Who or What is the Trinity ?

[aeg4971]

You are avoiding the simple Yes/No questions...

Are you and I one substance?

Are you and I one being?

I ask because you seem to equate substance and being.

One substance of humanity divided among billions subsisting in human nature, and thus many individual substances and human beings. Whereas Supremely being itself Most wise God is infinitely self communicated among many divine persons. As when we say God is Trine ,it follows there are three hypostases of the Godhead.

When some say God is at once the Father Son Holy Spirit ,of itself and by itself signifies a Trine distinction in supposita to whom it is spoken The Holy Scriptures OT and NT are quite elucidating on what belongs to the unity of essence ,but it is only by divine revelations in mystery that He makes the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty known. I don't know why it is hard for many of you to truly grasp that i"

"In God essence is the same as the suppositum (hypostasis) for what God is and whereby He is are the same". I don't know why it has not occurred to you that every divine person by Himself subsist numerically ONE with the divine nature. It follows to posses Godhead is to be God .

All of your suppositions start from three persons is three gods no matter what answer you get . You can never refute one word I suppose ,but because you import three beings as your starting point in engagement you further fail to grasp :

"But nothing that exist in God can have any relation to that wherein it exist or to whom it is spoken except the relation of identity and this is by reason of God supreme simplicity . God is spirit.

Hope that helps....Alan

 

[eternomade]

He makes the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty known. I don't know why it is hard for many of you to truly grasp that i"

Honestly, your posts are very confusing to read and comprehend. I am not sure if there is just a lot of copy and pasting happening or maybe you're using your phone.

When you say "He makes the distinction", who is the referent?

 

[aeg4971]

Honestly, your posts are very confusing to read and comprehend. I am not sure if there is just a lot of copy and pasting happening or maybe you're using your phone.

When you say "He makes the distinction", who is the referent?

The very being God

.....Alan

 

[101G]

God is a Trinity of persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons;

if this is true, then I ask you, is this two separate "CREATORS" who MADE ALL THINGS? listen closely. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

and please remember, in Isaiah 44:24 the MAKER OF ALL THINGS, said he was A. "ALONE", and B. "BY HIMSELF".

and to make this clear as possiable, the NASB 1995, makes it very clear that he didn't go through anyone, because is states,
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone". not just alone... but "ALL" ALONE, which is crystal clear that the LORD, all caps, was by himself. which eliminates any other so-called persons. and he definitly don't go through any one else.

so is this two separate "CREATORS", who made all things? yes or no.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[aeg4971]

if this is true, then I ask you, is this two separate "CREATORS" who MADE ALL THINGS? listen closely. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

and please remember, in Isaiah 44:24 the MAKER OF ALL THINGS, said he was A. "ALONE", and B. "BY HIMSELF".

and to make this clear as possiable, the NASB 1995, makes it very clear that he didn't go through anyone, because is states,
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone". not just alone... but "ALL" ALONE, which is crystal clear that the LORD, all caps, was by himself. which eliminates any other so-called persons. and he definitly don't go through any one else.

so is this two separate "CREATORS", who made all things? yes or no.

PICJAG, 101G.

On the contrary you suppose two separate creators , whereas we signify one person and another. That does not carry the same meaning you seek to import in the divine try as you might.

Hope that helps.....Alan

 

[The Real John Milton]

God is a Trinity of persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Jesus, the Son, is one person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also divine in nature and is self-aware, the third person of the Trinity.

The word "person" is used to describe the three "Persons" of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self-aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. The three Persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune? The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God is a Trinity (Tri-Unity) of 3 Persons who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods nor is the Trinity three beings. We call them "Persons" because each one of Them have a will, speak, teach, love, receive praise, prayer, share the same Glory, etc. These are all characteristics of person-hood. They are of one substance, nature, essence or Being. You cannot have the Father without the Son, the Son without the Father, The Son without the Holy Spirit or you would not have the God according to Scripture, you would have a false god or what is known as an idol.

hope this helps,

Think about that expression in bold for a while. Then answer the following question: Is "God" there a person or a thing ?

 

[The Real John Milton]

jason was on CARM language forums prior to the crash, he was/is an atheist who knows biblical hebrew and greek fluently and teaches it online. this person george cannot hold a candle to jason when it comes to Greek and Hebrew. One good thing about jason is he is objective and without bias when it comes to scripture and is very objective. He acknowledges all the passages where Christ is called God even though personally He denies the very existence of God.

I believe this poster george is not his real name and his former alias is john milton on carm.

He actually agrees with the JW interpretation at John 1:1c. He translates "and the Word was a divine being," "and the Word was a god."

Having said that, his Biblical Koine is not all that great.

 

[jamesh]

if this is true, then I ask you, is this two separate "CREATORS" who MADE ALL THINGS? listen closely. John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

and please remember, in Isaiah 44:24 the MAKER OF ALL THINGS, said he was A. "ALONE", and B. "BY HIMSELF".

and to make this clear as possiable, the NASB 1995, makes it very clear that he didn't go through anyone, because is states,
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone". not just alone... but "ALL" ALONE, which is crystal clear that the LORD, all caps, was by himself. which eliminates any other so-called persons. and he definitly don't go through any one else.

so is this two separate "CREATORS", who made all things? yes or no.

PICJAG, 101G.

There is only one God and one creator. And yes, Isaiah 44:24 does say the Lord God created all alone and by Himself, period. So, since you quoted John 1:3 please tell me why the Son is identified or presented as the Agent of creation, not only in this verse but also at Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by the Apostles and God the Father at Hebrews 1:10? The Father says explicitly referring to the Son, "And Thou, Lord didst in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands."

There are two persons clearly being referred to in this verse. Now, tell me this regarding John 1:1? Who or what is the "Logos/Word" in the verse? Is it (according to you) the spoken word of God or the thoughts and plan of God? Notice John 1:2 where it says, "He--or "That One" was in the beginning with God." If your with someone, logically you can't be that someone. I'm talking about persons here.

Also at John 1:1 you will notice that it says, "In the beginning." The definite article has been supplied. The actual Greek is "en arche-that is, "in beginning." The "Word/Logos of God" thus was there before the creation of space-mass-time.

So the "in beginning" here at John 1:1 is the exact same "in beginning" at Genesis 1:1. In other words both verses start out the exact same way. Now what I'm about to say is important. The main thought in Genesis 1:1 is on WHAT HAPPENED in the beginning. The main thought of John 1:1 the emphasis is on WHO EXISTED in the beginning.

Obviously it was the Son of God who was with God at John 1:1. Now, what about the Holy Spirit? First notice at Genesis 1 you do not see the word "Father" in any of the verses, it only states "God said." At Genesis 1:2 it says, "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

At this verse we are introduced to the Spirit of God, why? Why does not vs 2 just say, "and God was moving over the waters?" And starting at vs3 and following it says, "Then God said." Or "And God saw." Or at vs5, And God called the light day etc. This patter follows all the way up to Genesis 1:26 where it says, "The God said, "Let Us make man in OUR image etc. How do you explain all of this 101G? Or should I say how do you reconcile all of this?

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[aeg4971]

Think about that expression in bold for a while. Then answer the following question: Is "God" there a person or a thing ?

Well by ancient standard every existence is a thing of nature ,and everything that exist is so named according to its proper mode of being. The ancients processed everything twofold. They called it 1st and 2nd principles. Today we say,: in one sense and in another sense.

The ancients signified Supreme thing. Therefore your humanistic question of a thing or person is really of no consequence.

Hope that helps.....Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

Well by ancient standard every existence is a thing of nature ,and everything that exist is so named according to its proper mode of being. The ancients processed everything twofold. They called it 1st and 2nd principles. Today we say,: in one sense and in another sense.

The ancients signified Supreme thing. Therefore your humanistic question of a thing or person is really of no consequence.

Hope that helps.....Alan

What ancients are you talking about? The Supreme Being is not a thing of nature.

 

[aeg4971]

What ancients are you talking about? The Supreme Being is not a thing of nature.

The point I was making is this word thing is proper to every existence as understood by humans born centuries before you and I . Furthermore the Supreme being is a thing of His own nature and Godhead. I know we are use to referring to a thing as a inanimate or nameless objects but that is not how primitive, as in ancient humans understood.

Like 4th century Augustine says," This name Trinity a thing supreme".

Hope that helps.....Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

The point I was making is this word thing is proper to every existence as understood by humans born centuries before you and I . Furthermore the Supreme being is a thing of His own nature and Godhead. I know we are use to referring to a thing as a inanimate or nameless objects but that is not how primitive, as in ancient humans understood.

Like 4th century Augustine says," This name Trinity a thing supreme".

Hope that helps.....Alan

Augustine isn't an ancient reference point. That would be the prophets of Tanakh.

So as a suggestion, start from Tanakh and understand things from that perspective. When you do that, there is no support for what you're posting, i.e., trinity, etc.

This should help you.

 

[aeg4971]

Augustine isn't an ancient reference point. That would be the prophets of Tanakh.

So as a suggestion, start from Tanakh and understand things from that perspective. When you do that, there is no support for what you're posting, i.e., trinity, etc.

This should help you.

Like you every persons has to give signification of the Tanakh , after all we start from the same reference point. So what is it to me that your intellectual power conclude and interpret other than the ancient post Apostolic theologians?

I can't find one anti Trinitarian theological supposition that NEGATE adoring the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty. I do however find your lack understanding .

As it is written," That holy thing born of thee shall be called the Son of God ".

.....Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

Like you every persons has to give signification of the Tanakh , after all we start from the same reference point. So what is it to me that your intellectual power conclude and interpret other than the ancient post Apostolic theologians?

Well the ancients you reference aren't an authority in anything. Start there.

I can't find one anti Trinitarian theological supposition that NEGATE adoring the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty. I do however find your lack understanding .

.....Alan

So, do each of the persons worship each other? Generate each other? Etc.

 

[Yahchristian]

I can't find one anti Trinitarian theological supposition that NEGATE adoring the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty. I do however find your lack understanding .

Here is an anti Trinitarian verse that negates adoring the distinction of persons...

Psalm 86:10... For You are great, and do wondrous things; You alone are God.

David was praying to a Person and told them "You alone" are God.

 

[johnny guitar]

Here is an anti Trinitarian verse that negates adoring the distinction of persons...

Psalm 86:10... For You are great, and do wondrous things; You alone are God.

David was praying to a Person and told them "You alone" are God.

He was praying to The Being who alone is God.

 

[jamesh]

Here is an anti Trinitarian verse that negates adoring the distinction of persons...

Psalm 86:10... For You are great, and do wondrous things; You alone are God.

David was praying to a Person and told them "You alone" are God.

And here's one that does not negate the distinction of persons. Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

So tell, why does not this verse just say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of God?" Or in the name of God alone? And Stephen at Acts 7:59-60 he was praying to Jesus Christ in his dying breath. Why does not Acts 7:59-60 say, "Receive my spirit God?"

After all these years you still can't understand the difference between "being" and "persons."

IN GOD THE SON,
james

 

[Yahchristian]

He was praying to The Being who alone is God.

So according to your TRINITARIAN view...

David was NOT praying to a Person.

So just to clarify...

If someone had asked David if he was praying to a Person, would he have said Yes or would he have said No?

I think David would have said Yes.

If you say Yes...

Then David was "NEGATING the distinction of persons", which is what @aeg4971 asked for proof of.

 

[Jewjitzu]

And here's one that does not negate the distinction of persons. Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

For one thing, Jesus' name in Hebrew means YH is salvation.

The HS is just a reference to the spirit of holiness, not a person, meaning fulfilling a commandment.

So, baptizing in the name of the Father, YH is salvation, in the spirit of holiness.

Only one person counts here

So tell, why does not this verse just say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of God?" Or in the name of God alone? And Stephen at Acts 7:59-60 he was praying to Jesus Christ in his dying breath. Why does not Acts 7:59-60 say, "Receive my spirit God?"

See above or Stephen is an idolater.

After all these years you still can't understand the difference between "being" and "persons."

Tell me, what term is used in scripture to differentiate between a being or person?

 

[aeg4971]

Well the ancients you reference aren't an authority in anything. Start there.


So, do each of the persons worship each other? Generate each other? Etc.

It its not a matter of being of authority, although by a decree written somewhere in an ancient scroll centuries after their deaths, they do have post Apostolic authority in relation too, lets say you and I.

But beyond all that you cannot refute this name Trinity,, which in is strictest sense signifies the number of persons related or the number of persons of one essence , as God the Father is not three persons, and because Trine does not signify the relations themselves insomuch as the persons themselves, hence it is that the word Trinity in itself does not express regard to another .Furthermore none of your anti Trinitarian ERRONIOUS theological sciences NEGATE ,adoring the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty".

Hope that helps.....Alan