How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

[Diakonos]

God has revealed himself to be omnipotent meaning he can do anything

Respectfully, you are mistaken. Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. Here are just a few examples:

• God cannot die (Deut 32:39-40; Ps. 90:2; 102:27), nor can Jesus Christ die again (Rom. 6:9-10).
• God cannot stop being God (Mal. 3:6).
• God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18).
• God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas. 1:13).
• God cannot sin, as he cannot be tempted by evil (Jas 1:13).
• God cannot learn anything new, as he is all-knowing (Psa. 139:1-4; 1 John 3:20) and thus neither can he forget anything.
• God cannot be fooled (Num 32:23).
• God cannot be given a problem he cannot solve (Matt. 19:26). God can't make a rock so large that he could not move it (this is like asking a bachelor what his wife's name is), as this would not be consistent with his nature; God cannot and will not do illogical things (Isa. 55:8-9), so he also would not draw square circles. Even if he did (which he won't) what mere human finite mind could understand and define them?
• God cannot accept less than your whole heart (Deut. 6:5).
• God cannot change his ordained/decretive will (Dan. 4:35).
• God cannot change his Word (Psa. 119:89).
• God cannot lose one of his children (John 6:39).
• God cannot enjoy our sin (Isa. 59:2).
• God cannot keep from sending unrepentant people to hell, as he is holy and just and thus, according to his perfect nature, he must righteously judge people (Psa 77:13; Rom. 7:12; Matt. 25:41).
• God cannot (will not) allow his Church to be defeated (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 8:35-39; 1 Cor. 6:14).
• God cannot have human mood swings, as all God's emotions are rooted and flow from his divine holy nature and are always expressed sinlessly. See God's Impassibility and Feelings.

God was, is, and always will be 3 persons because He has revealed this to be the case, and God cannot lie.
To deny this is to call God a liar.

 

[shittim]

Sounds like "religion" and not relationship as required.

 

[TheLearner]

What is the name of the Father?

Dad

 

[TheLearner]

Romans 8
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Who is the one who condemns us? Christ Jesus is the One who died [to pay our penalty], and more than that, who was raised [from the dead], and who is at the right hand of God interceding [with the Father] for us.

Who is going to convict them? It is Christ Jesus who died, even more, who was raised, and who also is at God’s right side. It is Christ Jesus who also pleads our case for us.

CEV
Or can anyone condemn them? No indeed! Christ died and was raised to life, and now he is at God's right side, speaking to him for us.

ERV
Who can say that God’s people are guilty? No one! Christ Jesus died for us, but that is not all. He was also raised from death. And now he is at God’s right side, speaking to him for us.

GNV
Who shall condemn? it is Christ which is dead: yea, or rather, which is risen again, who is also at the right hand of God, and maketh request also for us.

Romans 8:26-27
1599 Geneva Bible
26 [a]Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what to pray as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh [c]request for us with sighs, which cannot be expressed.

27 But he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the [d]meaning of the Spirit: for he maketh request for the Saints, [e]according to the will of God.

JUB
Who is he that condemns them? Christ, Jesus, is he who died and, even more, he that also rose again, who furthermore is at the right hand of God, who also makes entreaty for us.
NTE
Who is going to condemn? It is the Messiah, Jesus, who has died, or rather has been raised; who is at God’s right hand, and who also prays on our behalf!

Prayer, Sonship and the Sovereignty of God
26 In the same way, too, the spirit comes alongside and helps us in our weakness. We don’t know what to pray for as we ought to; but that same spirit pleads on our behalf, with groanings too deep for words. 27 And the Searcher of Hearts knows what the spirit is thinking, because the spirit pleads for God’s people according to God’s will.

WE
Who will say they are not right? Jesus Christ died. Yes, he was raised from death. He is at the right side of God. And he talks to God for us.

WYC
who is it that condemneth? It is Jesus Christ that was dead, yea, the which rose again, the which is on the right half of God, and the which prayeth for us [the which and rose again, the which is on the right half of God, the which prayeth for us].

Romans 8:26-27
Wycliffe Bible
26 And also the Spirit helpeth our infirmity; for what we shall pray, as it behooveth, we know not, but that Spirit asketh for us with sorrowings, that may not be told out [but that Spirit asketh for us with sorrowings, that be not able to be told out].

27 For he that seeketh the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth, for by God [for after God, that is, at God's will,] he asketh for holy men.

in·ter·ces·sion
/ˌin(t)ərˈseSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of intervening on behalf of another.
"through the intercession of friends, I was able to obtain her a sinecure"
Similar:
mediation
intermediation
negotiation
arbitration
conciliation
intervention
interposition
involvement
action
pleading
petition
entreaty
supplication
good offices
agency
shuttle diplomacy
mediatorship
the action of saying a prayer on behalf of another person.
"prayers of intercession"

Me: Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit intercession, pray to the Father. This shows that all three are seperate persons.

 

[bluto]

"God the Father could not live in a human being."
Horrible........when you believe God is 3 different people.

Here's another false statement by you when you said, "God the Father could not live in a human being." Your Biblical ignorance is astounding. Here is what Jeus stated at John 14:23, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him and "WE" will come to him and make our "ABODE" with him."

Secondly, the other Biblically ignorant thing you stated is, "God is 3 different people." The definition of the word "people" is "human beings in general or considered collectively." According to John 4:24 God is Spirit or a spiritual being, not a collection of three people. This does not mean God cannot become a human being in the person of Jesus Christ His Son.

Now, I told you the other day I would school you on the Jewish Idiom known as the "son of." When I ask somebody, "Who is Jesus Christ," just about all the time they will say, "The Son of God." I then ask them what's that mean or in what respect or sense is He the Son of God?

The Jewish "son of" idiom, whether applied metaphorically or literally always, without exception indicates the shared distinguishing nature between the father and the son. Sometimes this nature is qualified by the context to indicate nothing more than a similarity. Sometimes the CONTEXT reveals that this shared nature is significantly more than a mere similarity.

Here are some examples of what I mean which are all in the Bible. "Sons of the prophets," refer to men belonging to a prophetic band. 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3. How about "Sons of oil at Zechariah 4:14, are ones anointed with oil, in this case members holding the priestly office. Then there's "Son of the goldsmiths, Nehimiah 3:31. Sons of the troop at 2 Chronicles 25:13 are men of the army.

There are lots of this idiom in the Bible. Sons of affliction at Proverbs 31:5 are afflicted ones. How about some in the New Testament. Son of peace refers to a peaceful person, Luke 10:6. Here's one used twice. "Son of perdition. It's used of Judas at John 17:12 and the antichrist at 2 Thessalonians 2:3, is the lost one.

Now for the "son of man." this one clearly exhibits the use of the word "son" to show the possession of a certain nature. Numbers 23:19. I have often heard the argument that men are called "sons of God" and so are angels so does that make them god? Men and angels are called sons in a metaphorical sense. Unless you can show me where the Bible says that God actually procreated or begat the angels, it should be clear that God did NOT beget them bur rather, created them.

Jesus Christ is quite different. The Bible's inspired authors indicate that He was THE singular, one and only "Son of God." John called him the "monogenes" in Greek which literally means "singular" or "unique" but carries the implication that is nearly universally rendered by every non-Greek translations "THE" (SINGULARE) "ONLY" (meaning there are no others). the exclusive sense this confers upon Jesus' claim of himself is undeniable.

The Jews knew and understood this and that's why they wanted to kill Him for the crime of blasphemy. The problem is that the Jews did not believe Him. The idiom "The Son of God" carries the same weight because Jesus did not have a human father. His Father was God, therefore He shared the same nature as His Father, deity. Some of this was taken from the following article.
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/grace-journal/06-2_16.pdf

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

.



It's commonly assumed by a pretty good percentage of the Christians I've
encountered over the years that the Word's flesh per John 1:14 came into
the world as a divine man when in reality the Word came into the world as a
Jewish man biologically descended from Adam; and of course the soil with
which Adam was constructed per Gen 2:7. In other words: Jesus was a
genuine man rather than some sort of hominid freak.

FAQ: From whence did the Word obtain a Y chromosome for Jesus' male
gender?

REPLY: According to John 1:1-3, the Word is capable of constructing a
complete woman using nothing more than material taken from a man's
body. So I should think the Word is capable of doing something like that in
reverse, i.e. capable of constructing a man's chromosomes using nothing
more than material taken from a woman's body. And seeing as how every
woman descends from Adam, then any and all material taken from Mary's
body to fashion Jesus' body, owes itself to Adam's body just the same as
everybody else.
_

So why do some people on this forum insist Jesus as a man can't pray to the Father. Did not Jesus as a man grow in knowledge?

created, and temporary, waiting to be dissolved and made new.

What was created from dust?

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

.



It's commonly assumed by a pretty good percentage of the Christians I've
encountered over the years that the Word's flesh per John 1:14 came into
the world as a divine man when in reality the Word came into the world as a
Jewish man biologically descended from Adam; and of course the soil with
which Adam was constructed per Gen 2:7. In other words: Jesus was a
genuine man rather than some sort of hominid freak.

FAQ: From whence did the Word obtain a Y chromosome for Jesus' male
gender?

REPLY: According to John 1:1-3, the Word is capable of constructing a
complete woman using nothing more than material taken from a man's
body. So I should think the Word is capable of doing something like that in
reverse, i.e. capable of constructing a man's chromosomes using nothing
more than material taken from a woman's body. And seeing as how every
woman descends from Adam, then any and all material taken from Mary's
body to fashion Jesus' body, owes itself to Adam's body just the same as
everybody else.
_

So why do some people on this forum insist Jesus as a man can't pray to the Father. Did not Jesus as a man grow in knowledge?

Respectfully, you are mistaken. Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. Here are just a few examples:

• God cannot die (Deut 32:39-40; Ps. 90:2; 102:27), nor can Jesus Christ die again (Rom. 6:9-10).
• God cannot stop being God (Mal. 3:6).
• God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18).
• God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas. 1:13).
• God cannot sin, as he cannot be tempted by evil (Jas 1:13).
• God cannot learn anything new, as he is all-knowing (Psa. 139:1-4; 1 John 3:20) and thus neither can he forget anything.
• God cannot be fooled (Num 32:23).
• God cannot be given a problem he cannot solve (Matt. 19:26). God can't make a rock so large that he could not move it (this is like asking a bachelor what his wife's name is), as this would not be consistent with his nature; God cannot and will not do illogical things (Isa. 55:8-9), so he also would not draw square circles. Even if he did (which he won't) what mere human finite mind could understand and define them?
• God cannot accept less than your whole heart (Deut. 6:5).
• God cannot change his ordained/decretive will (Dan. 4:35).
• God cannot change his Word (Psa. 119:89).
• God cannot lose one of his children (John 6:39).
• God cannot enjoy our sin (Isa. 59:2).
• God cannot keep from sending unrepentant people to hell, as he is holy and just and thus, according to his perfect nature, he must righteously judge people (Psa 77:13; Rom. 7:12; Matt. 25:41).
• God cannot (will not) allow his Church to be defeated (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 8:35-39; 1 Cor. 6:14).
• God cannot have human mood swings, as all God's emotions are rooted and flow from his divine holy nature and are always expressed sinlessly. See God's Impassibility and Feelings.

God was, is, and always will be 3 persons because He has revealed this to be the case, and God cannot lie.
To deny this is to call God a liar.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

God is never described as a person in the Bible. Only humans in the Bible are persons.

 

[williamjordan]

Does a person have a spirit?

Does your spirit talk to your soul? Does your "physical body" talk to your spirit? Does your spirit "intercede" to your soul? You're using the "human experience" to define what is and what is not a "person." But you don't use the "human experience" as an example for your own defunct Modalistic construct. As if there is any such instance in the NT or OT where people talk to themselves. Talk about, "not in the Bible!"

 

[williamjordan]

We're of that same substance being made in God's image.

Does that mean "we" (like Christ, who is the "image of the invisible God") are God the Father? How do you not connect the dots with John 14:9, a text you use to identify Christ as "the Father"? Is anyone home? Image bearers of God (as Christ, the second Adam was and is) do not mean they are "the Father."

 

[williamjordan]

So why do some people on this forum insist Jesus as a man can't pray to the Father. Did not Jesus as a man grow in knowledge?

Who said Jesus didn't pray to the Father? He did pray to the Father (a second person that understands the human language in that He is able to answer prayer), not some counterpart in heaven who is secretly Himself. There are no examples in Scripture where a person prays to themselves. Prayer is always an activity that takes place between two or more people. Likewise, when the Spirit "intercedes" for the believer, "to whom" does He intercede?

 

[Franc254]

Respectfully, you are mistaken. Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. Here are just a few examples:

• God cannot die (Deut 32:39-40; Ps. 90:2; 102:27), nor can Jesus Christ die again (Rom. 6:9-10).
• God cannot stop being God (Mal. 3:6).
• God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18).
• God cannot be tempted with evil (Jas. 1:13).
• God cannot sin, as he cannot be tempted by evil (Jas 1:13).
• God cannot learn anything new, as he is all-knowing (Psa. 139:1-4; 1 John 3:20) and thus neither can he forget anything.
• God cannot be fooled (Num 32:23).
• God cannot be given a problem he cannot solve (Matt. 19:26). God can't make a rock so large that he could not move it (this is like asking a bachelor what his wife's name is), as this would not be consistent with his nature; God cannot and will not do illogical things (Isa. 55:8-9), so he also would not draw square circles. Even if he did (which he won't) what mere human finite mind could understand and define them?
• God cannot accept less than your whole heart (Deut. 6:5).
• God cannot change his ordained/decretive will (Dan. 4:35).
• God cannot change his Word (Psa. 119:89).
• God cannot lose one of his children (John 6:39).
• God cannot enjoy our sin (Isa. 59:2).
• God cannot keep from sending unrepentant people to hell, as he is holy and just and thus, according to his perfect nature, he must righteously judge people (Psa 77:13; Rom. 7:12; Matt. 25:41).
• God cannot (will not) allow his Church to be defeated (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 8:35-39; 1 Cor. 6:14).
• God cannot have human mood swings, as all God's emotions are rooted and flow from his divine holy nature and are always expressed sinlessly. See God's Impassibility and Feelings.

God was, is, and always will be 3 persons because He has revealed this to be the case, and God cannot lie.
To deny this is to call God a liar.

True but ask yourself this could Jesus have turned the stones to bread and why didn't he do that....Yes Jesus could turn the stones to bread he had the power...he created the universe with his word ,surely turning stones to bread wouldn't take a second to do that but what would have been doing the will of the evil one....
Yes God cannot sin because he is Holy....but then if it concerns something to glorify himself or his name or to fulfill his will, he can do that because he is all powerful...but if it doesn't bring any value to his will or name then what would be the purpose of showing his power....it's like saying if God is powerful he can change into a Camel....but what would be the purpose of doing that....

 

[Franc254]

Does that mean "we" (like Christ, who is the "image of the invisible God") are God the Father? How do you not connect the dots with John 14:9, a text you use to identify Christ as "the Father"? Is anyone home? Image bearers of God (as Christ, the second Adam was and is) do not mean they are "the Father."

Why then does Paul say that there is one God....the Father

 

[williamjordan]

Why then does Paul say that there is one God....the Father

For the same reason I gave back in Post #55 on this same thread: Post #55

 

[Franc254]

Does your spirit talk to your soul? Does your "physical body" talk to your spirit? Does your spirit "intercede" to your soul? You're using the "human experience" to define what is and what is not a "person." But you don't use the "human experience" as an example for your own defunct Modalistic construct. As if there is any such instance in the NT or OT where people talk to themselves. Talk about, "not in the Bible!"

well that has not answered the question...why Paul still knowing that Jesus is God would go ahead to acknowledge the Father as one God.....okay let me make this simple what name can we call the father

 

[williamjordan]

well that has not answered the question...why Paul still knowing that Jesus is God would go ahead to acknowledge the Father as one God.....okay let me make this simple what name can we call the father

Yes, it does answer the question. It acknowledges the Father as the "one God," but also acknowledges Christ as the "one Lord" in its Jewish historical context, as all the surrounding OT allusions in 1 Cor. 8-10 make clear. The problem is simple: You have a defunct view of the term, "Lord" and are not applying it the way Paul intends it to be taken. Who exactly is the "one Lord" in the OT?

In Malachi 1, who is the "Lord"? Some subordinate divine figure, second to the "one God"?
In Deut. 31-32 (which Paul heavily draws from), who is the "Lord"? Some subordinate divine figure, second to the "one God"?

What is this name of this "Lord" in the OT texts that Paul alludes (which I cover in Post #55)?

And not only does Paul identify Jesus as this "Lord," but also distinguishes Him as the one "through" whom are all things, from the one "from" whom are all things. This little thing called "intertextuality" is quite a nightmare for Unitarians, because it debunks the defunct view of Paul's use of the term, "Lord."

 

[Franc254]

Yes, it does answer the question. It acknowledges the Father as the "one God," but also acknowledges Christ as the "one Lord" in its Jewish historical context, as all the surrounding OT allusions in 1 Cor. 8-10 make clear. The problem is simple: You have a defunct view of the term, "Lord" and are not applying it the way Paul intends it to be taken. Who exactly is the "one Lord" in the OT?

In Malachi 1, who is the "Lord"? Some subordinate divine figure, second to the "one God"?
In Deut. 31-32 (which Paul heavily draws from), who is the "Lord"? Some subordinate divine figure, second to the "one God"?

What is this name of this "Lord" in the OT texts that Paul alludes (which I cover in Post #55)?

And not only does Paul identify Jesus as this "Lord," but also distinguishes Him as the one "through" whom are all things, from the one "from" whom are all things. This little thing called "intertextuality" is quite a nightmare for Unitarians, because it debunks the defunct view of Paul's use of the term, "Lord."

two questions ...what is the name of the Father

so if i have understood you correctly, it is through Jesus and for Jesus all things have been made?

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Who said Jesus didn't pray to the Father? He did pray to the Father (a second person that understands the human language in that He is able to answer prayer), not some counterpart in heaven who is secretly Himself. There are no examples in Scripture where a person prays to themselves. Prayer is always an activity that takes place between two or more people. Likewise, when the Spirit "intercedes" for the believer, "to whom" does He intercede?

There are plenty of verses of a 100% human praying to God. Was not Jesus 100% human?

 

[williamjordan]

There are plenty of verses of a 100% human praying to God. Was not Jesus 100% human?

Yes, Jesus became man.

Notice, I said "Jesus became man," NOT "the Father became man."

The pre-existent Christ who existed together with God, became a man, and while on earth, He communed through prayer with God the Father (a distinct "person"), not His "heavenly" soul. Like men do not pray to their "other-realm-like self." Men (like Christ) pray to God the Father, and are distinct from God the Father. Such is Christ. He is distinct from God the Father, and will forever remain so and has forever been.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Yes, Jesus became man.

Notice, I said "Jesus became man," NOT "the Father became man."

The pre-existent Christ who existed together with God, became a man, and while on earth, He communed through prayer with God the Father (a distinct "person"), not His "heavenly" soul. Like men do not pray to their "other-realm-like self." Men (like Christ) pray to God the Father, and are distinct from God the Father. Such is Christ. He is distinct from God the Father, and will forever remain so and has forever been.

Was Jesus Christ 100% human. Yes or no.