Originally posted by Sparko

John 10: 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

"Sheep pen? "

Then the Lord for William Tindale.

Originally posted by Collier

My original statement has become a bit twisted. What I said in Post 32 was, ‘I cannot find a single verse in which the word "God" refers to more than one person.’

32? No. I didn't start this on 33. I started this after what you said on 40.

Whenever the title "God" is used, it refers to ONE PERSON, not three.

I was just wanting to see you back this claim.

Post 36 has this clarification: ‘I cannot find a verse in the Bible in which the title "God" refers to a plurality. If God is actually three persons, surely there should be ONE verse in which the word is used that way. I can't find one, and you haven't given one.’ [That is still true.]

And I don't give a darn about post 36. I care about post 40.

I am reasonably certain that there is no such verse in the NT. One counterexample on your part would prove me wrong. If you can’t give one, I can assume there isn’t one. And the doctrine of tri-unity is supposed to be a NT doctrine.

Yes. It's not drawn however from the meaning of the word "God" but by looking at the ontology of each of the three persons of the Trinity.

As for the OT, Peter says in Acts 3:13, “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.”

Yes. This is your mistake. You are taking a role illustrating a function and drawing an ontology out of that. If you want to know who Jesus is, you go to passages like John 1:1 that speak of his ontology.

So the God of Israel [the “one YHWH” of the Shema], is separate and distinct from Jesus. Jesus in the OT is the servant of YHWH, the Son of YHWH, the anointed of YHWH.

As a Trinitarian, I can safely affirm Acts 3:13. In fact, this is the language I expect to see. I expect the Son to be spoken of in his fulfillment of OT prophecies as the centerpiece and in his relation to the Father.

So my original statement stands. I cannot find a verse in the Bible in which the word “God” refers to a plurality. And you haven’t given me one.

Let's suppose I never gave one even.

My doctrine would be in zero danger. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's called "Systematic" for a reason.

If you don’t know he isn’t just a god, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

Oh I know he's the God, I'm just wondering how you'd justify it from your position since apparently if some people are called elohim, that doesn't mean they're god. Why should I grant YHWH different since he's called Elohim?

Originally posted by Collier

Exactly!!

Yes, exactly. Jesus as God is the true King of Israel. This verse is the true fulfillment of the coronation of the King over Israel. Jesus, as God is the fulfillment of God FINALLY becoming King over His People. Hence, the Father calls the Son THE God (τω θεω)

And they were called "gods" (theos) in John 10:34.

Without the article τω

This is a good point, and thank you. Satan is a usurper. He is presently the god of this world, but he is going to be supplanted by the one whom God has appointed judge, the one to whom God has given an everlasting kingdom.

That's not the point I was making. The article τω indicates a singular and superlative - none to compare it to. There is only currently one THE "god of this world", just as there is only one "THE" God. That THE God is the Triune God used of the Father in John 1:1 and of the Son here, and of the Spirit in Acts 5:3-4

That has a direct bearing on Philippians 2:6 - “who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Satan DID grasp at equality with God. He wanted to BE God. Jesus, on the other hand, even though he was the Son of God and therefore fully divine, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. He was content to acknowledge that “my Father is greater than I”.

Again, off topic. Satan's plans have nothing to do with Jesus' nature. Phillippians 2:6 says that Jesus existed having the nature of God and took on the nature of a servant.

Robertson's Word Pictures

Being (huparchōn). Rather, “existing,” present active participle of huparchō. In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
by
A.T. Robertson

---

© source where applicable

The nature of God is not something that was conferred on Him. He existed as God - in the very form of God - and was equal to God. He gave that form up and came in the form of a servant. He was and is God.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

The nature of God is not something that was conferred on Him. He existed as God - in the very form of God - and was equal to God. ... He was and is God.

With this I totally agree. That is what the word "God" (without the article) conveys in John 1:1. It DESCRIBES the Word as being God - as being everything that God is.

I'm not so sure that "He gave that form up ... ." I agree with Robertson that being in the form of God 'means “existing,” present active participle of huparchō. In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. ... Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.'

I don't think he could "give that up". He could not cease to be what he always was. "Veiled" might be a better term. Or am I misunderstanding you?

No response....Interesting.....

Originally posted by Collier

With this I totally agree. That is what the word "God" (without the article) conveys in John 1:1. It DESCRIBES the Word as being God - as being everything that God is.

I'm not so sure that "He gave that form up ... ." I agree with Robertson that being in the form of God 'means “existing,” present active participle of huparchō. In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. ... Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.'

I don't think he could "give that up". He could not cease to be what he always was. "Veiled" might be a better term. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Yeah. Veiled is probably a better description.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Yeah. Veiled is probably a better description.

I'm going to be away for the next eight days, but I will be able to read anything you can give me to learn. And thank you for what I have already learned.

In the meantime, something lovely happened a week ago last Sunday, and it fits the subject of the last few posts, I think. A man of 93 got up at the end of our "breaking of bread" meeting (communion service) and said he wanted to read four words from Luke 14:9. The four words are, "Give this man place."

The Lord was telling people not to look for honor when they went to public places, but to take the "lowest place" instead. And that is exactly what He, Himself, did. He became the Sin-Bearer. He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. That's why God exalted Him to the highest place, and made Him Lord of all.

Most people despised Him while He was here on earth. But a few recognized who He was. I won't go into it all; but the thief on the cross is one outstanding example. He saw a dying man - beaten, bloody, spat upon, ridiculed - and he recognized (somehow) that this Man was the coming KIng. "Lord," he said, remember me ..."

Lyle finished by saying we were there for the very purpose of giving this Man His rightful place - the highest and the best place.

When he sat down, a young man immediately got up and said, "I know the time is up, but I think we should sing #352; and I think it would be appropriate to stand." [We don't usually stand to sing. The Brethren are - well - pretty dull. But I love them for putting up with me.]

It was definitely appropriate to stand. And as we stood singing the chorus, "Worthy, O Lamb of God art Thou, that every knee to Thee should bow," I couldn't help thinking that an even more appropriate posture might have been on our faces.

Sorry - that has been thrilling my heart, and I couldn't resist sharing it.

Originally posted by Collier

I'm going to be away for the next eight days, but I will be able to read anything you can give me to learn. And thank you for what I have already learned.

It's my pleasure. I'm not the best at articulating the Trinity, but I have a reasonable grasp on the proof. Hopefully, I've given you some food for thought on the validity of the Trinity

In the meantime, something lovely happened a week ago last Sunday, and it fits the subject of the last few posts, I think. A man of 93 got up at the end of our "breaking of bread" meeting (communion service) and said he wanted to read four words from Luke 14:9. The four words are, "Give this man place."

The Lord was telling people not to look for honor when they went to public places, but to take the "lowest place" instead. And that is exactly what He, Himself, did. He became the Sin-Bearer. He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. That's why God exalted Him to the highest place, and made Him Lord of all.

Most people despised Him while He was here on earth. But a few recognized who He was. I won't go into it all; but the thief on the cross is one outstanding example. He saw a dying man - beaten, bloody, spat upon, ridiculed - and he recognized (somehow) that this Man was the coming KIng. "Lord," he said, remember me ..."

Lyle finished by saying we were there for the very purpose of giving this Man His rightful place - the highest and the best place.

When he sat down, a young man immediately got up and said, "I know the time is up, but I think we should sing #352; and I think it would be appropriate to stand." [We don't usually stand to sing. The Brethren are - well - pretty dull. But I love them for putting up with me.]

It was definitely appropriate to stand. And as we stood singing the chorus, "Worthy, O Lamb of God art Thou, that every knee to Thee should bow," I couldn't help thinking that an even more appropriate posture might have been on our faces.

Sorry - that has been thrilling my heart, and I couldn't resist sharing it.

Thanks for sharing. I believe this is the sort of thing that the Spirit teaching us is all about. The scriptures are true, and the Spirit helps us understand the depth of that truth. Be blessed in your time away.

There are a couple of posts that need a response.

Originally posted by Sparko

so you just hunt around till you find someone that can explain it away and feel satisfied?

Not exactly. I went to the Jerusalem Bible first, because it is a Catholic translation, and the doctrine of tri-unity is - first and foremost - a Catholic doctrine.

Catholic trinitarians have an advantage over Protestant trinitarians. Catholics believe that the word of “the fathers” is just as authoritative as the Word of God, so they are not worried if there is no explicit scriptural evidence for what the fathers decreed.

That means that the scholars who wrote the Jerusalem Bible did not feel compelled to make Acts 20:23 a “proof text” for the doctrine of tri-unity. They looked at the scriptures dealing with the blood, recognized that “blood” is part of a body, not of a spirit, and wrote a note that fits the evidence.

Can the blood of Jesus be called God’s blood?

Of course. All things are God’s. It was God who prepared the body (Hebrews 10:5) in which Jesus lived and died. Therefore, it was God who prepared the blood. The blood was part of that body. It's all God's.

But that does not make Jesus the Person of God. God himself is a spirit. He did not come himself in a body. Instead, he sent his Son, and prepared a body in which the Word became flesh, a body with blood that could be shed. And it is the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, that cleanses from all sin.

Welcome back!

Originally posted by Collier

There are a couple of posts that need a response.



Not exactly. I went to the Jerusalem Bible first, because it is a Catholic translation, and the doctrine of tri-unity is - first and foremost - a Catholic doctrine.

Catholic trinitarians have an advantage over Protestant trinitarians. Catholics believe that the word of “the fathers” is just as authoritative as the Word of God, so they are not worried if there is no explicit scriptural evidence for what the fathers decreed.

That means that the scholars who wrote the Jerusalem Bible did not feel compelled to make Acts 20:23 a “proof text” for the doctrine of tri-unity. They looked at the scriptures dealing with the blood, recognized that “blood” is part of a body, not of a spirit, and wrote a note that fits the evidence.

Can the blood of Jesus be called God’s blood?

Of course. All things are God’s. It was God who prepared the body (Hebrews 10:5) in which Jesus lived and died. Therefore, it was God who prepared the blood. The blood was part of that body. It's all God's.

But that does not make Jesus the Person of God. God himself is a spirit. He did not come himself in a body. Instead, he sent his Son, and prepared a body in which the Word became flesh, a body with blood that could be shed. And it is the blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, that cleanses from all sin.

If Jesus is God's Son, and there is only one God and no other, then what is Jesus? The son of a man is a man. The son of a dog is a dog, so what would the Son of God be?

The bible is clear that The Son is not created because it says that all things were created by and for him.

• So if he is uncreated,
• and the Son of God, the Father,
• and there is only ONE God,
• and you don't believe in the trinity,

then what is your explanation?

Originally posted by Phoenix Fawkes

32? No. I didn't start this on 33. I started this after what you said on 40.

- Whenever the title "God" is used, it refers to ONE PERSON, not three.

I was just wanting to see you back this claim.

And I don't give a darn about post 36. I care about post 40.

My “claim” is based on the fact that you, who invited questions about the Trinity so that you could clear up any misunderstandings on the subject, did nothing to correct my own observations. After all, you are the teacher. If you could not supply one verse where the word “God” refers to a plurality, then I was safe in concluding that there is none.

More specifically, you have now tacitly admitted that you cannot give one New Testament verse in which the word "God" refers to a tri-une being. Since the doctrine of tri-unity is supposed to be a New Testament doctrine, I am safe in assuming that NO verse in the Bible refers to a tri-une being. But I will express the sentence again, in the form of a challenge:

- Whenever the title "God" is used, it refers to ONE PERSON, not three. If the statement is incorrect, supply a counter-example. If you can't, the statement stands.

Originally posted by Phoenix Fawkes

Oh I know he's the God, I'm just wondering how you'd justify it from your position since apparently if some people are called elohim, that doesn't mean they're god. Why should I grant YHWH different since he's called Elohim?

I’m not sure what you mean. You seem to be suggesting that either everyone who is called an elohim is the God, or else nobody who is called an elohim is the God. Could you clarify the question, please?

Originally posted by Collier

My “claim” is based on the fact that you, who invited questions about the Trinity so that you could clear up any misunderstandings on the subject, did nothing to correct my own observations. After all, you are the teacher. If you could not supply one verse where the word “God” refers to a plurality, then I was safe in concluding that there is none.

No. Again, you made the claim and now you're pushing it on me to back your claim. That's just fallacious thinking.

More specifically, you have now tacitly admitted that you cannot give one New Testament verse in which the word "God" refers to a tri-une being.

Please show where I admitted such a thing.

Since the doctrine of tri-unity is supposed to be a New Testament doctrine, I am safe in assuming that NO verse in the Bible refers to a tri-une being. But I will express the sentence again, in the form of a challenge:

- Whenever the title "God" is used, it refers to ONE PERSON, not three. If the statement is incorrect, supply a counter-example. If you can't, the statement stands.

No. If you make the statement, it is up to you to show how you know this. That's what I want you to establish. How do you know this?

I’m not sure what you mean. You seem to be suggesting that either everyone who is called an elohim is the God, or else nobody who is called an elohim is the God. Could you clarify the question, please?

What's difficult about it? Some people are called Elohim who are not gods. Some are called Elohim who are. Why should I put YHWH in one category and not another?

Originally posted by Phoenix Fawkes

No. Again, you made the claim and now you're pushing it on me to back your claim. That's just fallacious thinking.


Please show where I admitted such a thing.

The sentence, “Let's suppose I never gave one even,” is a tacit admission that you can’t. In fact, every time you refuse to give an example, you are tacitly admitting you can’t.

It happens that I have read all of the New Testament looking for such an example, and can’t find one. That was expressed twice – and you - the person who invited questions so you could explain the doctrine - did not help. Unless somebody provides an example, I know there isn’t one. Very simple.

Originally posted by Phoenix Fawkes

What's difficult about it? Some people are called Elohim who are not gods. Some are called Elohim who are. Why should I put YHWH in one category and not another?

Thank you for the clarification. But why are you asking me what YOU should do?

Originally posted by Sparko

If Jesus is God's Son, and there is only one God and no other, then what is Jesus? The son of a man is a man. The son of a dog is a dog, so what would the Son of God be?

Your examples are great. The son of a man is a man (human).

I can’t say that the Son of God is a god. But I CAN say that the Son of God is God in essence. He is divine. He is everything that God is. What else would anyone expect a son to be? In him dwells all the fullness of deity. We have already agreed on that.

Originally posted by Sparko

• So if he is uncreated,
• and the Son of God, the Father,
• and there is only ONE God,
• and you don't believe in the trinity,

then what is your explanation?

You are forgetting something. I DO believe in the trinity that is expressed in all the trinitarian passages in the New Testament. The classic example is 2 Corinthians 13:14. Read all of the trinitarian passages and you will find the same pattern. There are three divine Persons. ONE OF THOSE THREE DIVINE PERSONS IS GOD. Another is Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Another is God’s Holy Spirit.

All are divine. What else would one expect? But the only true God, the one God, is the Father. That’s what both Paul and the Lord Jesus said, and I believe they told the exact truth. The one God is truly one, not three.

Originally posted by Collier

Your examples are great. The son of a man is a man (human).

I can’t say that the Son of God is a god. But I CAN say that the Son of God is God in essence. He is divine. He is everything that God is. What else would anyone expect a son to be? In him dwells all the fullness of deity. We have already agreed on that.



You are forgetting something. I DO believe in the trinity that is expressed in all the trinitarian passages in the New Testament. The classic example is 2 Corinthians 13:14. Read all of the trinitarian passages and you will find the same pattern. There are three divine Persons. ONE OF THOSE THREE DIVINE PERSONS IS GOD. Another is Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Another is God’s Holy Spirit.

All are divine. What else would one expect? But the only true God, the one God, is the Father. That’s what both Paul and the Lord Jesus said, and I believe they told the exact truth. The one God is truly one, not three.

well "god" as used in the bible refers to divine beings who control the fates of humans, and the world, etc. Our God is the one who created the universe, mankind, etc. But pagans had gods that also did that and perhaps some that were the god of war, etc.

You say the Father is God? But you also say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "divine persons" - so you are saying they are gods too, but just don't have the title "God". But the bible is clear that there is only one god, and no others at all. You can't have 3 gods and just not call two of them "god".

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10)

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

Now how can "God" make such statements if Jesus IS like him in every way but a title?

And if the Father is God and created the universe ALONE,

Isaiah 44:24 "This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

Isaiah 48:13 "My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together.

Then how is it that the NT says that the SON created everything?

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Col. 1:16-17 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.