarians of equating the word God with the whole Trinity instead of letting it be used as the Author is using it.

Adam is one person. Besides, why isn't the man Jesus Christ the image of God the Son? He's co-equal with the Father in the Godhead.

Why are you assuming the human nature of Jesus is the image of God and not the person indwelling that human body?

You've inverted the question about the number 3. It doesn't have to because nothing in the Bible even tries to formulate three persons in the Godhead, which is the do or die statement of Trinitarians.

Yet, Scripture teaches unequivocally:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.

Your modern version of Colossians 2:9 doesn't help you because it too contradicts the essence of the Trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity puts the distinctions of persons up in the Godhead (which is never stated like this in scripture), in the eternal. But the truth of Colossians 2:9 is that the emphasis is on where the deity is dwelling - bodily in the man Jesus Christ. The "fullness dwells" bodily.

If the text doesn't use the term Godhead as it is used in the creeds, and it doesn't, none of this is meaningful. You entire argument boils down to equivocation on the term Godhead. That's a logical fallacy. This entire paragraph is a waste of both of our times; moving on.

You can try to force the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is not a good fit. You can score a few points on a superficial, worldly view level, but it really doesn't work in harmony with the whole of scripture. It has some truth, but it's main point about three person in a Godhead is a radical mischaracterization of God.
God is HE, HIM, ME, MY, NONE BESIDE ME and he is not a con-artist misleading people to have to depend on Greek philosophy to explain him. If the God who declared Himself as the I AM meant for us to understand Him as a Trinity, he would have clearly taught it in the NT. That a questionable guy named Tertullian had to coin the terms you would think that God is like a mushroom growing in a dark cave waiting to be truly uncovered, not by the Apostles but by these European philosopher's years after the NT was written.

Dude. Deal with Scripture. I don't care about your philosophical opinions. You literally just wrote a full page in response, and you didn't quote Scripture once. Do you even read it?

God Bless
 
You believe the invisible God in this passage is the Father. So, why are you giving me this grief? Talk about having different standards for other's than you use for yourself. Reasons why one might look at this "invisible God" as the Father:
  1. If you are asking who the Son is the image of, your opinions are the Father and the Holy Spirit. And, given that the Father is the subject under discussion far more often than the Spirit, it's most likely talking about the Father.
  2. John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." defining the person who is God that no one has seen as the Father, aka the invisible God.
  3. You take the invisible God as the Father as opposed to the visible God walking around in the Flesh. It only makes sense for me to agree with majority opinion, which you are a part of, when in doubt.
So, why do you think this isn't a reasonable way to read Scripture? As opposed to mindless accusing Trinitarians of equating the word God with the whole Trinity instead of letting it be used as the Author is using it.



Why are you assuming the human nature of Jesus is the image of God and not the person indwelling that human body?



Yet, Scripture teaches unequivocally:

  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.



If the text doesn't use the term Godhead as it is used in the creeds, and it doesn't, none of this is meaningful. You entire argument boils down to equivocation on the term Godhead. That's a logical fallacy. This entire paragraph is a waste of both of our times; moving on.



Dude. Deal with Scripture. I don't care about your philosophical opinions. You literally just wrote a full page in
response, and you didn't quote Scripture once. Do you even read it?

God Bless

Hebrews 1:3 - "the express image of his person". Person is the singular Greek hypostasis, wherein the early Trinitarians thought there were three hypostases (plural)

Trinitarians have their own way of interpreting this. Somehow they see the eternal God the Son (pre-incarnate) as being visible and the Father invisible, rather than simply God as invisible and when God became flesh it was this manifestation (the Son) that was visible. But, the Son is not visible because he had some sort of powers in eternity that the Father didn't have, but because the Son (Luke 1:35) is flesh and blood.

You have three hypostases with one of them having visibility powers and the visible image of the Son is not of Himself but the Father person.

The correct concept is that God's hypostasis is invisible because He is omnipotent Spirit and the Son, who is a genuine man, manifested God the Father to us by that incarnation. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily. Note that John 1:18 comes chronologically after John 1:14. The declaring of the Father comes after the Word was made flesh.

So the way you read Hebrews 1:3 and John 1 with a Trinitarian background seems to make sense to you, but it is a sort of "lost in the weeds" interpretation. Seeing the manifested Son as the express image is clearer and cleaner understanding of the text.
 
Of course.



Never.




The Father and the Holy Spirit knew the Son relationally prior to creation, including time, and the Father and Holy Spirit forknew the Son in the Son in flesh too. Not that any of this is relevant to the possibility or impossibility of the Father created through part of the creation he is creating.

Still waiting on you to explain how a creature "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.


God Bless
Of course the son was before all things...


8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Right?
 
Of course the son was before all things...


8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Right?

Scripture tells us that the Son was before all things in multiple places, just not in this verse. This verse says this book was written before the foundation of the world, and the name of this book is the book of life of the Lamb slain.

God Bless

PS:
Still waiting on you to explain how a creature "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.
 
Hebrews 1:3 - "the express image of his person". Person is the singular Greek hypostasis, wherein the early Trinitarians thought there were three hypostases (plural)

Exactly, the Son, the second person in the Trinity, is "the express image of his person", aka the Father's person, the first person of the Trinity. The very fact that it say "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" proves the who, Jesus, is not the same person as God, aka. the Father (as demonstrated by the use of "his Son" in v2 defining who is being referenced by the title God in this passage). Are you trying to prove Oneness is wrong?

Trinitarians have their own way of interpreting this. Somehow they see the eternal God the Son (pre-incarnate) as being visible and the Father invisible, rather than simply God as invisible and when God became flesh it was this manifestation (the Son) that was visible. But, the Son is not visible because he had some sort of powers in eternity that the Father didn't have, but because the Son (Luke 1:35) is flesh and blood.

I don't know were you got any of these ideas, but they are not Trinitarian. Honestly, if you can't even express how Trinitarians look at a passage, how can you hope to actually refute their position?

You have three hypostases with one of them having visibility powers and the visible image of the Son is not of Himself but the Father person.

Did I say the Son has "visibility powers" that the Father does not have? Nope, so why are you putting these words in my mouth? Oh yeah, you can't hope to actually refute the Trinity; so, you make up nonsense you can pretend to refute.

If you want to refute the Doctrine of the Trinity, deal with the reasons why Trinitarians believe in the Trinity:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.

The correct concept is that God's hypostasis is invisible because He is omnipotent Spirit and the Son, who is a genuine man, manifested God the Father to us by that incarnation. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily. Note that John 1:18 comes chronologically after John 1:14. The declaring of the Father comes after the Word was made flesh.

Sounds good until one actually deals the fact that Scripture teaches the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)

So the way you read Hebrews 1:3 and John 1 with a Trinitarian background seems to make sense to you, but it is a sort of "lost in the weeds" interpretation. Seeing the manifested Son as the express image is clearer and cleaner understanding of the text.

So, what you're saying is that when one reads John 1 and Hebrews 1:3 correctly, then one would be a Trinitarian as opposed to holding the human philosophies of Oneness Theology. In reality, "Seeing the manifested Son as the express image" doesn't come close to differentiating between Oneness and Trinitarianism. Both perspectives equally confess "Seeing the manifested Son as the express image".

God Bless
 
Exactly, the Son, the second person in the Trinity, is "the express image of his person", aka the Father's person, the first person of the Trinity. The very fact that it say "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" proves the who, Jesus, is not the same person as God, aka. the Father (as demonstrated by the use of "his Son" in v2 defining who is being referenced by the title God in this passage). Are you trying to prove Oneness is wrong?



I don't know were you got any of these ideas, but they are not Trinitarian. Honestly, if you can't even express how Trinitarians look at a passage, how can you hope to actually refute their position?



Did I say the Son has "visibility powers" that the Father does not have? Nope, so why are you putting these words in my mouth? Oh yeah, you can't hope to actually refute the Trinity; so, you make up nonsense you can pretend to refute.

If you want to refute the Doctrine of the Trinity, deal with the reasons why Trinitarians believe in the Trinity:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.



Sounds good until one actually deals the fact that Scripture teaches the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)



So, what you're saying is that when one reads John 1 and Hebrews 1:3 correctly, then one would be a Trinitarian as opposed to holding the human philosophies of Oneness Theology. In reality,
"Seeing the manifested Son as the express image" doesn't come close to differentiating between Oneness and Trinitarianism. Both perspectives equally confess "Seeing the manifested Son as the express image".

God Bless
The Trinity has extra layers of unnecessary complexity. The Holy Spirit is a description of the Father's essence with holiness being his fundamental moral character and Spirit is His fundamental non-moral nature. This is how the Father is "over all, and in you all". This is why we worship the Father in spirit and truth. Father is a descriptive title of God, who is the source of creation and relates to his people in a parental relationship. The Son has to do with the One God manifested in the flesh. There is no need for three persons up in the Godhead. That's why such a concept was never described in the scripture.

This unnecessary complexity of the Trinity has caused a mischaracterization of God by disconnecting the "Sonship" from the incarnation in a vital sense and disconnecting the nature of God from the Holy Spirit. Like the three blind men describing an elephant. The one blind man is holding the tail and says the elephant is like a rope. The second blind man is holding his ear and says the elephant is like a flat pancake. The third blind man is holding the trunk and says the elephant is like a big hose. Like Trinitarians, there is partial truth, but mostly just a big mischaracterization.
 
Last edited:
The Trinity has extra layers of unnecessary complexity. The Holy Spirit is a description of the Father's essence with holiness being his fundamental moral character and Spirit is His fundamental non-moral nature. This is how the Father is "over all, and in you all". This is why we worship the Father in spirit and truth. Father is a descriptive title of God, who is the source of creation and relates to his people in a parental relationship. The Son has to do with the One God manifested in the flesh. There is no need for three persons up in the Godhead. That's why such a concept was never described in the scripture.

How cares about "extra layers of unnecessary complexity."? I only care about what is True. Scripture teaches:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.

This unnecessary complexity of the Trinity has caused a mischaracterization of God by disconnecting the "Sonship" from the incarnation in a vital sense and disconnecting the nature of God from the Holy Spirit. Like the three blind men describing an elephant. The one blind man is holding the tail and says the elephant is like a rope. The second blind man is holding his ear and says the elephant is like a flat pancake. The third blind man is holding the trunk and says the elephant is like a big hose. Like Trinitarians, there is partial truth, but mostly just a big mischaracterization.

Why do you think such human reasoning is a reason to reject:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.

God Bless
 
How cares about "extra layers of unnecessary complexity."? I only care about what is True. Scripture teaches:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.



Why do you think such human reasoning is a reason to reject:

  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.

God Bless

#1-4 are all true statements, but #5 is a mischaracterization of the terms.

1. There is only one God. Truth, but your definition of "one" is radically different than what the writers of the OT thought. "One in unity" doesn't match all the singular pronouns in reference to God in Deut 6. There is no they, them, or us in Deuteronomy 6. You are implying that God purposefully used singular pronouns in a deceptive manner.

2. The Father is God. Truth. Why do Trinitarians infer that references to simply "God" in the NT refer to the Father and not to the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, you lack consistency in such places as JOHN 1:1 where "God" is "God the Father" in one side of the sentence ("word was with God the Father") and "God the Son" in the second part of the sentence ('the word was God the Son"). Do you ever ask yourself WHY the Bible writers didn't talk Trinitarian talk?

3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God. Truth, but calling him an eternally begotten Son before the incarnation contradicts the meaning of the term "Son". You reject the NT definition of why he is called the Son in LUKE 1:35


4. The Holy Spirit is God. Truth. How could the essence or incorporeal substance of God not be God?


5. Designating persons up in the Godhead is using earthly categories and principles to define the fundamental concept of God. God is omnipotent and can do more than one thing at a time. The Trinity, in practice, is a body-centric God, not an omnipresent God. This is often depicted by the church art and even the Trinitarian Triangle as a sort of closed system of distinct parts.

It's an easy model to tell Sunday School kids... God is three like this, now pass the cookies.
 
Last edited:
Scripture tells us that the Son was before all things in multiple places, just not in this verse. This verse says this book was written before the foundation of the world, and the name of this book is the book of life of the Lamb slain.

God Bless

PS:
Still waiting on you to explain how a creature "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.
Notice, you debunked the KJV with a modern one.

Why?

Do you think the translators of the KJV were wrong and the modern one was right?

Your new and improved version says exactly opposite of the KJV.

Also, from the beginning, all things consisted by, for and through THE MAN Christ Jesus.

No?

Did the "God" Christ Jesus, which everything consisted of without the other 2 persons' help, turn into a microscopic human in Mary's ovaries?

You know you tell folks that in a more "professional' vocabulary, like "incarnate", etc.
 
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Became this....


This verse says this book was written before the foundation of the world, and the name of this book is the book of life of the Lamb slain.

Exactly opposite in meaning.

Nuts.
 
Who cares about "extra layers of unnecessary complexity."? I only care about what is True. Scripture teaches:
  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.
Why do you think such human reasoning is a reason to reject:

  1. There is only one God. (Deut 6:4)
  2. The Father is that God. (John 17:3)
  3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God.(John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; etc)
  4. The Holy Spirit is that God. (Acts 5:3-4)
  5. And, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternally, relationally distinct, aka distinct persons.(Matthew 28:19; John 14:16-17, 26; John 17:5.)
I'll go with this over your human reasoning.

#1-4 are all true statements, but #5 is a mischaracterization of the terms.
1. There is only one God. Truth, but your definition of "one" is radically different than what the writers of the OT thought. "One in unity" doesn't match all the singular pronouns in reference to God in Deut 6. There is no they, them, or us in Deuteronomy 6. You are implying that God purposefully used singular pronouns in a deceptive manner.
2. The Father is God. Truth. Why do Trinitarians infer that references to simply "God" in the NT refer to the Father and not to the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, you lack consistency in such places as JOHN 1:1 where "God" is "God the Father" in one side of the sentence ("word was with God the Father") and "God the Son" in the second part of the sentence ('the word was God the Son"). Do you ever ask yourself WHY the Bible writers didn't talk Trinitarian talk?
3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is that God. Truth, but calling him an eternally begotten Son before the incarnation contradicts the meaning of the term "Son". You reject the NT definition of why he is called the Son in LUKE 1:35
4. The Holy Spirit is God. Truth. How could the essence or incorporeal substance of God not be God?

If "#1-4 are all true statements", then no further commentary is necessary. Everything else you said is nothing but your human philosophy subtracting from the clear testimony of Scripture.

5. Designating persons up in the Godhead is using earthly categories and principles to define the fundamental concept of God.

Correct, but that's all that can be done when communicating with human language: throw out a word that's close and admit it is not perfect. Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth presented in Scripture as opposed to ignoring it like Oneness do.

God is omnipotent and can do more than one thing at a time. The Trinity, in practice, is a body-centric God, not an omnipresent God. This is often depicted by the church art and even the Trinitarian Triangle as a sort of closed system of distinct parts.

It's an easy model to tell Sunday School kids... God is three like this, now pass the cookies.

Note, you didn't interact with a single verse we use to justify the Trinity. You simply complained about Trinitarianism. Clearly, our justifications for the Trinity are Biblical given you left them unchallenged. While, you just have a bunch of human reasoning issues comprehending what we are saying.

God Bless
 
Scripture tells us that the Son was before all things in multiple places, just not in this verse. This verse says this book was written before the foundation of the world, and the name of this book is the book of life of the Lamb slain.

PS: Still waiting on you to explain how a creature
"is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.
Notice, you debunked the KJV with a modern one.

Nonsense, I didn't debunk any translation. Why are you distracting yourself from the actual conversation with a discussion of Translations? Oh yeah, you have no Scriptural justification for your perspective, so you play games with Translations to hide this fact from the world.

Why?
Do you think the translators of the KJV were wrong and the modern one was right?

No, I think language changes over 400 years, and modern humans regularly misunderstand the KJV. For example, Comforter means com-with fort-power er-person, i.e. a person with power to support you. It's not some person who mothers a child who just scrapped his knee; it's not a think bed covering.

Your new and improved version says exactly opposite of the KJV.
Also, from the beginning, all things consisted by, for and through THE MAN Christ Jesus.
No?

Well, the KJV says "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." The ESV says "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. Consist or hold together? Same concept. Jesus undergirds the very fabric of existence itself. As opposed to the nonsense of part of creation creating and holding together all of creation.

Did the "God" Christ Jesus, which everything consisted of without the other 2 persons' help, turn into a microscopic human in Mary's ovaries?

I don't know, I don't care to know, and I have no reason to know. So, why are you fishing out this question? It couldn't be that you recognize how utterly bankrupt your human philosophy about God is and are desperately searching for anything to attack that which you don't understand.

You know you tell folks that in a more "professional' vocabulary, like "incarnate", etc.

What a silly comment. Scripture says "And the Word became flesh"; so, we say the Word is incarnate (in-in; carn-flesh; ate-being) i.e. in flesh being.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Became this....
This verse says this book was written before the foundation of the world, and the name of this book is the book of life of the Lamb slain.
Exactly opposite in meaning.
Nuts.

Did I rewrite the verse? Nope, but you are unwilling to hear what I said. You can't make a blind person open his eyes.

Let's Try again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause. The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written".
Prepositional phrase #1
"in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say
"slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Think about it for a second. Which makes more sense? Is this additional prepositional phrase saying something more about the topic under discussion: names being and not being written in the book of life? Or, is this prepositional phrase introducing a radically different topic that gives no explanatory insight into what is being discussed in Revelation 13:8? I'll leave it at that.


God Bless
 
Nonsense, I didn't debunk any translation. Why are you distracting yourself from the actual conversation with a discussion of Translations? Oh yeah, you have no Scriptural justification for your perspective, so you play games with Translations to hide this fact from the world.



No, I think language changes over 400 years, and modern humans regularly misunderstand the KJV. For example, Comforter means com-with fort-power er-person, i.e. a person with power to support you. It's not some person who mothers a child who just scrapped his knee; it's not a think bed covering.



Well, the KJV says
"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." The ESV says "is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17. Consist or hold together? Same concept. Jesus undergirds the very fabric of existence itself. As opposed to the nonsense of part of creation creating and holding together all of creation.



I don't know, I don't care to know, and I have no reason to know. So, why are you fishing out this question? It couldn't be that you recognize how utterly bankrupt your human philosophy about God is and are desperately searching for anything to attack that which you don't understand.



What a silly comment. Scripture says
"And the Word became flesh"; so, we say the Word is incarnate (in-in; carn-flesh; ate-being) i.e. in flesh being.



Did I rewrite the verse? Nope, but you are unwilling to hear what I said. You can't make a blind person open his eyes.

Let's Try again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause. The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written".
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say
"slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Think about it for a second. Which makes more sense? Is this additional prepositional phrase saying something more about the topic under discussion: names being and not being written in the book of life? Or, is this prepositional phrase introducing a radically different topic that gives no explanatory insight into what is being discussed in Revelation 13:8? I'll leave it at that.


God Bless
You did it again.

You justified your debunking of the KJV with modern ones.

You can't help it, can you.
 
You did it again.

Did what again? All I did was show your inability to read Scripture for what it says.

You justified your debunking of the KJV with modern ones.

No, both the KJV and the ESV say the same thing. You are just so bad at reading KJ English that you deceive yourself into believing otherwise.

Again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say
"slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Think about it for a second. Which makes more sense? Is this additional prepositional phrase saying something more about the topic under discussion: names being and not being written in the book of life? Or, is this prepositional phrase introducing a radically different topic that gives no explanatory insight into what is being discussed in Revelation 13:8?


God Bless
 
Did what again? All I did was show your inability to read Scripture for what it says.



No, both the KJV and the ESV say the same thing. You are just so bad at reading KJ English that you deceive yourself into believing otherwise.

Again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say
"slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Think about it for a second. Which makes more sense? Is this additional prepositional phrase saying something more about the topic under discussion: names being and not being written in the book of life? Or, is this prepositional phrase introducing a radically different topic that gives no explanatory insight into what is being discussed in Revelation 13:8?


God Bless
You did it again.

You cannot use the KJV at all without "fixing it" with a modern version.

Every time you disagree with a verse in the KJV you google every version you can until you can find a compatible verse to your biased ideas.

The KJV clearly irks you.

You like verses that say exactly the opposite with modern versions.

This clearly means you and the modern translator are both in agreement that it is impossible for God to transcend time, to the point of changing the verse completely.

This....

...of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Becomes this...

...Everyone on earth whose name was not written from the world’s foundation ...


Busted.
 
Back
Top