How do you reconcile the first Commandment with the trinity?

[Saul-to-Paul]

Three revelations of one God which we have called "The Trinity".

Trinity definition by theologians does not say 3 revelations.

 

[bluto]

Isiah 9:6 KJV
John 14:7-9 KJV

Uh oh! How does these two verses prove that God the Father is the word of God? Did you actually read the context of John 14:7-9 and what it's actually teaching? Starting at vs 8 Philip said to Jesus, Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Vs9, Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father?"

Now think for a second Saul? Jesus said at John 5:37, "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form." And John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, except He who is from God, He hath seen the Father."

So what did Jesus mean at John 14:9? Or better yet, how does one reconcile these apparent contradictions which are really not contradictions. At John 14:9 Jesus is telling Philipe that the Father has no separate manifestation from the Son. The Son is the only manifestation and revelation of the Father. What is known of the Father is revealed through the Son. To see the Son is to see the "essence" of the Father. Just read John 1:1;18, John 10:30; 12:45; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.

Moreover, at John 14:11 Jesus states, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe on account of the works themselves. This alone extinguishers the idea that Jesus Christ is the person of God the Father like the Oneness Pentecostals believe. There's another interesting tidbit at John 14:6 as it relates to the Trinity. "And I (I is Jesus) will ask the Father (God the Father), and He will give you ANOTHER HELPER, (the Holy Spirit), that He may be with your forever." Three persons and the one God.

Finally, Isaiah 9:6, the part that states, "Eternal Father." This means that Jesus Christ is the source of eternity and not that Jesus is God the Father. It's sort of like George Washington being the "Father of our country" because of his role during the Revolutionary War, the Constitutional Convention, and his two terms as the first President of the United States. This is not hard to understand, just think about it and by all means read the references for yourself.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Webers.Home]

Three revelations of one God

According to Ezek 1:1-28, there's a fourth.
_

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

This is really quite incoherent.

The term πρόσωπον ("person") isn't applied to most figures in the NT or OT. But how do we determine if they are "persons"? Easy. They can talk. To each other. And can understand each other. And have a mind. And have a will. And never are they confused with the same "person" they are interacting with. The NT is replete with example after example of persons interacting with one another, and in the very same contexts which you draw upon to try to say that Jesus (the "earthly counterpart") speaks to the "heavenly counterpart."

Does a person have a spirit?

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

Uh oh! How does these two verses prove that God the Father is the word of God?

Is Jesus the Word of God?
Does Isiah 9:6 claim Jesus to be the everlasting Father?
Did Philip ask to see the Father?
Did Jesus says to Philip you're looking at Him?

Not hard.

 

[Saul-to-Paul]

I have to say that your "Biblical" ignorance" is stunning! Hebrews 1:3 referring to Jesus Christ. "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His "PERSON, (that is God the Father) and upholding ALL things by the word of His power, (that is Jesus Christ power), when He himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" KJB

God purged sins?

 

[LenMcM]

Trinity definition by theologians does not say 3 revelations.

Not interested in what theologians say. It is what the Bible says that matters.

 

[SpeakTruth101]

Psalm 110:1, "YHWH (#3068) said to my Master(#113): Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool."

3068 – Yah-weh, יהוה , The LORD, 3068 - YHWH - Yhwh: the proper name of the God of Israel, Original Word: יְהֹוָה, Part of Speech: Proper Name, Transliteration: Yhwh, Phonetic Spelling: (yah-weh/yah-hu-wah/yeh-ho-vaw), Short Definition: YHWH

113 - la-ḏō-nî, לַֽאדֹנִ֗י , to my Lord, 113 - adon, adon: lord, Original Word: אָדוֹן, Part of Speech: Noun Masculine, Transliteration: adon,Phonetic Spelling: (aw-done'), Short Definition: lord

 

[oldhermit]

LINGUISTIC VALENCE
By Glen Rogers
I posted these comments before. I have no doubt many will simply shrug it off. Perhaps others will find it helpful. The problem most people have in trying to grasp the concept of the nature of God is that they have not first wrestled with how scripture itself deals with the concept of God.

Trying to get our minds wrapped around the concept of God, particularly as it relates to Jesus is a difficult undertaking. The difficulty is in our language use. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example. “God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man” (unknown source). Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from various sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it does present three immediate problems.
The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it. This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.
The use of the word ‘unified.’ We can only comprehend unity as we see it within the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.
The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the characteristics and relations of a thing.

In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. “God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being,’ an undivided essence.”

The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. ‘Who’ he is, is Jehovah. ‘What’ he is, should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three individual persons.

 

[oldhermit]

God has never given us anything by which to formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs – carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. These would be qualities like eternal, self-existing, self-sustaining, transcendent, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

These attributes do not constitute a substance or a type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute a type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describe as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological disciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my forty plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it is demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?

 

[evyaniy]

God has never given us anything by which to formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs – carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. These would be qualities like eternal, self-existing, self-sustaining, transcendent, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

These attributes do not constitute a substance or a type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute a type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describe as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological disciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my forty plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it is demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?

what about Image with the Son being the Image of the invisible EL(God, Theos, Elohim)? Can you please speak on that. Thank you.

 

[SpeakTruth101]

John 5:28-30, “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth – those who have practiced righteousness, to the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil matters, to a resurrection of judgment. Of Myself I am unable to do any matter. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own desire, but the desire of the Father who sent Me.”

John/Yahanan 7:16-17, "Yahshua answered, them, and said: My doctrine is not Mine, but His Who sent Me. If any man will do His will, he will know about this teaching, whether it comes from YHWH, or whether I am speaking of My own authority."

 

[oldhermit]

what about Image with the Son being the Image of the invisible EL(God, Theos, Elohim)? Can you please speak on that. Thank you.

Are you asking in regard to Heb 1:3 or Phil 2:6 which uses two different words which means essentially the same thing?

 

[evyaniy]

Are you asking in regard to Heb 1:3 or Phil 2:6 which uses two different words which means essentially the same thing?

Yes, both please if you like or even either one. Thank you. Your previous explanations were very helpful and appreciated.

 

[Franc254]

Jesus is the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit

 

[SpeakTruth101]

Also, the Holy Spirit indwells believers who are yet sinners, which is why we can grieve Him. The Holy Spirit contends with man in our fallen state which is an immense undertaking. The Holy Spirit was not given till after the Son ascended back to Heaven and was Glorified after accomplishing our Salvation in obedience to the Father and out of love for us and His Father.

You post made me think of this, being in unity is key

John/Yahanan 17:17-24, “Set them apart in Your truth – Your Word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for them I set Myself apart, so that they too might be set apart in truth. That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me, I have given them; that they may be in unity, just as We are in unity. I in them, and You in Me--so that they may be made perfect in unity; and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them, as You have loved Me. Father, it is My will that they, whom You gave Me, also be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

Yahanan 14:28, "You have heard that I told you: I go away, but come again to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

 

[Franc254]

Why can't he be three?

Because he's just a single Person

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, both please if you like or even either one. Thank you. Your previous explanations were very helpful and appreciated.

Very well. Let me just do this. I will begin with Phil 2 and then move to Heb 1. I think in the end you will understand why. It will be a lot of reading, but I think you will find it most helpful. I'll try to have it for you within the hour, more or less.

 

[bluto]

Jesus is the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit

And you know this how? You must be a Oneness Pentecostal to believe that Jesus is all three persons of the Godhead.

This is called "Modalism.' So answer me this verse, Mark 1:11, "And there came a voice out of heaven, Thou art My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Who is the speaker in the verse and what person is the speaker referring?

In Him,
bluto

 

[evyaniy]

Very well. Let me just do this. I will begin with Phil 2 and then move to Heb 1. I think in the end you will understand why. It will be a lot of reading, but I think you will find it most helpful. I'll try to have it for you within the hour, more or less.

Please, no rush. The reading will be more than worth it. It is one of if not the greatest mysteries in Scripture. Thank you so much.