Discussing the Main Verses on the Trinity | Remnant Talk

[@edmondclement4005]

Amen 🙏🏽 Powerful message, well articulated. Praise our heavenly Abba Father the One True Living God and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Thanks for sharing please beloved brother Vasko Belovski.

[@lyndylulu2]

Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

[@Rog1550]

Happy Sabbath. Ready to learn more of God's word.

[@kerryswink1676]

Thank you for a great message!

[@davidbanda4902]

Amen bro!..May God continue blessing you

[@canadiancontrarian3668]

Amen. A good review of the misused texts by the trilogy god proponents.

[@dankelly8035]

Gen 1:26 is not the Trinity as most referance it, I agree with you....this is an instance of God adressing his divine council which is also the case in Psalm 82 once again

[@carlosandresmejiagomez1112]

In genesis 1:26 God adresses the Only person that is also identified as creator in the Bible: His Son. Everything was made through him and for him and up to that instance the Only being identified as being in the image of God (as to share his image "Our Image" was His Son.

[@dankelly8035]

Pure conjecture...show me another place bible where God talks directly to his son saying let us not counting Genisis 11​@carlosandresmejiagomez1112

[@seekertruth3577]

*Karl Rahner, S.J., was indisputably one of 20th-century Catholicism’s preeminent and most influential theologians. His long theological ministry spanned some 50 years, from the early 1930s until his death in 1984.* *In his book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, himself being Catholic recognizes that theologians in the past have been "...embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the 'imminent' Trinity (even John's prologue is no such doctrine)"* (The Trinity, p. 22). *SDA teaches that:* There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. "(Fundamental Belief) 2. The Trinity. *This is what George W. Reid says,* "Nature of God. A reading of the above statements will show that with respect to their doctrine of God, *Seventh-day Adventists are IN HARMONY with the great creedal statements of Christendom, including the Apostles' Creed, (Nicea AD-325), and the additional definition of faith concerning the Holy Spirit as reached in Constantinople AD-381."* (George W. Reid, A brief review of the history and doctrines of the SDA church. *A Statement by a SDA to the World Council of Churches:* - *“The member churches of THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTSISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THE FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AS SET FORTH IN THE THREE ANCIENT SYMBOLS (Apostolicum, NICAENON-CONSTANTINOPOLITUM, ATHANASIUM). This agreement finds expression in UNQUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY and the Two-Natures.”* (So Much In Common, p. 107 (1973) - (Co-authored by B.B. Beach and Dr. Lukas Vischer- Faith and the Order Secretariat of the WCC.) *In 1973 Bert Beach co-authored a book with Lukas Vischer, Secretary of the World Council of Churches. (Beach later became Secretary of the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department of the General Confer¬ence of the S.D.A. Church.) The title of the book was "So Much In Common between the World Council of Churches and the Seventh-day Adventist Church” and was published by the World Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, in 1973. Within this book one will find the following statement:* *“The member churches of THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES AND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTSISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT ON THE FUNDAMENTAL ARTICLES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AS SET FORTH IN THE THREE ANCIENT SYMBOLS (Apostolicum, NICAENON-CONSTANTINOPOLITUM, ATHANASIUM). This agreement finds expression in UNQUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY and the Two-Natures.”* (So Much In Common, p. 107 (1973) - (Co-authored by B.B. Beach and Dr. Lukas Vischer- Faith and the Order Secretariat of the WCC.) *Justinian's Code is a collection of laws that were established during the reign of emperor Justinian I in the 6th century, and there are very interesting points concerning Justinian and his code of law. Let us read what is contained in that code of law, it reads:* *THE CODE OF OUR LORD THE MOST SACRED EMPEROR JUSTINIAN: Second Edition. Book 1 Title 1* - *"CONCERNING THE MOST EXALTED TRINITY AND THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND PROVIDING THAT NO ONE SHALL DARE TO PUBLICLY OPPOSE THEM* ... “We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven”* ... *Let those who do not accept these doctrines cease to apply the name of true religion to their fraudulent belief; and let them be branded with their open crimes, and, having been removed from the threshhold of all churches ... No one, whether he belongs to the clergy, the army, or to any other condition of men, shall, with a view to causing a tumult and giving occasion to treachery, attempt to discuss the Christian religion publicly in the presence of an assembled and listening crowd ... the violators of this law shall not go unpunished ... and shall be subjected to the punishment prescribed by law according to the power of the court."* (THE CIVIL LAW - The Enactments of Justinian, S.P.Scott *Do you see what the code of Justinian enforces? Submission to the Trinity god and Roman Catholic Church and a ban on any teaching that opposes the Trinity or Catholic doctrines.* *Now let us look at the second interesting point concerning this and how America fits into it. Did you know that in the house chamber of the US Congress where laws are passed, they have portraits of people from history that are, quote* ... *"noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law."* *Not only do they have portraits of two popes heavily involved in the inquisition, they also have a portrait of, you guessed it, Justinian I:* "Justinian I (c. 483-565) Byzantine emperor. *Appointed Tribonian to compile and consolidate the Roman legal code into the Justinian Code, which he supplemented with a collection of rulings and precedents."* *They even mention Justinian's code and say that his work* - *"established the principles that underlie American law."* -- *What is Justinian's code all about?* - *Submission to Roman Catholic Church teaching and the Trinity god.* - *So, what kind of laws are we going to see America enforce one day soon?*

[@francoisplaniol1489]

No, SDA do not teach trinity in their fundamentals, only Babylon. And EGW is very clear on this: after my depart, great changes will be made and SDA will forsake the path of truth that made us. Clearer not possible: today‘s SDA are part of Babylon. There is line saying the opposite. Prove me wrong.

[@francoisplaniol1489]

No, SDA do not teach trinity in their fundamentals, only Babylon. And EGW is very clear on this: after my depart, great changes will be made and SDA will forsake the path of truth that made us. Clearer not possible: today‘s SDA are part of Babylon. There is no line saying the opposite. Prove me wrong.

[@seekertruth3577]

@@francoisplaniol1489: Adventist pastors are so confused - some preached trinitarian modalism while others preach tritheism [3 gods]. It appears as long as SDA pastors use the noun 'trinity" then all is well. Nevertheless, as both George W. Reid and Bert Beach clearly quoted, SDA is IN HARMONY with Christendom's great creedal/articles statements. *Seventh-Day Adventist:* - *"While NO SINGLE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGE states formally the doctrine of the Trinity, it is ASSUMED as a fact by Bible writers...ONLY BY FAITH CAN WE ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF THE TRINITY."* (Adventist Review, July, 1981 - Special Issue on Bible Doctrines) *SDA Church Encyclopaedia says,* - *Where though in Scripture can be found such an idea? THE ANSWER IS, IT CANNOT BE FOUND. This is because it is not there. It is purely supposition (philosophical speculation). This is why the trinity doctrine is only an assumed doctrine.* This is even duly recognized in our own denominational handbook of theology: *“The concept of the Trinity, namely the IDEA THAT THE THREE ARE ONE, IS NOT EXPLICITLY STATED BUT ONLY ASSUMED.”* - Fernando L. Canale, The Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, *Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopaedia, Volume 12, page 138,* ‘Doctrine of God’ "The role of the trinity in a doctrine of God always raises questions. One reason is that the word itself does not appear in the Bible, NOR IS THERE ANY CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE IDEA. But the Bible does set the stage for its formulation, and the concept represents a development of biblical claims and concepts. *SO EVEN THOUGH THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IS NOT PART OF WHAT THE BIBLE ITSELF SAYS ABOUT GOD, IT IS PART OF WHAT THE CHURCH MUST SAY to safeguard the biblical view of God."* - Richard Rice, The Reign of God, An Introduction to *Christian Theology from a Seventh-day Adventist Perspective’,* page 89, 'A constructive proposal', 1985 *The dictionary define assume as follows:* - *1.)* *To accept something to be true without question or proof.* - *2.)* Suppose to be the case. *3.)* Not true or real. *4.)* Deliberately pretended or feigned. *5.)* If you assume that something is true, you imagine that it is true. - 6.)* *take for granted.* *Catholics also have something to say about the trinity.* - *“Our opponents [Protestants] sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture (ignoring that it is only on the authority of the Church we recognize certain Gospels and not others as true).* - *But the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels...* it is our claim that Tradition alone - founded on the Apostles' teaching, analyzed and reflected on through the ages by the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ - illumines the full and true meaning of the Scriptures.” (The Catholic Church's New Dogma: The Assumption Of Mary By Graham Green, LIFE, Oct.30, 1950, (emphasis in [brackets] supplied).

[@TanyaYorath]

Amen ❤

[@jamestomas7333]

I would love to have a formal live debate on his channel with this guy. I will take the affirmative that the Trinity is biblical and he will take the negative. but I know he won't do it.

[@bobbi2235]

Oh I think he would

[@ericlai2295]

Rather than debating I believe it will be better to select a few topics and have each side, Trinitarian and Non Trinitarian to do a presentation on that with a specific time frame. And maybe a QnA in the end. The viewers can then decide which position is aligned with scripture.

[@RemnantAudio-j8f]

Why would he provide a platform for someone to promote Roman Catholic doctrines on the channel? There are probably hundreds of thousands of channels where you can preach the "mystery of the trinity" already. Besides, the truth about God is not resolved with human "debates", but by prayerful and humble study of the Scriptures, bringing every verse into harmony, not with doctrines dictated by worldly councils of men, but with every other Bible verse. These things are discerned spiritually, by the grace of God, revealed to anyone who humbles himself and has a thirst for the truth, no matter how much it would differ from their own preconceived notions. During their walk, Christians are supposed to start reflecting the loving character of Christ, and Christ did not partake in "debates". Why? Debates are designed to provide entertainment for the masses and to elevate the natural pride of the heart of the one who "wins" and gets to humiliate the "loser", like in competitive sports. Such "sports" reflect the prideful character of Lucifer, not the humble character of The Son of Man. Paul engaged in debates at first, but noticed soon that they were bearing little fruit in actually winning the hearts of the people who he was debating, or of those who were listening to the debates, not even if he absolutely pummeled and humiliated his pagan philosopher opponents with his vast knowledge and brilliant logic. Besides, just because someone wins a worldly debate doesn't necessarily mean that he has the truth, it just shows that he is a more skillful wordsmith than his opponent, or was better prepared for the debate, or perhaps he just has a more forceful nature, able to shout his opponent into "losing" the debate.

[@jamestomas7333]

@RemnantAudio-j8f That is so funny...BEING... that Ellen White was a Trinitarian!!. LOL

[@RemnantAudio-j8f]

@jamestomas7333 No, she was not. You have been misled, brother. Study it yourself instead of trusting others to do it for you. Context and definitions are important. This is what should receive more attention first though: The way you talk to those you consider beneath you is worrying; it shows that you have a heart which has not been renewed by Christ, but within dwells a spirit which delights in mockery. Please, brother, afflict your soul in repentance, seek diligently what evils you have dwelling inside, and ask humbly in earnest prayer for the Lord to cleanse you of it.

[@DelDesJarlais-p8j]

The Shema points to the first Commandment of the Decalogue, which reads "I am the LORD thy God....Ye shall have no other gods before me." If we are the commandment keeping people, then we better search the Bible to find out who the (Me is in the first Commandment,) The first commandment is directly connected to the seventh day Sabbath commandment. Read Deuteronomy 5:15. there is a perfect reason for the call for the world to Worship Him which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of water. (Revelation 14:7.) the reason for this call is because of the Papal system who invented the Trinity by the misapplied verses of the holy Bible, and is the reason for Sunday, and not the seventh day Sabbath. The LORD thy God is God the Father the God of the first commandment. Sin is the transgression of the Law, and Jesus never sinned, therefore He kept the first commandment as well as the other nine.

[@romulosumalnap-mw9vx]

The Hebrew word elohim in plural form refers to it's plural application but singular in it's contextual usage! It is in the plural form because it can refer to plural applications! But if it is in reference to the one true God it is referring to only a singular usage!

[@tikvichka]

ЕЛОХИМ Еврейският речник Brown-Driver-Briggs дефенира думата; 1.мн.число,или отнасящо се до: 1а-управници,съдии 1b-Божествени 1c-ангели 1d-богове 2.2-множествен интензив- еденично значение 2а-бог,богиня 2b-богоподобен 2c-дела или специални притежания на Бога 2d-истинния Бог Глаголът,, създаде" (на еврейски,, бара") е в единствено число. Така думата обозначава възвишеност и величие, вместо множественост. В Изх. 7:1 Тогава ГОСПОД каза на Мойсей: Ето, поставих те бог на фараона, и брат ти Аарон ще ти бъде пророк. Бог всъщност нарича Мойсей,, елохим" Мал. 2:10 Нямаме ли ние всички един Отец? Не ни ли е създал един Бог? Защо постъпваме коварно всеки против брат си, за да оскверняваме завета на бащите си? Еф. 3:9 и да осветлявам всички относно настойничеството на тайната, която от векове е била скрита у Бога, който е Създателят на всичко, Евр. 1:2 в края на тези дни говори на нас чрез Сина, когото постави Наследник на всичко, чрез когото също направи световете, Пр. 30:4 Кой се е изкачил на небето и е слязъл? Кой е събрал вятъра в шепите си? Кой е вързал водите в дреха? Кой е утвърдил всичките земни краища? Как е Името Му и как е Името на Сина Му - ако Го знаеш? Гръцката дума употребена за Бог е,, Теос". Когато се отнася до Израилевия Бог, тя е в единствено число във всеки един от случаите. ,,Теос"е винаги съществително в единствено число, когато се отнася до истинни Бог,но думата е в множествено число, когато се отнася до фалшиви богове.

[@DelDesJarlais-p8j]

There are those who Claim that Jesus Christ is the LORD God Almighty, are in error. No where does the Bible claim that Jesus Christ is the LORD God Almighty, in fact the Bible teaches us who is the LORD God Almighty. read Rev. 21:22. Who is The Lamb in this verse? It is Jesus Christ. I Have this witness within me, that the word of God is true, that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God. I am following not a cunningly devise fable.

[@ericstreetinc]

So close to being correct, with one very serious error….Michael IS NOT Jesus. Michael is exactly who the Bible says he is…one of the Archangels.

[@kerryswink1676]

One being First. Not just another. Get a good “Strong’s Reference” and you’ll see the truth. Please do a deep dive and look into this further. You’ll discover Yeshua is the only one He could be. May Yah bless you in your studies.

[@bewise7466]

Daniel 10:21 NKJV [21] But I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth. (No one upholds me against these, except Michael your PRINCE. Daniel 12:1 NKJV [1] “At that time Michael shall stand up, The GREAT PRINCE who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.

[@Jasho-Beam]

1Jn_5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." This is the bottom line and if this verse is true then you need to repent because the creature that you claim to believe in in not the Jesus of the Bible!

[@pilgrimsprogress6797]

Don’t you believe he co-existed with the Father, then how can He be his literal Son? “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” John 9:35 The Jesus of the Bible said: *For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son* , that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but *he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God* .” John 3:18 His witnesses said: “And *we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world* .” 1 John 4:14 No, Jesus is *not* a creature you are confused making the words “created” and “begotten” mean the same thing. There’s a difference and even EGW knew it.

[@bewise7466]

Keyword in that verse the "Son of God"... Not God the Son... Who do you have? God the Son or the Son of God?

[@dankelly8035]

You are wrong my brother...Elohim can be both plural and singular depending if there is a participle in front of it....Psalm 82 shows that in verse 1...now I know you are not a scholar in ancient Hebrew language so you are excused 😊 However I do know one who has a PHD and ancient sematic and Aramaic languages and explains the words usage..

[@SevenThunders-si4ci]

Can you then explain Judges 16:23? The god Dagon?... is singular. Dagon is elohiym . Also, can you explain Jonah 3:3? Nineveh?... is likewise singular. Nineveh is elohiym.

[@dankelly8035]

​@@SevenThunders-si4ciThe definite particle in arabic includes the letters 'alif' and 'laam' at the beginning of the word, so pronounced as 'al'. The purpose is to render the noun on which it is pre-fixed to. Consequantly, it is translated into 'the' in english. Indefinite words are words which do not have this prefix added to them.

[@dankelly8035]

​​@@SevenThunders-si4ciThe definite particle in arabic includes the letters 'alif' and 'laam' at the beginning of the word, so pronounced as 'al'. The purpose is to render the noun on which it is pre-fixed to. Consequantly, it is translated into 'the' in english. Indefinite words are words which do not have this prefix added to them. Judges uses the word "thier " indicating either singular or plural depending on the framework of the sentence or should I say context. Jonah, A city cannot be a god so thier is a mistranslation there. H430 is Elohim which a second temple Jew would have understood as a spirit being not of this world encompassing many different entities.

[@carlosandresmejiagomez1112]

Several PhD scholars as well define Elohim in Hebrew as "plural intensive with singular meaning" What you are doing instead of answering the claim with arguments is using the "appeal to authority" phallacy. Instead of appealing to "academic" authorities refute the claim or accept the argument

[@kerryswink1676]

If I may, Elohim is not a plurality of persons(it is plural in intensive or majesty, singular in meaning) It’s only used in plurality when the Bible mentions pagan gods. (ie. Moses and Nineveh were both described as “Elohim.”) No letters at the end of my name, but I hope that doesn’t exclude me from any knowledge.

[@ashersian2563]

If the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, then the Holy Spirit is God. You are confused

[@pilgrimsprogress6797]

“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* .” 1 Corinthians 2:11 So man’s spirit is a separate entity from man then with that type of logic.

[@ashersian2563]

@pilgrimsprogress6797 who says its separate? Is the spirit of the man not the man?

[@seekertruth3577]

*@ashersian2563* - *THE IDIOM SPIRIT OF GOD” as described at Mat **3:16**,17 cf Luke 3:22 et al or “HOLY SPIRIT” etc., IS THE PERSON OF GOD,* - *God’s OMNIPRESENCE.* *The word PERSON also refers to the non-physical aspect of an individual; his character, personality.* [1 Cor. 2:9-16]. *It is the failure to recognize this SECOND AND important aspect of the word PERSON and the FAILURE to understand what constitutes an individual that has led many people to misinterpret Ellen White's use of the word PERSON in reference to the Holy Spirit resulting in the creation of another God being,* - *one that is invisible WITHOUT FORM AND FEATURE.* *Yet scripture says, God [the Father] is Spirit.* [John 4:24]. - *Yet God’s personality is described as both “A spirit” and “A personal Being”* referring to a single individual, and Jesus, being His Father’s express image, is distinguished as the Son of that one God, who is also A personal Being/Saviour.* - *This ought to be very clear.* - *God’s corporeal personality should be distinguished from the Spirit of God, the incorporeal.* - *This also guards against any spiritualistic idea that God’s ENTIRE personage is ONLY an all-pervading essence, devoid of distinct, corporeal attributes* - *having a tangible bodily form.* - *Thus there are two distinct aspects of God’s personalities.* *THUS, IT BEGS THE QUESTION:* - *If “God” is defined as a “personal being” with corporeal personality and Christ is the express image of that God, how then is aka “God the Holy Spirit” [as understood by the Trinitarians] who is known as a formless “INVISIBLE” being, devoid of corporeal personality, be also considered a “personal God”?* *Note:* - *Though the Bible describes God as a Spirit [John 4:24],* - *He is not a formless entity. He is a personal being, having distinct tangible bodily features* [Exodus 33:20,23; Numbers 11:23; 1 Samuel 13:14, 8:21, Isaiah 40:2, 66:1; Luke 11:20; Psalms 11:4; 1 Samuel 8:21; Matthew 4:4; Daniel 7:9; John 5:37]. *God occupies a local location* [Matthew 6:9, 16:17, 18:10]. *Thus, in the creation of man, these attributes of God [His image/likeness] are also reproduced in man.* *“God is a spirit; yet He is a personal being, for man was made in His image.”* - *8T 263.1, 1904.* *So, even though God is Spirit, He has a form and we are made in His image.* [Gen 1:26]. *Moreover, Christ bears His Father’s image not in feature alone, but also in character.* - *Jesus is the effulgence [great brightness; radiance; brilliance* [Heb 1:3 or the image of the invisible God” [Colossians 1:15 cf. 2 Corinthian 4:4];* - *Jesus sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,* and *hath inherited a more excellent name.* [Hebrews 1:3]. *An image reflects the original…* An “express image” means a perfect or a precise copy. *Christ is the perfect image of His Father, who is the true and original God.* *God is not a formless entity and that being the case, it would stand to reason that Jesus [being the express image of His Father] also exists as a spiritual Being and yet has tangible form.* *God is Spirt* John 4:24 - *BUT He has a form/shape* John 5:37, Phil 2:6. *With body parts - He has ARMS* Num. 11:23, Is 53:1. - *Hands Is. 40:2, Joshua **4:24**. - *Fingers* Luke 11:20. - *Eyes* Gen 6:8, Ps 11:4. - *Eyelids* Ps 11:4. - *Ears* Num 14:28, 1 Sam 8:21. - *Mouth* Deut 8:3, Mat 4:4. -*Lips* Ps 89:34. - *Face* Eze. 38:18, Ex 33:20 - *Also read Gen **32:30**;Lev **17:10**; 20:3; Num **6:25**; Deut 5:4; **31:17**-18; **34:10**; 1 Chron **16:11**; 2 Chron **7:14**, 30:2; Job 34:9 etc.* - *Nose* Is 65:5. - *Nostrils* 2 Sam 22:7-10. - *Ancient of Days Sit* Dan 7:9. - *Hair* Dan 7:9. - *Head* Dan 7:9. - *Heart* 1 Sam 13:14, Acts 13:22. - *Back* Ex 33:20-23. - *Legs* Gen 3:8. - *Feet* Is 66:1. *Nowhere does the Bible describe the Holy Spirit as having distinct bodily features as the Father, and Son, yet Trinitarians claim that the Holy Spirit is the Third Being of the Godhead.* - *Pantheism confounds the Spirit of God,* - *which is really the divine power and presence of God with God Himself.* - *Consequently, many [trinitarians, including the current SDAs] have taken God’s Spirit-the Holy Spirit as a separate God Being altogether [aka “God the Holy Spirit”], a formless being, whose ENTIRE personage is ONLY an all pervading essence, devoid of any corporeal attributes.* - *This violates the Bible’s testimony of a “Personal God” and destroys the personality of God.* - *Furthermore, it negates the two distinct attributes of God’s personalities [corporeal and incorporeal].* *God is a personal Being and He resides in heaven but He can extend His character/life/power and presence beyond his local presence BY His own Spirit-his incorporeal personality, a “distinct personality”.* - *The Holy Spirit is NOT an entirely separate “Being” in the same sense as Father and the Son are. Nor is He an IMPERSONAL essence pervading all nature. The Holy Spirit is the very embodiment of the Father and the Son’s incorporeal personality, operating in a distinctly different manner than their corporeal personality.* *The three Economic Personalities:* *1.* - *There is ONE Sovereign Most High God - the Father “OF whom are all things”* [1 Cor. 8:6] *Father [real Father; corporeal, personal divine being-has bodily form and shape; has a local presence i.e.* - *“our Father which art in heaven”* [Mt 6:9] - *2.* - *There are Two Equal Divine Beings - the Father and the Son.* Begotten Son [real pre-incarnate Son; corporeal, personal divine being - has a bodily form and hape, has a local presence i.e. *“We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”* [Heb 8:1]; - *“BY Whom are all things”* [1Cor 8:6]. *3.* - *There are Three Economic Personalities* - *Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.* *The Holy Spirit* - *non-corporeal aspect of the Father and Son’s personality whereby they are omnipresent.* *1.* - *“Person” and “personality” can refer to a WHOLE BEING.* -- *2.* - *“Person” and “personality” can also refer to an ECONOMIC OFFICE OR ROLE.* *We may refer to the first of these the “Capital ‘P’ Person” and the second of these the “lower case ‘p’ person” definitions.* - *Calling the Holy Spirit a person is a matter of grammar and translation, not of biblical theology.* *There are three distinct ACTIVITIES of deity.* *1.* - *There is what the Father is doing in His immediate locality,* - *2.* - *What the Son is doing in His immediate locality,* and - *3.* - *The WORK They are performing [TOGETHER] throughout the universe.* - *These constitute three economic offices or “persons”/”personalities” in the sense of roles.* - *Thus, in this sense, the Holy Spirit would be considered a lower-case ‘p’ person.* *The Father and Son are Whole Beings.* - *The Whole Beings consists of substance/body [shape and form] PLUS Spirit/mind.* - *The Father and the Son are capital ‘P” Persons and therefore fit the first of these definitions. The “personhood” of the Holy Spirit cannot be a capital ‘P’ Person in the same sense that the Father and Son are ‘P’ Persons.* - *Otherwise, that would make the Holy Spirit, a Whole Being without having a bodily form while being only an all pervading entity, which is pantheism.* - *You CANNOT HAVE a capital ‘P’ Person’s entire personality be an all-pervading entity. A capital ‘P’ Person [Father and the Son], existing as a corporeal Being is omnipresent only BY His Spirit [lower-case ‘p’ person].* - *Recognition of two distinct personality of a Whole Being is critical.* *Note:* - *As mentioned though the Bible describes God as a Spirit [John 4:24], He is not a formless invisible entity. He is a personal being, having distinct tangible bodily features* [Exodus 33:20,23; Numbers 11:23; 1 Samuel 13:14, 8:21, Isaiah 40:2, 66:1; Luke 11:20; Psalms 11:4; 1 Samuel 8:21; Matthew 4:4; Daniel 7:9; John 5:37]. *God occupies a local location* [Matthew 6:9, 16:17, 18:10]. *Thus, in the creation of man, these attributes of God [His image/likeness] are also reproduced in man.* *Moreover, Christ bears His Father’s image not in feature alone, but also in character.* Jesus is the effulgence *[great brightness; radiance; brilliance* [Heb 1:3 or the image of the invisible God” [Colossians 1:15 cf. 2 Corinthian 4:4]; Jesus *sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,* and *hath inherited a more excellent name.* [Hebrews 1:3]. - *An image reflects the original…* An “express image” means a perfect or a precise copy. *Christ is the perfect image of His Father.* *How many beings does Paul send greetings from in every letter he wrote*? *Peter has done the same.* “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2, Galatians 1:3, Ephesians 1:2, Philippians 1:2, Colossians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4, Philemon 1:3, 2 Peter 1:2 - *Answer:* - *TWO Beings ONLY* How many beings? “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 - Answer: *TWO Beings ONLY* *The answer is ALWAYS TWO every time and yet according to the Trinity doctrine it should have been three “CO-EQUAL BEINGS” and yet the Holy Spirit is ALWAYS EXCLUDED. And if the Holy Spirit was a god then the Holy Spirit would have been called “god the spirit,” not the “Spirit OF God.”*

[@bewise7466]

​@@ashersian2563is then the Spirit of God a different God?

[@ashersian2563]

@bewise7466 (1 John 5:7 KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[@jamestomas7333]

He said he is a Berean. The Trinity is biblical and essential

[@jamestomas7333]

Jesus is Deity. He is divine because he fully is Lord God Almighty that became flesh

[@SevenThunders-si4ci]

If I may correct you, Our heavenly Father is the Almighty. Even Rev 1:8 says so. It is further validated and confirmed throughout the book of Revelation. Begin with going back 4 verses in the same chapter. Rev 1:4 - 5. It is enough to settle the matter. You are not aware of this?

[@jamestomas7333]

@@SevenThunders-si4ci the Father is the Almighty, but in this verse in Rev 1:8 it is Jesus. Would you like to go live about this?

[@jamestomas7333]

@@SevenThunders-si4ci God is a Tripersonal God. God is Triune

[@SevenThunders-si4ci]

@@jamestomas7333 Triune god? Which text is that? Please do provide.

[@SevenThunders-si4ci]

@@jamestomas7333 If I may correct you, Our heavenly Father is the Almighty. Even Rev 1:8 says so. It is further validated and confirmed throughout the book of Revelation. Begin with going back 4 verses in the same chapter. Rev 1:4 - 5. It is enough to settle the matter. You are not aware of this?