Order of the trinity

[apostolic862004]

I don't believe Christ came into existence at a particular time, because he was with God and was God in the beginning. I believe the Son came forth from the Father, but I believe he has existed eternally. I think it's a mistake to push the language too far, because Scripture upholds both these things as true. It becomes meaningless to try to pin down a time where the Son came into existence, because existence/non existence has no meaning if there is no time. No time, no true causality. Instead, the language is meant to teach us something of the relationship of the Father to the Son (the Son proceeds from the Father) while maintaining the basic ontological reality (the Father and Son are of one substance - that is, the eternal substance).

This sounds more like philosophy than theology.

I also think it's a mistake to talk of God as consisting of separate entities. They are not separate, but they are distinguishable. If Christ is of the same substance as of the Father, he is eternal, because that's the essence of God.

You are playing with words. The root of the word "distinguishable" is "distinct." It something is distinct or distinguishable then it is distinct FROM something else. That means there is a SEPARATION. So to say they are not separate but they are distinct is playing word games.

 

[Butch5]

Utter heresy, Butch. You have no scripture whatsoever that says the Father brought forth a Son. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Before Abraham was born, I AM. Are you in some cult, Butch?

"Begotten" is usually a mistranslation when used of the Son of God.
μονογενής, does not mean "only begotten." The KJV severely erred on this one.
μονο = one
γεν- = kind
ής = word ending.

The Greek word for beget has two nu's

γενν- not γεν- .

So far as I know, the only times Christ is called begotten is in quoting Ps 2, evidently a coronation formula (This day I have begotten you), as would be used when a new king took over from an old king, or was recognized as the heir to the throne.

It is odd that this is even being debated here in 2015, when this doctrine has been thoroughly established long ago. Anyone who cares can surely find the proof for the true doctrine on the internet.

Atwood,

I'm beginning to tire of your nonsense. You're constant proof texting passages out of context proves nothing. If you're not willing to address the issues in a logical manner there is no need to address my posts.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

John 1:1-18

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

 

[Butch5]

We're close to agreeing, but I have a few caveats.

I don't believe Paul ever says only the Father has immortality. You'll have to cite that.

Hi Nick,

It seems we are pretty close. The passage I was referring to is in 1 Tim 6

13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; {confession: or, profession}
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1Ti 6:13-16 KJV)

I don't believe this passage is speaking of Christ since He can be seen.

I don't believe Christ came into existence at a particular time, because he was with God and was God in the beginning. I believe the Son came forth from the Father, but I believe he has existed eternally. I think it's a mistake to push the language too far, because Scripture upholds both these things as true. It becomes meaningless to try to pin down a time where the Son came into existence, because existence/non existence has no meaning if there is no time. No time, no true causality. Instead, the language is meant to teach us something of the relationship of the Father to the Son (the Son proceeds from the Father) while maintaining the basic ontological reality (the Father and Son are of one substance - that is, the eternal substance).

I also think it's a mistake to talk of God as consisting of separate entities. They are not separate, but they are distinguishable. If Christ is of the same substance as of the Father, he is eternal, because that's the essence of God.

The Son in the flesh doesn't diminish his qualities, although he put off (the language of Phillipians 2) some of the aspects of his divine nature in humility in the incarnation. That, of course, doesn't speak at all to his qualities after resurrection and ascension, where he is exalted to the right hand of the Father, has the name above every name, to whom all will bow, and by whom all will be judged.

There is a difference in order, I feel, but we can overemphasise the order, and make it a question of raw ontology, where I think Scripture's account is quite a bit more nuanced than that. Does the Son submit to the Father because he is the Son? Yes. But the reality is still that the Son has life in himself, and is ascribed the role of creator -which historically, much more so than today, has immense connotations in terms of authority, status, and divinity.

I do believe that the Son came forth from the the Father at some time in the past, when I don't think we can know. However, Jesus said in John 8 that He came out of the Father, this suggests to me that He had a beginning as a separate entity even though the substance that was the Son did exist in the Father all along. The early Christians also taught that the Son was begotten before time. Here is a quote from Ignatius. His words are not Scripture but show an early belief. He was a disciple of John so I think his words carry some weight.

For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

I think when John says that the Son was with God in the beginning he is referring to Genesis 1 the beginning of creation.

I believe they are separate entities not the modern understanding that comes from the Anthanasian creed, that being three persons one God. The modern understand standing of this is essentially a contradiction, Three persons in one being. That's not a mystery, it's a contradiction. It's also not what the apostles nor the early church taught. Paul said,

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)

According to Paul there is one God the Father, this is in agreement with the OT, 'hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is one.' It is also the understanding of the early church.

The Apostles Creed says,

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

In addition the fact that Jesus is in the flesh and God (the Father) is spirit leads me to believe they are separate entities.

 

[2Thewaters]

That term for the godhead divinity is not in the Bible
it is man made and not in the Bible
We should use what GOD told us to use

the father and son and ho;y spirit are called DIVINITY not trinity (which is not a bible word)

 

[Butch5]

Nobody has given scripture to support the order of the trinity. I have only seen one scripture from someone to try to prove the order and that was Matt 28:19 which doesn't prove and "order" at all. It only lists them. I have seen several people state what they "believe" about the order but no scriptural evidence.

So again, for those of you who believe in the "First, Second, and Third" person of the trinity, where is scriptural evidence for the Father being "First', the Son being "second', and the Holy Ghost being "Third?"

Just so you know where I am coming from, I believe that the trinity is a man made doctrine. I do not deny that it is a longstanding doctrine, only that it is not the longest standing one and also not truth. And I am stating that this "First, Second, and Third" business is partial proof that it is man made. This is an idea and terminology that is unsupported by scripture and yet most trinitarians have never questioned it. So I am questioning it for you. I say its unscriptural. Please show me that it isn't.

Hi apostolic,

Here is a passages that shows that the Father is never subject to the Son, but, the Son is subject to the Father.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:22-28 KJV)

In this passage Paul explains how All authority has been given to Christ, yet the Father is excepted from that, meaning the Son never has authority over the Father. Once the Son has accomplished His mission He will relinquish that authority back to the Father and subject Himself once again to the Father.

 

[oldhermit]

Utter heresy, Butch. You have no scripture whatsoever that says the Father brought forth a Son. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Before Abraham was born, I AM. Are you in some cult, Butch?

"Begotten" is usually a mistranslation when used of the Son of God.
μονογενής, does not mean "only begotten." The KJV severely erred on this one.
μονο = one
γεν- = kind
ής = word ending.

The Greek word for beget has two nu's

γενν- not γεν- .

So far as I know, the only times Christ is called begotten is in quoting Ps 2, evidently a coronation formula (This day I have begotten you), as would be used when a new king took over from an old king, or was recognized as the heir to the throne.

It is odd that this is even being debated here in 2015, when this doctrine has been thoroughly established long ago. Anyone who cares can surely find the proof for the true doctrine on the internet.

This is not true. μονογενής does mean only begotten as well as unique. Do not always depend on lexical definitions to represent how a word is being used by the Holy Spirit in a given text.

 

[newbirth]

Nobody has given scripture to support the order of the trinity. I have only seen one scripture from someone to try to prove the order and that was Matt 28:19 which doesn't prove and "order" at all. It only lists them. I have seen several people state what they "believe" about the order but no scriptural evidence.

So again, for those of you who believe in the "First, Second, and Third" person of the trinity, where is scriptural evidence for the Father being "First', the Son being "second', and the Holy Ghost being "Third?"

Just so you know where I am coming from, I believe that the trinity is a man made doctrine. I do not deny that it is a longstanding doctrine, only that it is not the longest standing one and also not truth. And I am stating that this "First, Second, and Third" business is partial proof that it is man made. This is an idea and terminology that is unsupported by scripture and yet most trinitarians have never questioned it. So I am questioning it for you. I say its unscriptural. Please show me that it isn't.

Those trinity guys are desperate
How about this order...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I don't see any trinity here ...first and last...beginning and end

 

[Nick01]

This sounds more like philosophy than theology.

Oh please. Do you actually have a problem with what I said, or are you going to straw man it? The Bible clearly teaches that, by any known metric, any method of reckoning, the Son has existed eternally. That is the teaching of Scripture, and is the historic teaching of the Church.

You are playing with words.

The root of the word "distinguishable" is "distinct."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Even then, appeals to etymology mean nothing. To use a flawed human analogy, let's say you have a pair of conjoined twins. They are certainly distinguishable, and have independent personalities, body parts, etc. But in what sense are they separate? Then you have a taste of what I'm driving at. God is one in substance, essence and purpose, but distinct in person.

 

[Nick01]

Hi Nick,

It seems we are pretty close. The passage I was referring to is in 1 Tim 6

I don't believe this passage is speaking of Christ since He can be seen.

It's tricky to actually work out what the referents are in this passage - whether it is to Christ, the Father, or some catch all. I take your point about Jesus being able to be seen, but would suggest that the expression here might be related to the expression in John 5:26 - the Father has life in himself, but has granted the Son to also have life in himself, and this has occurred eternally, since the beginning. So even if 1 Tim 6 is definitely talking about the Father, it doesn't necessarily mean, taken with the rest of Scripture, that there is only one person who is immortal.

I do believe that the Son came forth from the the Father at some time in the past, when I don't think we can know. However, Jesus said in John 8 that He came out of the Father, this suggests to me that He had a beginning as a separate entity even though the substance that was the Son did exist in the Father all along.

It might seem a subtle difference, but I disagree. I don't think Jesus came forth at a specific time - he is eternally of the Father. If he was with God and was God at the beginning, then it is meaningless to talk about him coming into existence at a time before the beginning. I prefer to stay with the language of Scripture, and go no further.

The early Christians also taught that the Son was begotten before time. Here is a quote from Ignatius. His words are not Scripture but show an early belief. He was a disciple of John so I think his words carry some weight.

For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

Part of this hinges on the use of the word monogenes, but even then, the word rendered as begotten doesn't represent a fixed point in time - Nicea used the phrase rendered in English as 'eternally begotten' to represent this idea. And again, in what sense did Jesus establish ALL things according to his will if there was a time where he was not?

While we're quoting Anti-Nicene Fathers, here is a section from Athenagoras, circa 170AD, who wrote about a generation or so after Ignatius. Again, not Scripture, but interesting none the less

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being— I have sufficiently demonstrated.

[I say His Logos], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God.

But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energising power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter.

The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. The Lord, it says, made me, the beginning of His ways to His works. Proverbs 8:22 The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun.

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all.

-The Embassy of the Christians, Chapter 10

I think when John says that the Son was with God in the beginning he is referring to Genesis 1 the beginning of creation.

Except John then goes on to say that all things came into being through the Son, and nothing came into being apart from him. So whatever you want to make of the language of the Son coming from or being with the Father, it is obviously before the very first word of Genesis 1.

I believe they are separate entities not the modern understanding that comes from the Anthanasian creed, that being three persons one God. The modern understand standing of this is essentially a contradiction, Three persons in one being. That's not a mystery, it's a contradiction. It's also not what the apostles nor the early church taught. Paul said,

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1Co 8:6 KJV)

According to Paul there is one God the Father, this is in agreement with the OT, 'hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is one.' It is also the understanding of the early church.

The Apostles Creed says,

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

In addition the fact that Jesus is in the flesh and God (the Father) is spirit leads me to believe they are separate entities.

How is three persons one God a contradiction?

In regards to 1 Cor 8, we have to remember that Paul is arguing against pagan ideas of God, and so he uses their language. There are many GODS and many LORDS - but to us there i ONE GOD, and there is ONE LORD. When you also take into account the fact that the Greek word used here for Lord is kyrios, and is the same word used for the divine name in the LXX, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Paul intends his readers to understand the divine connotations of the use of Lord, and is making a point about the nature of God using not only pagan language, but also the language of the Shema. It is an affirmation of monotheism while also affirming the divinity of Christ.

 

[StoneThrower]

Those trinity guys are desperate
How about this order...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I don't see any trinity here ...first and last...beginning and end

Some with that kind of logic, your saying Jesus Christ is God and their is no Father or Holy Ghost.
Seriously?

 

[newbirth]

Hi apostolic,

Here is a passages that shows that the Father is never subject to the Son, but, the Son is subject to the Father.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:22-28 KJV)

In this passage Paul explains how All authority has been given to Christ, yet the Father is excepted from that, meaning the Son never has authority over the Father. Once the Son has accomplished His mission He will relinquish that authority back to the Father and subject Himself once again to the Father.

Not only that but there are only two entities in that equation, where we see all thing being put under the Son by the Father

[SUP]5 [/SUP]For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
[SUP]6 [/SUP]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

 

[newbirth]

Some with that kind of logic, your saying Jesus Christ is God and their is no Father or Holy Ghost.
Seriously?

No you are saying that I am saying that....I am just quoting what the scripture says....If you find no trinity in there ,there is none end of story.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

[2Thewaters]

What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?

trinity is not a Bible term

the Bible term for the Godhead is DIVINITY

that other word is made up by ctholics who dont have any clue
it is also used by Hinduism as a NAME for their demonic trinity deities

God doesnt appreciate you calling him a demonic name, invented by demons.

read your Bible

The father, and the son, and the holy spirit is the divinity.
that is God's title and God's name vas given to us in the King James Bible.
One God the father
One God the son
and one God the holy spirit
this one is one
that is the correct way to say it.

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." -Acts 17:29.


"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and divinity; so that they are without excuse:" -Romans 1:20.


"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the divinity bodily." -Colossians 2:9.

 

[Tintin]

Other Christians have given untold evidence for the plurality that is the one true God. Those of you who don't believe in the Trinity just don't accept it. Ridiculously-long Trinity threads here at CC, attest to the stupidity of even getting involved in this fruitless discussion.

2thewaters, have you ever thought why Hinduism has a trinity of sorts? They perverted the understanding that is the one true God when they began to worship their ancient ancestors (Japheth etc.) and gave him some godly attributes from the real God.

 

[2Thewaters]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost:
and these three are one.



We are to co-operate with the three highest powers in heaven, the father, the son, and the holy ghost,
and these powers will work through us, making us workers together with God.

The prince of the power of evil
can only be held in check
by the power of God
in the third person of the Godhead,
the holy spirit.

The holy spirit has a personality,
else he could not bear witness to our spirits
and with our spirits that we are the children of God.

He must also be a divine person,
else he could not search out the secrets
which lie hidden in the mind of God.

"For what man knoweth the things of a man,
save the spirit of man which is in him?
even so the things of God knoweth no man,
but the Spirit of God.

 

[newbirth]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost:
and these three are one.



.

[h=1]The Johannine Comma[/h] [h=2](1 John 5:7-8)[/h] The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
​

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
​

These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.
​

From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads:

For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
​

 

[Kerry]

No one truly understands the trinity. Just as know one knows where God came from.

But, in His in His Word (Jesus) we understand that are three different attributes to God. Without a 9 page explanation.

The Father is wisdom. Okay, wisdom is God given it cannot be acquired, except that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Have you ever met someone that was book smart but, dumb as an ox.
Albert Einstein couldn't tie his shoes and on a bicycle would get lost on the way home. But, a brilliant man.

Jesus is the word of God (or knowledge). Knowledge can be acquired through learning. In fact the bible said that My people perish for the lack of knowledge. So God sent knowledge in the form of Jesus Christ. Jesus said no man comes to the Father (wisdom) except through Me. Again, I am the way the truth and the life.

The Holy Spirit is the hand of God. This is the part of God that performs and makes stuff happen. When Jesus said I only do what I see My Father do. He was saying I speak what He thinks and spoken in faith, the Holy Spirit brings it to pass. It is not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit saith the Lord. It is the Holy Spirit that turned Moses rod into a serpent. It is the Holy Spirit that turned the Nile into blood. It is the Holy Spirit that brought you to the knowledge of God.

The three are one unit and that one unit is called love.

 

[Bowman]

Those trinity guys are desperate
How about this order...I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I don't see any trinity here ...first and last...beginning and end

What you see is the One God being ANY number that He wants.

 

[DiscipleDave]

What is the significance of "First, Second, and Third person" in the trinity?

Where did the terminology "First, Second, and Third person" come from?

If they are coequal, coexistant, and coeternal, can I say that Jesus is the first person, the Holy Spirit is second, and the Father is third? Because in Revelation chapter 1 Jesus said I am the first and the last. Or can I say that Jesus is the third person?

They are not co-equal, even Jesus Himself verifies this Truth by saying all that He knows comes from His Father, that the miracles He did came from His Father and not Himself. also Jesus sits on the right hand of God the Father, clearly the Father is above the Son. Jesus Himself calls Himself the Son of God, NOT THE FATHER. Jesus made it Clear He was subservient to His Father which was in Heaven. No sinner can stand before the Father, but we can stand before Jesus. The Father created the Son Jesus Christ, Jesus came out from the Father. The Father did not come out from the Son.
The Husband and Wife are ONE, does not mean they are co-equal. let the worldly women get upset at that Truth. God set it up for the Husband to be the Head of the wife, and that the wife is to obey her husband in everything. ORDER. Not the Husband and the wife both wearing the same pants, hence the reason for rampant divorces. The Husband is the Head of the wife, yet they are ONE. The Father is the Head of the Son and the Holy Ghost and they too are ONE. Scriptures give us a PLAIN example of what it means to be ONE. The Husband and the Wife are not longer twain but ONE. This same example applies to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Let men of this generation to complicate that which is so simple that children can understand it.

Trinity Part One

^i^