Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Dee on Keto]

I am looking for scripture that mentions or pertains to the trinity. Either opposed or for. Please, no opinions, only relevant scripture. Thank you. God Bless.

[jimwalton]

John 1:1 says Jesus was with God and that Jesus was God.

In John 10.30, Jesus says that He and the Father are one essence.

Hebrews 1.3 says that Jesus is the express image of the essence of God

Col. 1.19 says that all the fullness of God dwells in Jesus. Robertson writes it is a "full and flat statement of the deity of Christ."

1 Cor. 12.4-6 mentions all three as equals.

1 Peter 1.2 shows the three as cooperative deity.

Acts 1.1-8 mentions what has been expressed in the places: The Father and the Son share divine authority (Mt. 28.19-20), and the Son and the Spirit are one and same who come back to earth (Acts 1.8; Jn. 14.15-18). So the Father and the Son are one and the same, and the Son and the Spirit are one and the same, and these 3 are all brought together in Acts 1, especially vv. 7-8.

Hebrews 10.5-18 puts all three on the same plain of authority and truth.

Jesus' baptism scene in the Synoptic Gospels is a place where Father, Son, and Spirit all function as a unity.

In 1 Cor. 12.1-3; Gal. 4.4; Rom. 1.3-4; 8.11 Paul sees the Spirit's identity as defined by how the Father and Christ have sent him, and likewise the identities of the Father and Christ as "in part" determined by the Spirit.

Ephesians 2.18 shows that Jesus gives us access to the Father by means of the Spirit. So Jesus' blood is them means of access, but the Spirit is also the means of access. The result is that by reconciling people to Himself, Jesus reconciles people to God.

For that matter, all throughout Paul's writings God and Christ and Spirit are mutually defining and reciprocally implicating. That is, God's identity is defined in/through/by his relationship to Christ/Son, and vice versa, and also with regard to the Spirit, as listed above.

Romans 8 is infused with Father, Son, and Spirit working as equals and with equal authority, power, and presence. They are one undivided divine essence with different actions appropriate to their persons.

Titus 3.3-8. All three Persons of the Trinity are present and cooperating in the act of grace. Each Person has His function in the salvation of our soul.

There are also plenty of the places where the Father is equated with the Son, and the Son is equated with the Spirit. So if the principle holds that if A1 = A2 & A2 = A3, then A1 also equals A3.

Just as the Bible begins with all 3 (Gn. 1.1-2; Jn. 1.3), so it ends with all 3 (Rev. 22.1, 17).

[Fred Fllintstone]

They want to know what translation you’re using.
ESV, CSB, KJV, etc…

Is English your first language? I’m not trying to be mean but I genuinely don’t understand how you didn’t use any specific translation, nor did you paraphrase what the passage was about.

Paraphrase: A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words.

Also, a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.

If you didn’t quote it and you didn’t use any translation and you didn’t paraphrase it then what did you do?

[jimwalton]

Oh my goodness. This shouldn't be so difficult. I didn't quote any verses, I didn't use any specific translation, nor did I paraphrase. I gave a brief explanation of what the verse was about. For instance, let's take the first one: John 1:1. What I wrote was, "John 1:1 says Jesus was with God and that Jesus was God." You'll notice that is neither a quote, a translation nor a paraphrase. It's a brief explanatory sentence. I didn't use any version to give a brief explanation of what the verse was about. But if you want to go into that, I'd be glad to.

Here's the Greek of John 1:1: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

Here, for the first time, I will give my dynamic translation of the verse: "From eternity past, the Word existed. The Word existed with God, and the Word existed as God." You can see I've never given this before in any of the posts, where you seem to claim I used a specific translation or paraphrase.

So let's look at some of the published transitions that you seem to want (which you can clearly see I never gave before either):

• NIV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
• ESV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
• NASB: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
• KJV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
• RSV: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

You can see they all say the same thing. It does't matter what translation you use; you get the same information. And here's how I summarized it by giving the meaning: "John 1:1 says Jesus was with God and that Jesus was God." You see now? I didn't give a translation or a paraphrase, but rather a summary of its meaning.

Then I can explain what it means. John 1.1 alludes to the creation account of Genesis 1.1.
Here's some explanation and exegesis of the verse. (There's lots more.)

"In the beginning" is definite. The Word was before else; pre-existent—eternal. He is at the root of history and precedes all history.

"was": Imperfect active indicative, meaning continuing action in past time. The word conveys no idea of origin, but rather of continued existence in the past. It yields the meaning of eternity.

"The Word" is a philosophical term denoting the generative principle that controls the universe. He is the collective mind that has always existed.

"was with God": another imperfect tense expressing continuing action and status. He was with God; face-to-face." The verse shows personality, equality, and intimacy between the Word and God.

"And the Word was God:" Imperfect tense again of continuing existence. The Word, which verse 14 tells us is Jesus, is God. the Word is eternally existence, personal, and divine. He shared the same nature of God.

Now, we can discuss any of the verses I listed with their brief explanations as I've just discussed above with John 1:1. We can also discuss John 1:1 more. I'm glad to talk about any of it.

[Iron Man]

Some of these just say that Jesus is divine. Trinity is much more specific and detailed than that.

And some of these just mention God using the holy spirit- which is not very close to trinity, either. Lots of ways for a holy spirit to exist and do things, without trinity. One could see it as an emanation from God, for example.

So I think these examples are somewhat compatible with trinity, but they do not describe a trinity.

[jimwalton]

> Some of these just say that Jesus is divine.

If Jesus is divine, then the verse speaks at least of a "binity," making Jesus equal to God, which means He is God just as the Father is God.

> And some of these just mention God using the holy spirit

If the Holy Spirit is God, and if Jesus is God, and the Father is God, then we truly do have a Trinity.

> Lots of ways for a holy spirit to exist and do things, without trinity.

Of course we are free to imagine what we want, but if we want to know what the Bible says, then the Holy Spirit is God, and that's how He exists and does things.

> So I think these examples are somewhat compatible with trinity, but they do not describe a trinity.

Taken all together, they do describe a Trinity. But if you want to talk about specific texts, we can.

[Iron Man]

There are lots of ways for Jesus to be divine, without being equal in status and authority to God. Many early Christians believed that, and found their beliefs supported by these same texts. There is a reason it took a lot of time and theological innovation to arrive at trinity.

In my view, you can find verses that are at least somewhat compatible with trinity, but none that express that specific idea. I also see many things in the texts that I do not consider compatible with trinity. Jesus is often presented as being subordinate to God.

So, I consider the nature of Jesus’s divinity to be vague, as found in the texts. Trinity got very specific with it, IMO making assumptions that go far beyond the texts.

[jimwalton]

> There are lots of ways for Jesus to be divine, without being equal in status and authority to God. ... but none that express that specific idea.

Then we need to discuss John 1.1. How is it vague? How does it not show Jesus to be equal in status and authority to God? Let's talk about it.

[Iron Man]

Yes, that verse says "Jesus is God". Other verses present things like Jesus praying to God, which makes little sense, if Jesus IS God. Or, Jesus saying "not MY will, but thine be done", to God- which makes little sense if they are the same being, because then their wills would be the same.

This is the overall vagueness I am talking about. Yes, you can find verses that, when taken individually, are less vague. And you can find some that are vague, all by themselves.

One of my favorite bits with this vagueness as to the divine nature of Jesus is at the beginning of Phillipians 2. "In the form of God" is not something you'd normally say about a being that IS God, but you might say it about a being that is divine in some sense. Similarly, "in human form" is a weird thing to say about a creature that IS fully human - it seems to suggest a likeness with humans, instead. And also there, after Jesus sacrificed himself, he was exalted and given a high name- this makes little sense if he had already been fully equal to God, in status and authority.

In my view, some of these authors probably saw Jesus as an angel that was lifted up to a higher status, due to his amazing obedience, even to the point of death.

[jimwalton]

> Yes, that verse says "Jesus is God".

Indeed it does. Theology confirmed, and no vagueness about it.

> Other verses present things like Jesus praying to God, which makes little sense, if Jesus IS God.

John 1.1 also says that "the Word was with God." It presents the Son as a separate person from the Father while sharing the same essence.

Possibly this analogy will help. Suppose I write a book, and I put myself in it. The character "me" says what I would say and does what I would do. It's ME in the book. He's exactly as I am. Now, is the character in the book different from the me outside of the book? Of course he is. But is it me? Of course it is. He's all me, but he's all a separate character. I can easily be both the author and a character without compromising either. I could easily also have the character in the book talk to me as the writer (as Winnie the Pooh does to Christopher Robin as author and the author does back to Pooh).

> Or, Jesus saying "not MY will, but thine be done", to God- which makes little sense if they are the same being, because then their wills would be the same.

We are specifically told that Jesus was in extreme agony (Mt. 26.38). He is coming face to face with the full meaning of His submission to the Father. He expresses a very human emotion to avoid the extreme pain coming His way, but simultaneous says with full conviction that He will follow the Father's will that has been in place since before the world was created. Remember, He is facing the reality not only of all the physical torture coming, but also that He will bear all the sins of the world. In essence He was saying, "I'm not looking forward to this, but I'll stick with the plan."

> Yes, you can find verses that, when taken individually, are less vague. And you can find some that are vague, all by themselves.

Of course. Some are vague and others are not. All told, the Bible teaches the Trinity.

> with this vagueness as to the divine nature of Jesus is at the beginning of Phillipians 2. "In the form of God" is not something you'd normally say about a being that IS God, but you might say it about a being that is divine in some sense.

The true problem here is trying to translate a Greek concept into English where there are no parallel English words or concepts. The word often translated "in the form of" is μορφῇ (morphe). It obviously needs to be interpreted as to what this means. It is often used of external appearance or shape. It is used to statues, of appearances in visions. Since God has no external appearance, it obviously means some else. Since ὑπάρχων is a continuing state of persistent existence, and God has no shape, the word is reasonably taken to mean Christ's preexistence sharing the "shape" (the attributes) of God, existing eternally with respect to God's sovereign power and status (the point of the context).

Marvin Vincent writes, "Morphe here means that expression of being which is identified with the essential nature and character of God, and which reveals it."

Joseph Hellerman: "Paul’s aim is to inform his readers that Christ enjoyed “equality with God” with respect to power and status."

> Similarly, "in human form" ...

It's no stretch to say that Jesus had God's nature and He took on human nature.

> And also there, after Jesus sacrificed himself, he was exalted and given a high name- this makes little sense if he had already been fully equal to God, in status and authority.

Hebrews tells us that in His incarnation, as a test, He proved beyond theory and speculation that in real life/real time He could live a human life of complete submission and obedience. His exaltation after His resurrection puts Him in a completely unassailable position as being "worthy" as "the lamb who was slain." This is necessarily different than His completely unassailable position before the incarnation.

It was Georg Cantor (I believe) who theorized that some infinities are bigger than others. There are an infinite quantity of numbers between zero and 1, but doesn't it make sense, then, that the infinite quantity of numbers between zero and two are greater than those between zero and one? It's a fascinating mind game. But using that same kind of reasoning, Jesus was God and exalted in a completely unassailable position even more so after the resurrection than before. Just a fun way to look at it.

> In my view, some of these authors probably saw Jesus as an angel that was lifted up to a higher status, due to his amazing obedience, even to the point of death.

There is no evidence of this view. The Gospels saw Him as Messiah. They worshiped Him as God. In the book of Acts they do not preach Him as an angel. Hebrews 1 says he was no angel.

If you have ANY evidence to support this claim, let's look at it.