COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

God: Trinity or Not

Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
Is Jesus Christ God?

A not so common question people keep asking since then.
If you think that God is Trinity, then come in and prove it biblically. :)
«1

Comments

  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    haha. i wonder bakit walang nag response?
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    Oh, seems nobody wants to try.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    Syempre meron!

    "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)

    "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)

    "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." (2 Corinthians 13:14)

    "There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

    "But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it." (Ephesians 4:4-7)

    "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (1 Peter 1:2)

    "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." (Jude 1:20-21)
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    "The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument."

    Source: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/whatisthetrinity.htm
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    Nice try but let us see. You quoted Biblical verses that you think prove the concept of the Trinity even though the verses didn't even say that the Father, the Son, and the Hoily Spirit are ONE of being God.

    Surely you understand the verses in different way.
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    Matthew 28:19

    Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

    Eusebius (c. 260—c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.” Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”

    For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

    But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

    Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

    What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.”

    Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” he would never have quoted it as “in my name.” Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read “in my name,” and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.

    If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the “name of Jesus Christ,” i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively “baptized.” “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’” (Acts 2:38). “They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). “So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). “On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.

    Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity.

    The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and “Holy Spirit” together make “one God.” This verse refers to three, but never says they are “one.” The three things this verse refers to are: God the Father, the Lord Jesus and the power of holy spirit

    It should be clear that three separate things do not make “one God.” Morgridge writes:

    No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject.

    It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2).

    It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one “name,” so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to “confound the persons” (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one “name,” especially since no such “name” is ever given in Scripture (“God” is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three “persons,” then it should use the word “names.” There is a much better explanation for why “name” is used in the singular.

    A study of the culture and language shows that the word “name” stood for “authority.” Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the “name” (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the “name” (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.

    In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier.

    :)
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    1 Corinthians 12:4-6

    There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. (NIV)

    There is no mention here of the “Trinity.” The verses speak of three: God, Christ and the spirit, but do not speak of a Trinitarian formula.

    It is significant, especially in light of Trinitarian doctrine, that the three mentioned in this verse are “spirit,” “Lord” and “God” instead of “spirit,” “Lord” and “Father.” Morgridge writes:

    Three objects are distinctly mentioned—God, Christ and the Spirit. If Christ and the Spirit were persons in the Trinity, the distinct mention of them would be superfluous, they being included in “God.” But as one of the objects mentioned is called “God,” it follows that neither of the other two can be God; for we know that “there is none other God but one.” If the three objects were the three persons in the Trinity, why is the name “God” given to one of them only?

    I agree with Morgridge that the mention of “God” as one of the three, precludes the other two from being “God.” The language of the text is plain and simple. There are three distinct things being mentioned, and any attempt to force them together into “one” distorts the simple truth being communicated by the Word of God.
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    2 Corinthians 13:14

    May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (NIV)

    This closing verse of the epistle of 2 Corinthians is a doxology, and is typical of how Paul closes his epistles. Galatians, Philippians and both Thessalonian epistles close with “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The close of Ephesians includes “love with faith from God.” There is no reason to conclude that a closing doxology would not incorporate three wonderful attributes: the love of God, the grace of Christ and the fellowship of the spirit.

    There is no presentation of the Trinity in this verse. Three different things are mentioned, but they are never said to be “one,” or “of one substance,” or “making up one God,” or anything like what would be needed for a Trinitarian formula. There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them “one” just because they are mentioned together. For example, “Peter, James and John” are often mentioned together, but that fact does not make them “one.” Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are often mentioned together also, and that fact does not make them “one.” If three things are actually “one,” there must be a clear verse that says so, and as even Trinitarians will admit, there is no such verse that articulates that God, Jesus and the spirit equal “one God.”

    Although this verse is used by some to support the Trinity, a careful reading shows that it actually contradicts it. The three mentioned in the verse are “God,” “Jesus Christ” and the “Holy Spirit”. Yet the Trinitarian position is that “God” is composed of the Father, Christ and the Spirit. So the fact that the verse mentions “God” separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that they are indeed separate from “God” and that there is no Trinity.

    This verse does not mean that we have fellowship with the “person,” the Holy Spirit, who is part of the Trinity. It refers to the fellowship that Christians have with each other because of the presence of God’s gift, holy spirit, in each of us. The “fellowship of the spirit” is a phrase that is also used in Philippians 2:1, and the text note on this verse in the NIV Study Bible is fairly accurate. It says: “The fellowship among believers produced by the Spirit, who indwells each of them.” The fellowship of the spirit is the fellowship Christians enjoy with other believers because of the presence of the spirit in each of us.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    Jury12 wrote:
    the verses didn't even say that the Father, the Son, and the Hoily Spirit are ONE of being God.

    Again look at this verse...

    "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." (Jude 1:20-21)

    Why would we be ordered to "pray in the Holy Spirit". Why would we "Keep yourselves in God's love" and finally why should we call "our Lord Jesus Christ" and as our savior if the concept of the Trinity does not exist?
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    Ephesians 4:7-8

    But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says, “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” (NIV)

    Verse 8 is a quotation from the Old Testament, where the context is referring to what God did, so there are some who say that if the verse is applied to Christ, then Christ must be God. However, it is common for a verse is to be interpreted one way in the Old Testament and then applied or interpreted differently in the New Testament. Examples of this are quite abundant, and this is not disputed by theologians. Thus, it is not unusual that an Old Testament quotation would be accommodated to Christ.

    A lot has been written on the subject of accommodating Old Testament verses to New Testament circumstances, and we refer interested readers to any good theological library. One illustration of this is the title, “the First and the Last”. Another is the prophecy in Hosea 11:1. Hosea is speaking of Israel coming up out of Egypt, but in Matthew 2:15 God accommodates the meaning to Christ coming out of Egypt as a child. Another good example is Jeremiah 31:15. In that prophecy, “Rachel,” the mother of Benjamin, was weeping because her children, the Israelites, were taken captive to Babylon. She was told not to weep because “they will return from the land of the enemy” (31:16). However, the verse about Rachel weeping was lifted from its Old Testament context and accommodated to the killing of the children in Bethlehem around the birth of Christ (Matt. 2:18).

    Another example occurs in the accommodating of Psalm 69:25 to Judas. In Psalm 69, David is appealing to God to deliver him from his enemies. He cried to God, “Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head” (v.4). He prayed, “Come near and rescue me, redeem me because of my foes” (v.18), and he continued, “May their place be deserted, let there be no one to dwell in their tents” (v.25). Peter saw by revelation that Psalm 69:25 could be accommodated to Judas, and spoke to the disciples around him: “It is written in the Book of Psalms, ‘May his place be deserted, let there be no one to dwell in it’” (Acts 1:20).

    Since it is clear that prophecies in the Old Testament are brought into the New Testament and accommodated to the New Testament circumstances, it is easy to understand that some prophecies of God working in the Old Testament are pulled into the New Testament and applied to Christ. That is completely understandable because now Christ has “all authority” and has been made Head over the Church. He has been set above all principalities and powers, and given a name above every name. So, when God accommodates a prophecy or a scripture about Himself to Christ, it does not mean that Christ is God any more than Hosea 11:1 being accommodated to Christ means that Christ is actually the nation of Israel.
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    Jury12 we can ramble on and on about the intricacies of the Trinity here but let us go back to the essence of your question.

    Is Jesus Christ God?

    The Bible tells us that He is and believing otherwise is a very dangerous proposition.

    "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    easter wrote:
    Syempre meron!

    "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (1 Peter 1:2)

    "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." (Jude 1:20-21)

    Again, in these verses... there's no mention of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as ONE TRUE GOD.
    easter wrote:
    Again look at this verse...

    "But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." (Jude 1:20-21)

    Why would we be ordered to "pray in the Holy Spirit". Why would we "Keep yourselves in God's love" and finally why should we call "our Lord Jesus Christ" and as our savior if the concept of the Trinity does not exist?

    What's wrong with praying in the holy spirit? What's wrong with keeping ourselves with God's love? And what's wrong with calling our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Before we move on, Can you define what the Trinity is? :)
    easter wrote:
    "The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. But this does not mean that the concept is not taught there. The word "bible" is not found in the Bible either, but we use it anyway. Likewise, the words "omniscience," which means "all knowing," "omnipotence," which means "all powerful," and "omnipresence," which means "present everywhere," are not found in the Bible either. But we use these words to describe the attributes of God. So, to say that the Trinity isn't true because the word isn't in the Bible is an invalid argument."

    Actually, not only the word "trinity" can be found in the Bible. Also the statement or thought that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are one God.

    The doctrine of the Trinity as commonly defined is not found in the Bible. For we assert that there are three persons in one God - a statement not found in Scripture.
    Richard W. Chilson
    Full Christianity: A Catholic Response to Fundamental Questions
    p. 25
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    easter wrote:
    "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)

    I am NOT saying that Jesus Christ came NOT in the flesh. Jesus, by having a flesh, is therefore a man, and proves that He is NOT God - since God is NOT a man.

    Actually, there were people who do not believe that Jesus Christ came not in a flesh - denying the humanity of Jesus. They call themselves Docetists.

    :)
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    Jury12 wrote:
    Jesus, by having a flesh, is therefore a man, and proves that He is NOT God - since God is NOT a man.

    "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

    Plain and simple.
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    John 10:30

    I and my father are one. (KJV)

    There is no reason to take this verse to mean that Christ was saying that he and the Father make up “one God.” The phrase was a common one, and even today if someone used it, people would know exactly what he meant—he and his father are very much alike. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry there, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 - KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? In this case, translating the same phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Christ’s statement in John 10:30: Christ always did the Father’s will; he and God have “one purpose.”

    Christ uses the concept of “being one” in other places, and from them one can see that “one purpose” is what is meant. John 11:52 says Jesus was to die to make all God’s children “one.” In John 17:11,21 and 22, Jesus prayed to God that his followers would be “one” as he and God were “one.” We think it is obvious that Jesus was not praying that all his followers would become one being or “substance” just as he and his Father were one being or “substance.” We believe the meaning is clear: Jesus was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and God were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered.

    The context of John 10:30 shows conclusively that Jesus was referring to the fact that he had the same purpose as God did. Read the preceding verses of John 10:30. You'll see that Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the “sheep,” the believers, who came to him. He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.

    :)
  • eastereaster Pinoy PExer
    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." (Colossians 1:15)

    But you can say that Jesus may just be like a model airplane or something? However the coup de grace comes in the succeeding verses.

    "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. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy." (Colossians 1:16-18)
  • Jury12Jury12 John 17:1-3 PExer
    Colossians 1:15-20

    15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
    16 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.
    17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
    18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
    19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
    20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the Cross. (NIV)


    As with all good biblical exegesis, it is important to note the context of the verses and why they would be written and placed where they are. Reading the Book of Colossians reveals that the Colossian Church had lost its focus on Christ. Some of the believers at Colosse had, in practice, forsaken their connection with the Head, Jesus Christ, and some were even being led to worship angels (2:18 and 19). The situation in Colosse called for a strong reminder of Christ’s headship over his Church, and the epistle to the Colossians provided just that.

    These verses cannot be affirming the Trinity because they open with Christ being “the image [eikon] of the invisible God.”

    If Christ were “God,” then the verse would simply say so, rather than that he was the “image” of God. The Father is plainly called “God” in dozens of places, and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God. Instead, we are told that Christ is the image of God. If one thing is the “image” of another thing, then the “image” and the “original” are not the same thing. The Father is God, and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the image of God.

    Calling Jesus the image of God squares beautifully with his statement that, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9 and 10).

    There are Trinitarian theologians who assert that the word eikon (from which we get the English word “icon,” meaning “image,” or “representation”) means “manifestation” here in Colossians, and that Christ is the manifestation of God. We believe that conclusion is unwarranted. The word eikon occurs 23 times in the New Testament, and it is clearly used as “image” in the common sense of the word. It is used of the image of Caesar on a coin, of idols that are manmade images of gods, of Old Testament things that were only an image of the reality we have today and of the “image” of the beast that occurs in Revelation. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says that Christians are changed into the “image” of the Lord as we reflect his glory. All these verses use “image” in the common sense of the word, i.e., a representation separate from the original. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” Just as Christ is called the image of God, so men are called the image of God.

    We are not as exact an image as Christ is because we are marred by sin, but nevertheless the Bible does call us the “image” of God. Thus, the wording about being the image of God is the same for us as it is for Christ. We maintain that the words in the Word must be read and understood in their common or ordinary meaning unless good reason can be given to alter that meaning. In this case, the common meaning of “image” is “likeness” or “resemblance,” and it is used that way every time in the New Testament. Surely if the word “image” took on a new meaning for those times it referred to Christ, the Bible would let us know that. Since it does not, we assert that the use of “image” is the same whether it refers to an image on a coin, an image of a god, or for both Christ and Christians as the image of God.

    Many people think that because Colossians 1:16 says, “For by him all things were created” that Christ must be God, but the entire verse must be read carefully with an understanding of the usage of words and figures of speech. The study of legitimate figures of speech is an involved one, and the best work we know of was done in 1898 by E. W. Bullinger. It is titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible and is readily available, having been reprinted many times.

    First, the student of the Bible (indeed, of language and life) must be aware that when the word “all” (or “every” or “everything”) is used, it is often used in a limited sense. People use it this way in normal speech in countries and languages all over the world.

    For example, when Absalom was holding a council against his father, David, 2 Samuel 17:14 says that “all the men of Israel” agreed on advice. “All” the men of Israel were not there, but the verse means “all” who were there. Another example is Jeremiah 26:8, which says that “all the people” seized Jeremiah to put him to death, but the context makes it very clear that “all the people” were not even present, and people who came to the scene later wanted to release Jeremiah. 1 John 2:20 (KJV) says of Christians, “ye know all things.” Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything. The phrase is using a limited sense of “all,” which is determined by the context.

    The point is that whenever one reads the word “all,” a determination must be made as to whether it is being used in the wide sense of “all in the universe,” or in the narrow sense of “all in a certain context.”

    An important figure of speech in Colossians 1:16 is called “encircling.” Bullinger notes that the Greeks called this figure of speech epanadiplosis, while the Romans labeled it inclusio (p. 245), and he gives several pages of examples from the Bible to document the figure. He writes: “When this figure is used, it marks what is said as being completed in one complete circle…giving completeness of the statement that is made.”

    With that in mind, note that the phrase “all things were created” occurs at the beginning and end of the verse, encircling the list of created things: “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.” The things that are “created” are not rocks, trees, birds and animals, because those things were created by God. These things, “thrones, powers, rulers and authorities,” are the powers and positions that were needed by Christ to run his Church, and were created by him for that purpose. The figure of speech known as “encircling” helps us to identify the proper context of “all things”—that it is the narrower sense of the word “all,” and refers to the things needed to administer the Church.

    The phrase in verse 17 that “he is before all things” has been used to try to prove that Jesus existed before everything else. However, the word “before” (here pro) can refer to time, place or position (i.e., superiority). This leads us to conclude that the whole point of the section is to show that Christ is “before,” i.e., “superior to” all things, just as the verse says. If someone were to insist that time is involved, we would point out that in the very next verse Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead, and thus “before” his Church in time as well as in position.

    :)
  • einein My Redeemer lives! PExer
    The things that are “created” are not rocks, trees, birds and animals, because those things were created by God. These things, “thrones, powers, rulers and authorities,” are the powers and positions that were needed by Christ to run his Church, and were created by him for that purpose. The figure of speech known as “encircling” helps us to identify the proper context of “all things”—that it is the narrower sense of the word “all,” and refers to the things needed to administer the Church.

    Did you miss "by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth"? Paul was pretty clear about what he meant by "ALL".

    Jesus is God (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Colossians 2:9; John 20:28), and the Creator, revealed by the Father Himself. (Hebrews 1:10)
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Jury12 wrote:
    Is Jesus Christ God?

    A not so common question people keep asking since then.
    If you think that God is Trinity, then come in and prove it biblically. :)


    wouldnt it be a better argument, if we first address the problem of biblical version? that is when you said prove it biblically, what version of the bible one needs to use inorder to prove the statement, that God is trinity? Since this is an argument on language, wouldn't we need to specify the boundaries, and or the approve language of use?
  • raikou_99raikou_99 et lacrimatus est Iesus PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Kanina lang sa readings (Catholic) sinabi na nagpakababa si Christ nang nagkatawang-tao Siya, kahit Siya ay Diyos.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file