Are you a Trinitarian, and if so, can you defend the doctrine?

Q. Is Jesus one person, one being and one God by Himself?

Let's see some examples:

Psalm 2:7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

Heb 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”;

Did the Father mean this, "today you have become unique.."

John Calvin on Hebrews 5:5...


Thou art my Son, etc. This passage may seem to be farfetched; for though Christ was begotten of God the Father, he was not on this account made also a priest. But if we consider the end for which Christ was manifested to the world, it will plainly appear that this character necessarily belongs to him. We must however bear especially in mind what we said on the first chapter; that the begetting of Christ, of which the Psalmist speaks, was a testimony which the Father rendered to him before men. Therefore the mutual relation between the Father and the Son is not what is here intended; but regard is rather had to men to whom he was manifested. Now, what sort of Son did God manifest to us? One indued with no honor, with no power? Nay, one who was to be a Mediator between himself and man; his begetting then included his priesthood.


So, begotten is not to be created. But to be declared, to be made known. And it also refers to His(the Son) uniqueness.

Jesus is one Person. The Triune Godhead is one Being, consisting of three Persons.

From Adam Clarke’s commentary of Psalm 2:7...


This day have I begotten thee - By thy resurrection thou art declared to be the Son of God, εν δυναμει, by miraculous power, being raised from the dead. Thus by thy wondrous and supernatural nativity, most extraordinary death, and miraculous resurrection, thou art declared to be the Son of God. And as in that Son dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, all the sufferings and the death of that human nature were stamped with an infinitely meritorious efficacy. We have St. Paul's authority for applying to the resurrection of our Lord these words, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee;" - see Acts 13:33; see also Hebrews 5:6; - and the man must indeed be a bold interpreter of the Scriptures who would give a different gloss to that of the apostle. It is well known that the words, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," have been produced by many as a proof of the eternal generation of the Son of God. On the subject itself I have already given my opinion in my note on Luke 1:35, from which I recede not one hair's breadth. Still however it is necessary to spend a few moments on the clause before us. The word היום haiyom, Today, Is in no part of the sacred writings used to express eternity, or any thing in reference to it; nor can it have any such signification. To-day is an absolute designation of the present, and equally excludes time past and time future; and never can, by any figure, or allowable latitude of construction, be applied to express eternity. But why then does the Divine Spirit use the word begotten in reference to the declaration of the inauguration of the Messiah to his kingdom, and his being seated at the right hand of God? Plainly to show both to Jews and Gentiles that this Man of sorrows, this Outcast from society, this Person who was prosecuted as a blasphemer of God, and crucified as an enemy to the public peace and a traitor to the government, is no less than that eternal Word, who was in the beginning with God, who was God, and in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily: that this rejected Person was he for whom in the fullness of time a body was prepared, begotten by the exclusive power of the Most High in the womb of an unspotted virgin, which body he gave unto death as a sin-offering for the redemption of the world; and having raised it from death, declared it to be that miraculously-begotten Son of God, and now gave farther proof of this by raising the God-man to his right hand.


The word ילדתי yalidti, "I have begotten," is here taken in the sense of manifesting, exhibiting, or declaring; and to this sense of it St. Paul ( Romans 1:3, Romans 1:4) evidently alludes when speaking of "Jesus Christ, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, του ὁρισθεντος Υἱου Θεου εν δυναμει, κατα Πνευμα αγιωσυνης, εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ; and declared (exhibited or determined) to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness." This very rejected Person, I this day, by raising him from the dead, and placing him at my right hand, giving to him all power in heaven and earth, declare to be my Son, the beloved one in whom I am well pleased. Therefore hear him, believe on him, and obey him; for there is no redemption but through his blood; no salvation but in his name; no resurrection unto eternal life but through his resurrection, ascension, and powerful intercession at my right hand. Thou art my Son; this day have I declared and manifested thee to be such. It was absolutely necessary to the salvation of men, and the credibility of the Gospel, that the supernatural origin of the humanity of Jesus Christ should be manifested and demonstrated. Hence we find the inspired writers taking pains to show that he was born of a woman, and of that woman by the sovereign power of the everlasting God. This vindicated the character of the blessed virgin, showed the human nature of Christ to be immaculate, and that, even in respect to this nature, he was every way qualified to be a proper atoning sacrifice and Mediator between God and man. I need not tell the learned reader that the Hebrew verb ילד yalad, to beget, is frequently used in reference to inanimate things, to signify their production, or the exhibition of the things produced. In Genesis 2:4; : These are the generations, תולדות toledoth, of the heavens and the earth; this is the order in which God produced and exhibited them. See Hebrews and Eng. Concord., Venema, etc.

You did not answer my question. Is Jesus one person and one God by Himself? If Jesus is not God by Himself, why then do you say the son is God? This also means the Father is not God by Himself.

There is one God, one Being. Jesus is God, yes. The Father is God, yes. The Holy Spirit is God, yes. But they are not three Gods, or three 1/3 Gods, but one God.

"Today i have begotten you.." can not mean "Today you have become unique.."

Why so complicated?

If Jesus being one person and one being is one God by Himself, then God is simply one person and one being. But if God is three persons, one being, then Jesus being one person and one being is not God by Himself.

You can not have it both ways.

Again, the historical teaching of God is one Being and three Persons. It’s not complicated. I am giving you the historical teaching.

Jesus is one Person. But one Being is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. We are sons of God via adoption. That makes Him unique. Begotten also means to be declared as well.

Begotten in John 1:14 is monogenes μονογενής and it means...

only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9

This refers to His uniqueness as the only Son of God.






γεννάω is used in Hebrew 5:5 and it too, means begotten. But it is meant to be declared, brought forth from, as a child comes forth from their mother. But this is not to be understood as God birthing, creating His Son, but He declared Him as He came forth from His Father.

does any of this matter? isnt it good enough to confess Jesus as Lord and son of God and as come in the flesh. thats where the train stops in the bible. it says God in the flesh. thats what bible says we need to confess.

but all the idea of co-essential co-equal co-this co-that and essences and persons. this is all philosophical language not in the bible and is very confusing to real people.

When Jesus in John 17.3, when read in context from John 17.1 who did Jesus refer to as the only true God? So for those who can defend and support the trinity, if you are put into the position where you have to explain the meaning of John 17.3 how do you explain it? How do you defend the trinity from such a verse?

Also, in verses like John 20.17, especially this reference here " I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God" what do people understand from this? How do you defend the trinity on this?

Now in John 13.16, how do you defend for the trinity, considering there is a clear reference that he that is sent is not greater than the one who sent him. The "he that is sent" can be understood as a delegate, or a representative.

It does matter yes. Denial of God The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a serious heresy.

I don't understand this example, if you would clarify please.

Do you know anything about music? If not, my comparison may not mean much to you.

Yeah, your comparison is not meant for me.

But when God says "today i have begotten you" does it mean "today you have become unique"?