Defining the godhead - an open discussion on Unitarianism, Binitarianism and Trinitarianism

[The_H_C]

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

Is this literally?

In Acts 9:1-5, is vss.4&5 to be taken literally, then?

“But Saul, still breathing threat and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that he might bring bound to Jerusalem any whom he found who belonged to The Way, both men and women.
3 Now as he was traveling and getting near Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 He asked: “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.””


So is Jesus, His disciples?

Or is it in a sense of oneness, of unity?

John 17:20-22; see John 14:28.

 

[The_H_C]

Frankly, unitarian, binatarian and trinitarian are are human attempts to explain the unexplainable.

Not the “One God as the Father” understanding.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman,
“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.” (John 4:22)

What I understand, is, God didn’t change; only the way to worship Him did: through the sacrifice of Christ.

I have seen no contradiction in this understanding. Only when it’s misinterpreted.

Have a great day, my cousin.

 

[SteVen]

SteVen said:
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

Is this literally?

That is the way it is stated. The point being that Jesus is deity.

In Acts 9:1-5, is vss.4&5 to be taken literally, then?

“But Saul, still breathing threat and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that he might bring bound to Jerusalem any whom he found who belonged to The Way, both men and women.
3 Now as he was traveling and getting near Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him, 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 He asked: “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.””

I certainly take that literally. Jesus literally had a conversation with Saul after knocking him to the ground with a blinding light.

]

 

[Joker]

.

 

[L.B. (2.0)]

Not the “One God as the Father” understanding.

Jesus told the Samaritan woman,
“You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews.” (John 4:22)

What I understand, is, God didn’t change; only the way to worship Him did: through the sacrifice of Christ.

I have seen no contradiction in this understanding. Only when it’s misinterpreted.

Have a great day, my cousin.

Could you imagine how much confusion it would have been around worship back then: even now the same confounding splits us in bits!
The Triune was contentious back then and even now in some legal circles.
the Triune nature is expressed in:

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14: 7-26).


John 14 takes a little work to tease out. The indwelling of Father, son and Spirit unfolds: the Triune nature.

What grabs me is the gradual unfolding of the Triune nature of the Godhead. Indwelling is important. Co equal nature is extolled. 'we' is often used to describe the relational nature.

God did not change at all: only our relational understanding to Him (Him Triune) as He reveals through Christ.

 

[Mr E]

There's something to be said for the Church not having worldly power.

And yet, there are those who believe that is the final answer.... an earthly kingdom, with Jesus on the throne, ruling with an iron rod.

How did that work out for David? But in Christian circles, that is the hope and expectation?

 

[Mr E]

Sorry this is so late, but having big problems. Drowned my MacBook and sent it to APPLE for 'hopefully less' than the $600 estimated repair bill.

But here is a shot at answering your question from my POV.

The FATHER, WORD, HOLY SPIRIT were all three "spirit". The 'WORD/spirit' gave up 'invisible spirit form' and became visible flesh. The "flesh body" of Jesus at birth. God place the "spirit of Christ" IMO, into that body and that's what made 'that spirit' the son of God. Not the body which WAS spirit as The WORD. Upon resurrection Jesus had a 'spiritual body' capable of shaking hands, eating fish and walk through walls.

Same thing happened with Adam, the first "son of God" Luke 3:38. It wasn't Adam's, fresh from the dirt 'dead flesh body' that made Adam a 'son of God'. It was the spirit (of Christ??) in Him which was breathed into that body by the Holy Spirit IMO.

Where do you find support for the idea that it was at the birth of Jesus that the Word became flesh? What do you think happened at the river Jordan, when the spirit descended upon him? Isn't that when and where the word/spirit became flesh? I don't think you'll find any scriptural support for this having occurred at the birth of the baby in the barn.

With respect to Adam-- I think you are bang on.

 

[Mr E]

This triggered the thought I forgot to add to my post above but have made elsewhere: The only possible conclusion is that the fussin' and feudin' is, in fact, God's plan. Wrestling with the issues, like every other area of human conflict is, in fact, God's plan. It all serves a divine purpose - and I don't find that difficult at all to believe.

Does God have to have a plan? Can God be a part of the human experience while remaining apart from it all?

Perhaps God doesn't plan every aspect of life as if we are His little game pieces to be moved about, play by play. Maybe He just lets us be and watches what happens. And this goes on, until it can't. And then the board is wiped with a wave of His hand and a new season begins. Like Game of Thrones, or Lord of the Rings....

The divine purpose, might simply be-- for His enjoyment. At His leisure, for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Mr E]

SteVen said:
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

That is the way it is stated. The point being that Jesus is deity.


I certainly take that literally. Jesus literally had a conversation with Saul after knocking him to the ground with a blinding light.

]

That is the way it is stated. The point being that Jesus is deity.

Except that is stated no where.

 

[Hillsage]

Where do you find support for the idea that it was at the birth of Jesus that the Word became flesh?

Interesting question. Is that not what you believe? I've never heard anyone think anything different. Where do you get the idea it wasn't?

Thankfully, before I even got to read this post of yours, the holy spirit in me brought to mind something I was studying just a couple days ago concerning Jesus being "the only begotten of the Father."

JOH 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten/monogenes of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The definition of the word begotten is;
3439 monogenes; only born, i.e sole

The WORD was "only born ie sole"...flesh, one time. I think this fits as a suitable answer for your question.

What do you think happened at the river Jordan, when the spirit descended upon him? Isn't that when and where the word/spirit became flesh? I don't think you'll find any scriptural support for this having occurred at the birth of the baby in the barn.

With respect to Adam-- I think you are bang on.

Why didn't you capitalize "spirit" in your quote above? I never know if you're making a statement by doing so? The "spirit" didn't descend UPON him. Scripture said The Holy Spirit, referring to the "spirit" of God the Holy Spirit. The only 'flesh' even alluded at Jordon would be the dove.

LUK 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

As I've shared before, The Holy Spirit of GOD was never IN theBODY of Jesus. All verses say He was "UPON" Jesus.

 

[O'Darby III]

Interesting question. Is that not what you believe? I've never heard anyone think anything different. Where do you get the idea it wasn't?

Thankfully, before I even got to read this post of yours, the holy spirit in me brought to mind something I was studying just a couple days ago concerning Jesus being "the only begotten of the Father."

JOH 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten/monogenes of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The definition of the word begotten is;
3439 monogenes; only born, i.e sole

The WORD was "only born ie sole"...flesh, one time. I think this fits as a suitable answer for your question.


Why didn't you capitalize "spirit" in your quote above? I never know if you're making a statement by doing so? The "spirit" didn't descend UPON him. Scripture said The Holy Spirit, referring to the "spirit" of God the Holy Spirit. The only 'flesh' even alluded at Jordon would be the dove.

LUK 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

As I've shared before, The Holy Spirit of GOD was never IN theBODY of Jesus. All verses say He was "UPON" Jesus.

I and @RedFan discuss the "begotten" issue here: https://whitehorseforums.com/threads/what-did-john-3-16-mean-by-monogenē.3170/.

Bart Ehrman and other scholars have shown that the Christian thinking of Jesus as divine evolved from begotten at the Resurrection ... to begotten at his baptism ... to begotten at his conception in Mary's womb ... to begotten in eternity. I believe the notion of begotten in eternity but somehow never not existing is unintelligible. To the extent I consider John as a reliable guide to anything, I believe he is referring to the glory of the Word made flesh - i.e., to Jesus as the only begotten (genuinely begotten, in the human sense) son. This is what the disciples beheld. Doesn't this make more sense? Doesn't it fit the context far better? Isn't any other reading just an attempt to prop up the doctrine of the Trinity, as though that doctrine were driving the theological bus?

 

[O'Darby III]

SteVen said:
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

That is the way it is stated. The point being that Jesus is deity.


I certainly take that literally. Jesus literally had a conversation with Saul after knocking him to the ground with a blinding light.

]

Not that I care, but it seems to me that you too are allowing your Trinitarian cognitive bias to drive the bus. I could see almost anyone, including me or Hunter Biden, saying "Hey, if you've seen me you've seen my Dad." That's a far cry from "I AM my Dad." Why not just answer Philip straightforwardly? "I AM the Father, Philip. Let me explain how this Trinity thing works."

And I certainly don't see the incident with Saul as adding anything. Saul was in fact persecuting Jesus - or at least his earthly followers. So I don't see Jesus' response as necessarily having any Trinitarian implications at all.