Who or What is the Trinity ?

And none of your persons have necessary existence as anyone generated, caused, is an effect.

So much for your ancients...
I answer that you in the 21st century assert, that it is an effect which every post Apostolic theologian since the 3rd century .declares cause from some effect to be the heresy of Arius , On account of we find every act of Divinity to be likewise SUBSTANTIAL ,and not as you assert ,"ACCIDENTAL in the Divine Existence ". Since all in God is numerically ONE with the divine nature.

Hope that helps......Alan
 
Last edited:
I answer that you in the 21st century assert, that it is an effect which every post Apostolic theologian since the 3rd century .declares cause from some effect to be the heresy of Arius , On account of we find every act of Divinity to be likewise SUBSTANTIAL ,and not as you assert ,"ACCIDENTAL in the Divine Existence ". Since all in God is numerically ONE with the divine nature.

Hope that helps......Alan
No, it doesn't help your cause. Your gods are created and dependent. Anything that isn't necessary is definitely an accident as in your trinity.

Oh the ancients made up a good tale...
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder the doctrine of the hypostatic union is to explicitly signify that the union of the divine and human nature are not alloyed and commingled .and thus the union took place in the person of the Word and not in the nature. For it is written:
Can you explain this so a 5th grader could understand?

Both the divine and human natures were in the person of Jesus Christ(Word).

Catechism 467 states:

"We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."

and Catechism 468 states:

"Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death:"

Do you agree?
 
Can you explain this so a 5th grader could understand?

Both the divine and human natures were in the person of Jesus Christ(Word).

Catechism 467 states:

"We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."

and Catechism 468 states:

"Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death:"

Do you agree?

I answer that the Word who was with God and the Word was God ,taking upon Himself humanity is of itself emptying; the Word Himself being made passable, in taking upon Himself servitude ,and now having been found and fashioned in the likeness of men, to become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross to the glory of God the Father. It is naturally in the hypostasis of the Son/Word that He should be a humble servant( the man from Galilee ) , if for no other reason than it is testimony of Holy Scriptures alone, but I could further elucidate if you should deem necessary.

My Lord says of His own emptiness ," I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me ".



Hope that helps......Alan
 
I answer that the Word who was with God and the Word was God ,taking upon Himself humanity is of itself emptying; the Word Himself being made passable, in taking upon Himself servitude ,and now having been found and fashioned in the likeness of men, to become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross to the glory of God the Father. It is naturally in the hypostasis of the Son/Word that He should be a humble servant( the man from Galilee ) , if for no other reason than it is testimony of Holy Scriptures alone, but I could further elucidate if you should deem necessary.


Unscriptural baloney.

My Lord says of His own emptiness ," I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me ".

The one God came down from heaven not to do His will?
 
Unscriptural baloney.



The one God came down from heaven not to do His will?

What is it to me if understand rightly what you think is unholy? God came down by the sending of the Son made of no reputation. Hence there is no scriptural or theological necessity to fallaciously supposed,: "The one God came down from heaven not to do His will?"


....... Alan
 
No, it doesn't help your cause. Your gods are created and dependent. Anything that isn't necessary is definitely an accident as in your trinity.

Oh the ancients made up a good tale...
There is nothing necessary in the divine for He is not a wanting being," God is His very own Godhead".

....... Alan
 
None.



None.

You really thought you had something there didn't you?



Your Bible tells you how God made this man Lord. But you didn't care what your Bible said on the matter.
The Bible tells us how God made this man Lord , and at once the Bible tells our that The Son ever subsist numerically in the bosom of the Father He has declared Him.

Hope that helps....Alan
 
I agree !!!

But........ that was NOT the question.

I asked...

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.
David knew the pre Incarnate Son was YHWH.

next
 
David knew the pre Incarnate Son was YHWH.

next
I agree with your assessment, not for an argument, but for edification, may I ask, "how was YHWH Incarnate as the Son?".

in your own words, with scriptures to back up what you're saying.

as said I agree, but I just wnat to know if I fully agree.

PICJAG,
101G.
 
I agree with your assessment, not for an argument, but for edification, may I ask, "how was YHWH Incarnate as the Son?".

in your own words, with scriptures to back up what you're saying.

as said I agree, but I just wnat to know if I fully agree.

PICJAG,
101G.
The Word was with God( the Father ) as per John 1:1 and 17:5( Who is the Son) The Word became flesh and dwelt among us ( The Son became man). The Incarnation was a one time event that became permanent. He is forever God in the flesh . Thomas confessed this truth in John 20:28 post Resurrection. He called the Son- my Lord and my God. As did Paul in Titus 2:13, Phil 2:6-9, Romans 10:13, Peter in 2 Peter 1:1 and John in 1 John 5:20. There are numerous other passages where He is referred to as all the fullness of Deity dwells in Him bodily in Col 1:19 and 2:9.

hope this helps !!!
 
The Word was with God( the Father ) as per John 1:1 and 17:5( Who is the Son) The Word became flesh and dwelt among us ( The Son became man). The Incarnation was a one time event that became permanent. He is forever God in the flesh . Thomas confessed this truth in John 20:28 post Resurrection. He called the Son- my Lord and my God. As did Paul in Titus 2:13, Phil 2:6-9, Romans 10:13, Peter in 2 Peter 1:1 and John in 1 John 5:20. There are numerous other passages where He is referred to as all the fullness of Deity dwells in Him bodily in Col 1:19 and 2:9.

hope this helps !!!
thanks for the reply.
but I was more interested in the mechanical understanding aspect as to how he became "To dwell in flesh". again, I agree in the assessment that Word was "with" God, but if you don't mind, I'm more of a per say technical person, I do like to know how things OPERATE and FUNCTION..... meaning, HOW WAS HE "WITH" GOD. and HOW HE, BECAME TO DWELL IN FLESH. this is more what I'm getting at.

well if you don't mind let me put forth what I was taught and maybe you can agree with me or not.

#1. "HOW WAS THE WORD "WITH" GOD. I was taught that the key word here is "WITH", and I was taught by the Word of GOD in the bible that "WITH" means, not alongside, or together, all the time, not according to the bible concering the Godhead, but "With" means, or Express an ECHAD of God in dispensation as the Ordinal First and the Ordinal Last, and here is what I mean. in John 1:1 the Word is "WITH" God, correct, well God in dispensation as the ECHAD of himself is expressed as the First and the Last. and these two designations, in the book of Isaiah, clearly express how the Word in John 1:1 was "WITH God. lets seeit,

Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."
if you will notice, the First is "WITH" the Last, correct. but also notice, the LORD, a single person designation, Said that he was with, with, with, the Last.... Right, just like the Word in John 1:1 was with, with, with, God... Right... well hold that thought, now, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

did you see it? the First a single person is "ALSO" the Last a single person? no, it's the same one single person. for the term "ALSO" indicate it the same one person, just John 1:1c express it's the same one person concering the Word and God, "and the Word was God".

so do you agree with this assessment of A. the Word was "WITH", God is God, (John 1:1c). and B. the First "WITH" the Last is the same one person as JESUS is the First and the Last in Revelation... Revelation 2:8 "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;"

Revelation 22:12 "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

so we clearly see that it is only ONE PERSON who is the first and the Last, and as John 1:1c clearly states the same thing,

so do you agree with this assessment? ..... before we move on as to how he became "To dwell in flesh", technically.

PICJAG,
101G.
 
thanks for the reply.
but I was more interested in the mechanical understanding aspect as to how he became "To dwell in flesh". again, I agree in the assessment that Word was "with" God, but if you don't mind, I'm more of a per say technical person, I do like to know how things OPERATE and FUNCTION..... meaning, HOW WAS HE "WITH" GOD. and HOW HE, BECAME TO DWELL IN FLESH. this is more what I'm getting at.

well if you don't mind let me put forth what I was taught and maybe you can agree with me or not.

#1. "HOW WAS THE WORD "WITH" GOD. I was taught that the key word here is "WITH", and I was taught by the Word of GOD in the bible that "WITH" means, not alongside, or together, all the time, not according to the bible concering the Godhead, but "With" means, or Express an ECHAD of God in dispensation as the Ordinal First and the Ordinal Last, and here is what I mean. in John 1:1 the Word is "WITH" God, correct, well God in dispensation as the ECHAD of himself is expressed as the First and the Last. and these two designations, in the book of Isaiah, clearly express how the Word in John 1:1 was "WITH God. lets seeit,

Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he."
if you will notice, the First is "WITH" the Last, correct. but also notice, the LORD, a single person designation, Said that he was with, with, with, the Last.... Right, just like the Word in John 1:1 was with, with, with, God... Right... well hold that thought, now, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

did you see it? the First a single person is "ALSO" the Last a single person? no, it's the same one single person. for the term "ALSO" indicate it the same one person, just John 1:1c express it's the same one person concering the Word and God, "and the Word was God".

so do you agree with this assessment of A. the Word was "WITH", God is God, (John 1:1c). and B. the First "WITH" the Last is the same one person as JESUS is the First and the Last in Revelation... Revelation 2:8 "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;"

Revelation 22:12 "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

Revelation 22:13 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

so we clearly see that it is only ONE PERSON who is the first and the Last, and as John 1:1c clearly states the same thing,

so do you agree with this assessment? ..... before we move on as to how he became "To dwell in flesh", technically.

PICJAG,
101G.
The Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosopon pros prosopon, "face to face") was used to show intimacy in personal relationships (see Matt. 13:56; 26:18; Mark 6:3; 14:49; 1 Cor. 13:12; 6:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Gal. 1:18). Thus, for John to say "the Word was with God" was for him to mean "the Word was face to face with God" (see Williams’s translation) or "the Word was having intimate fellowship with God." This speaks of the preincarnate Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation—in fact, prior to everything (see 1:18; 17:5, 24) (JFB).



With God (pros ton theon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other (RWP).



The preposition "with" in the phrase "the Word was with God" indicates both equality and distinction of identity along with association. The phrase can be rendered "face to face with." It may, therefore, imply personality, coexistence with the Creator, and yet be an expression of his creative being...The preposition ðñ’ò (pros) indicates both equality and distinction of identity. Robertson says, "The literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face with God’" (RHG, p. 623). Thus this implies personality and coexistence with God. Robertson says it bespeaks of "the fellowship between the Logos and God" (EBC).



Thus John’s statement is that the divine Word not only abode with the Father from all eternity, but was in the living, active relation of communion with Him (Vincent).



Of the character of this relationship to God no further details are given. [Apparently "with God" (pros + accusative) is intended as an indication not only of place but also of disposition and orientation. - note 23] The focus is entirely on the antecedent existence of the Word, that is, that it existed before all that is created, and on the Word's participation in the divine. This latter point is made in no uncertain terms by the emphatic positioning of the predicate noun: "And God was the Word" (Ridderbos).



What we notice about all these examples [of pros in the NT], however, is that in all but one or two peculiar constructions (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:15), pros may mean 'with' only when a person is with a person, usually in some fairly intimate relationship. And that suggests that John may already be pointing out, rather subtly, that the 'Word' he is talking about is a person, with God and therefore distinguishable from God, and enjoying a personal relationship with him (Carson).



The Greek preposition translated with suggests the idea of communion. The thought is lit. 'towards God', which requires some distinctiveness between God and the Word. But the next phrase adds a further aspect, since it affirms that the Word was God...Since the Greek has no article before God, the term must be taken setting out a characteristic of the Word. Since God is a noun, John must be affirming the Godhead of the Word. It involves not only divinity but deity (NBC).
 
The Word was with God—The preposition translated "with" is pros. In Koine Greek pros (short for prosopon pros prosopon, "face to face")
Glad you said this, because it show what I was to bring roth as to how he was "to dwell in flesh". FACE to FACE. this is the ECHAD I speak of all along. question, if you had a "EQUAL SHARE" of yourself then you cold see yourself "FACE to FACE", correct? well this is exacitly what Philippians 2:6 states, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

well here the "With" is implied to God, meaning he, JESUS is EQUAL "WITH", God or as John 1:1c inplies is God. how do we know this? answer, in the definition of "FORM" here. uding the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments,
FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

if one would notice the second definition, the fundamental nature of the Lord Jesus is "Spirit", and God is a, a, a, Spirit, not two, but ONE Spirit, and Jesus is that Spirit, supportive scripture, 2 Corinthians 3:17 "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." BINGO, the Lord is that Spirit, and Spirit is capitalized, indicating the ONE TRUE GOD. so Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD.

so again "WITH" support what we been saying.

now one more, if one would examine "WITH" in John 1:1 it is also defined as #13. according to the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, (accusative case, usually) the place, time, occasion, or respect (which is the destination of the relation (i.e. where or for which it is predicated)).
and the term "BEGINNING" in John 1:1 do this for us,
BEGINNING: G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule

there it is in definition #2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank). what was in the BEGINNING at Genesis 1:1? in order, time, place, or rank, lets see,

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
BEGINNING: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218

there it is in definition #1. BINGO. so the Word id God, just as John 1:1c states.

thanks civic,

PICJAG,
101G
 
So who is His Father, and how can He not be divine and human?
This idea that Christ is created is obvious heresy.
Nothing that was created was not created by Him and for Him

You really thought you had something there didn't you?
You really thought God with us means something else don't you
Your Bible tells you how God made this man Lord. But you didn't care what your Bible said on the matter.
Man and God.
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete
 
Back
Top