Is Jesus God?

[BLACKSHEEP]

Yep, that's what a "hermeneutic" person would say.

You don't know how to interpret God's word, you are too full of pride.

 

[BLACKSHEEP]

I suggest this thread be closed before things go really bad.

 

[Curtis]

I suggest this thread be closed before things go really bad.

I am not having any problems here!

 

[BLACKSHEEP]

The Suspicious Character of Trinitarian Claims


If you look just a little beneath the surface of Trinitarian claims you will be confronted with a very disturbing realization. Once a person looks more carefully into the actual facts concerning these claims, and if he is honest with himself, he will notice something quite troubling. Why do so many Trinitarian claims have such a suspicious quality about them? Why are Trinitarian claims so highly questionable? Why are facts inconvenient to Trinitarian doctrine passed over, slighted or trivialized? And why do Trinitarian apologists usually refrain from disclosing all of these facts? And why do so many Trinitarian claims appear to be contrivances designed to suit their doctrine?

Indeed, Trinitarian apologists no longer even bother to mention 1 John 5:7 since this verse has now been exposed as a complete fraud. A similar thing has occurred with the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16. Both these verses were once favorites of Trinitarian apologists. Not any longer. Since the truth is now upon them, Trinitarian scholars are now forced to confess there is absolutely no support for them in either of these passages. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Those two verses are only the beginning of these suspicious claims. Trinitarian apologists are not in the habit of entertaining very important ancient manuscripts of Acts 20:28 which read "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God" since that would not be congenial to their apologetic mission. Even further, they do not like to point out that a respected and widely accepted Trinitarian translation, the RSV, translates the verse as "blood of His own Son" rather than "His (God's) own blood" and many scholars agree with the RSV rendering because both external and internal evidence indicates this is how ancient Koine speakers went about saying such a thing. Is it reasonable to expect a person to rest his faith upon such suspicious claims and dishonest assertions?

And these disturbing problems occur over and over and over. The same suspicious character of their claims arises when we come to John 1:18. Why do so many ancient manuscripts say "only begotten Son" rather than "only begotten God." Again, do they really expect people to rest their faith upon such specious evidence? And why do Trinitarians translate the Hebrew word EL as "God" at Isaiah 9:6 but refuse to consistently do the same thing when the very same word refers to men, mountains and trees? Why do they translate this exact same word as "mighty" when it refers to King Nebuchadnezzar but refuse to do likewise at Isaiah 9:6? Moreover, why do they translate EL as "Mighty One" when the context makes it quite clear that the word is a reference to God himself in other places but refuse to translate it as "mighty" or "power" at Isaiah 9:6? How do they decide when they want the word EL to be translated as "mighty" or "power" or "strength" and when they want to translate the same word as "God"? And have they also not noticed that a name given to something in the Old Testament Scriptures is not necessarily identifying what that thing is? For example, shall we conclude that when Jerusalem is called "Yahweh Our Righteousness" that Jerusalem is being identified as God?

And it certainly does not stop there. Trinitarian scholars admit the Greek grammar of Hebrews 1:8 allows a different translation than the one they prefer. And strangely enough, that different translation not only fits perfectly with the context it makes sense with what immediately follows, "God, YOUR God, has anointed you." Why then do they deny it? Many Trinitarian scholars also completely deny that Romans 9:5 refers to Jesus as "God." But despite these facts, we are supposed to accept the insistences of Trinitarian apologists that it does indeed refer to Jesus as "God" and rest our faith upon a spurious claim.

Under every single turned stone one finds the same thing. At John 1:1, their own Trinitarian scholars admit the second occurrence of the Greek word theos ("God/god") means "divine" in a qualitative sense (what the Word was). Yet they translate the word as it if was the quantitative sense (who the Word was). Why do they resort to such things? And how is it that Trinitarians, who claim to know all about the Greek text in John 1:1, fail to see the problem with having two different definitions for the word "God" in the same breath where both instances are joined by a conjunction in the Greek! And why do these same Trinitarians inconsistently translate John 10:33 as "A man make yourself God" rather than "A man make yourself A god" in light of the definite article missing in both places in the Greek text and especially in view of Jesus' response in the next verse which demonstrates how he himself understood the Jewish charge? Why does this translation bear all the marks of a "made to fit" exercise?

And why do Trinitarians ignore verses like John 12:45 and John 14:9 when they interpret John 20:28? Are such observations too inconvenient to their claims? Why do they make a convenient exception to the rules of Greek grammar concerning John 20:28? Why do they fail to see that John 20:28 is about seeing a believing and Jesus had taught his disciples what to think about He and His Father in terms of seeing and believing. Why is it that Trinitarians are so sure that a certain Greek construction (GS Rule) indicates when one person is in view but they deny the construction which indicates two persons are in view? Why are they blind to these facts at John 20:28? And when they interpret John 10:30, why do they also ignore John 17:22 where Jesus prays his disciples will be one "just as we are one." Is it because this would completely nullify their claims?

Why do Trinitarian apologists claim Jesus was omniscient, all-knowing, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself said ONLY one person, the Father knows the day and hour of his return? Why do they also fail to see that this means the third person of the Trinity doesn't know either? And why do they cite verses where Jesus is said to "know all things" but hypocritically pass over 1 John 2:20,27 which say Christians "know all things?"

Why do Trinitarian apologists isolate the words in Titus 2:13, "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," in order to claim this verse refers to Jesus as "our God and Savior," when they know very well the whole text actually refers to Jesus as "the glory of our God and Savior"? This is the evidence people are supposed to stake their faith upon?

Why do Trinitarian scholars disagree on the proper translation of Zechariah 12:10? Why do Trinitarian apologists fail to inform anyone that their are variant readings of this text in the manuscripts? Why do you they fail to recognize how John the Apostle quoted this verse? Why do Trinitarians expect anyone to rely upon a translation of this verse which is not even coherent? Why are we expected to ignore how the Apostle John understood this verse? Why do these apologists expect us all to simply choose the rendering that favors Trinitarian doctrine without any serious inquiry into the truth of the matter?

At every turn one finds the same thing. And it gets even worse. Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus "another god" who was subject to the "most true God"? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they mispresent these men as they do? And why do they pretend Tertullian was a Trinitarian when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist?

Why do Trinitarians resort to rampant eisegetical interpretations while screaming how wrong it is to do such things out of the other side of their mouth? For example, why do they imagine a three person God into Genesis 1:26 and Matthew 28:19 when there is absolutely no reason to do so? Why do they insist the "US" and "OUR" of Genesis 1:26 are the three persons of the Trinity without having any evidence whatsoever that they should indeed make such claims? Are we really supposed to just use our imaginations without regard for the facts?

And why do Trinitarians find it so necessary to spill so much ink trying to justify their doctrine? Should not the identity of our God be just a little more simple than this? The entire Bible is about God but we are supposed to believe that the true identity of God is not that easy to see? They resort to writing volumes of books to try and justify their doctrine. Why is it so necessary to write volumes upon volumes of books that try to justify the true identity of God? Did God really make it that difficult to figure out who he is? Why do Trinitarians indicate that God is like a puzzle that must be figured out and put together? Isn't that just a bit absurd?

And why is it that Trinitarian apologists so often seem to be denying the above facts are significant? Is it because they need to downplay the facts? And why do they deny other facts that indicate their doctrine is wrong? For example, why do they conveniently deny "the Lord" of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is Jesus even though the context demands it is Jesus? Is it because it does not fit their doctrine which demands Jesus is not the Spirit? And why have so many contrivances been designed to avoid the implications of evidence which indicates their doctrine is wrong? Why do they find it necessary to do such things? And why do those contrivances fall apart under the scrutiny of intelligent minds?

These are mere examples. The suspicious character of Trinitarian claims are found everywhere one looks. Why? If their claims have any veracity whatsoever, why do they have so many suspicious problems attached to them? Why are these suspicious problems associated with every single claim they make?

 

[KingJ]

It is. It's telling me that you're up to no good....and that's the way the devil wants it!

Correction!!!!

The devil wants to undermine the cross. The truth of God laying His life down for us. You ARE doing this, just clouding it with intellectual nonsense. You are not coming close to debunking the posts / points made, you are simply casting a little doubt, just like the devil would.

If God did not lay His life down for us, why should we lay ours down for Him?

 

[KingJ]

I suggest this thread be closed before things go really bad.

Blacksheep, you are attacking the core of Christianity. You cannot start a fire and run. You also cannot not deal with points being raised.

You have not presented a logical argument. Can you do so? Put scripture aside for a second and explain God's logic in Jesus. Someone other then Him dying for His creation that He says He loves so much...doesn't love so much.

No quoting other's posts or scripture. Just tell us what God was thinking when He chose to not die for us. Because in a very round about manner, that is what you are espousing.

 

[KingJ]

God chose some random being who then got promoted to a position just beneath Him and given a title of a 'god'. That is Christianity. Oh and God says He loves us / is love / the epitome of love but can't lay His life down for us. Have I got your belief wrong?

Anyone who does not believe Jesus is Lord is not a Christian. Lord in the sense of Creator, not recently promoted unlucky random individual.

Undermining God's love, the cross and Jesus is not Christianity, it is satanism in Christianity. 1 Cor 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 2 Pet 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Jesus bought us! We are sold out to Jesus. We serve Jesus.

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,”and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

This is not a trinity discussion. This is a discussion on Jesus. Our Lord and Savior. The very core of Christianity. I have never taken offence at someone not grasping the fullness of the trinity. You just move the goal posts and miss-direct when raising it. I do however take serious offence at someone even hinting that Jesus is not God. There is one God and Jesus is the name by which we know Him.

You better be judging yourself harshly / in fear and trembling before God as you type lines that undermine Jesus and the cross.

 

[oldhermit]

The Suspicious Character of Trinitarian Claims


If you look just a little beneath the surface of Trinitarian claims you will be confronted with a very disturbing realization. Once a person looks more carefully into the actual facts concerning these claims, and if he is honest with himself, he will notice something quite troubling. Why do so many Trinitarian claims have such a suspicious quality about them? Why are Trinitarian claims so highly questionable? Why are facts inconvenient to Trinitarian doctrine passed over, slighted or trivialized? And why do Trinitarian apologists usually refrain from disclosing all of these facts? And why do so many Trinitarian claims appear to be contrivances designed to suit their doctrine?

Indeed, Trinitarian apologists no longer even bother to mention 1 John 5:7 since this verse has now been exposed as a complete fraud. A similar thing has occurred with the KJV rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16. Both these verses were once favorites of Trinitarian apologists. Not any longer. Since the truth is now upon them, Trinitarian scholars are now forced to confess there is absolutely no support for them in either of these passages. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Those two verses are only the beginning of these suspicious claims. Trinitarian apologists are not in the habit of entertaining very important ancient manuscripts of Acts 20:28 which read "church of the Lord" rather than "church of God" since that would not be congenial to their apologetic mission. Even further, they do not like to point out that a respected and widely accepted Trinitarian translation, the RSV, translates the verse as "blood of His own Son" rather than "His (God's) own blood" and many scholars agree with the RSV rendering because both external and internal evidence indicates this is how ancient Koine speakers went about saying such a thing. Is it reasonable to expect a person to rest his faith upon such suspicious claims and dishonest assertions?

And these disturbing problems occur over and over and over. The same suspicious character of their claims arises when we come to John 1:18. Why do so many ancient manuscripts say "only begotten Son" rather than "only begotten God." Again, do they really expect people to rest their faith upon such specious evidence? And why do Trinitarians translate the Hebrew word EL as "God" at Isaiah 9:6 but refuse to consistently do the same thing when the very same word refers to men, mountains and trees? Why do they translate this exact same word as "mighty" when it refers to King Nebuchadnezzar but refuse to do likewise at Isaiah 9:6? Moreover, why do they translate EL as "Mighty One" when the context makes it quite clear that the word is a reference to God himself in other places but refuse to translate it as "mighty" or "power" at Isaiah 9:6? How do they decide when they want the word EL to be translated as "mighty" or "power" or "strength" and when they want to translate the same word as "God"? And have they also not noticed that a name given to something in the Old Testament Scriptures is not necessarily identifying what that thing is? For example, shall we conclude that when Jerusalem is called "Yahweh Our Righteousness" that Jerusalem is being identified as God?

And it certainly does not stop there. Trinitarian scholars admit the Greek grammar of Hebrews 1:8 allows a different translation than the one they prefer. And strangely enough, that different translation not only fits perfectly with the context it makes sense with what immediately follows, "God, YOUR God, has anointed you." Why then do they deny it? Many Trinitarian scholars also completely deny that Romans 9:5 refers to Jesus as "God." But despite these facts, we are supposed to accept the insistences of Trinitarian apologists that it does indeed refer to Jesus as "God" and rest our faith upon a spurious claim.

Under every single turned stone one finds the same thing. At John 1:1, their own Trinitarian scholars admit the second occurrence of the Greek word theos ("God/god") means "divine" in a qualitative sense (what the Word was). Yet they translate the word as it if was the quantitative sense (who the Word was). Why do they resort to such things? And how is it that Trinitarians, who claim to know all about the Greek text in John 1:1, fail to see the problem with having two different definitions for the word "God" in the same breath where both instances are joined by a conjunction in the Greek! And why do these same Trinitarians inconsistently translate John 10:33 as "A man make yourself God" rather than "A man make yourself A god" in light of the definite article missing in both places in the Greek text and especially in view of Jesus' response in the next verse which demonstrates how he himself understood the Jewish charge? Why does this translation bear all the marks of a "made to fit" exercise?

And why do Trinitarians ignore verses like John 12:45 and John 14:9 when they interpret John 20:28? Are such observations too inconvenient to their claims? Why do they make a convenient exception to the rules of Greek grammar concerning John 20:28? Why do they fail to see that John 20:28 is about seeing a believing and Jesus had taught his disciples what to think about He and His Father in terms of seeing and believing. Why is it that Trinitarians are so sure that a certain Greek construction (GS Rule) indicates when one person is in view but they deny the construction which indicates two persons are in view? Why are they blind to these facts at John 20:28? And when they interpret John 10:30, why do they also ignore John 17:22 where Jesus prays his disciples will be one "just as we are one." Is it because this would completely nullify their claims?

Why do Trinitarian apologists claim Jesus was omniscient, all-knowing, in spite of the fact that Jesus himself said ONLY one person, the Father knows the day and hour of his return? Why do they also fail to see that this means the third person of the Trinity doesn't know either? And why do they cite verses where Jesus is said to "know all things" but hypocritically pass over 1 John 2:20,27 which say Christians "know all things?"

Why do Trinitarian apologists isolate the words in Titus 2:13, "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," in order to claim this verse refers to Jesus as "our God and Savior," when they know very well the whole text actually refers to Jesus as "the glory of our God and Savior"? This is the evidence people are supposed to stake their faith upon?

Why do Trinitarian scholars disagree on the proper translation of Zechariah 12:10? Why do Trinitarian apologists fail to inform anyone that their are variant readings of this text in the manuscripts? Why do you they fail to recognize how John the Apostle quoted this verse? Why do Trinitarians expect anyone to rely upon a translation of this verse which is not even coherent? Why are we expected to ignore how the Apostle John understood this verse? Why do these apologists expect us all to simply choose the rendering that favors Trinitarian doctrine without any serious inquiry into the truth of the matter?

At every turn one finds the same thing. And it gets even worse. Why do Trinitarian apologists so often misrepresent the testimony of the earliest Christians? Why do they suggestively imply that Justin Martyr was a Trinitarian just as they are, when Justin called Jesus "another god" who was subject to the "most true God"? And why do they suggest Irenaeus was a Trinitarian, just as they are, when Irenaeus repeatedly insisted the Father alone was the only true God? Why do they mispresent these men as they do? And why do they pretend Tertullian was a Trinitarian when he insisted the Son was inferior to the Father and there was a time when the Son did not exist?

Why do Trinitarians resort to rampant eisegetical interpretations while screaming how wrong it is to do such things out of the other side of their mouth? For example, why do they imagine a three person God into Genesis 1:26 and Matthew 28:19 when there is absolutely no reason to do so? Why do they insist the "US" and "OUR" of Genesis 1:26 are the three persons of the Trinity without having any evidence whatsoever that they should indeed make such claims? Are we really supposed to just use our imaginations without regard for the facts?

And why do Trinitarians find it so necessary to spill so much ink trying to justify their doctrine? Should not the identity of our God be just a little more simple than this? The entire Bible is about God but we are supposed to believe that the true identity of God is not that easy to see? They resort to writing volumes of books to try and justify their doctrine. Why is it so necessary to write volumes upon volumes of books that try to justify the true identity of God? Did God really make it that difficult to figure out who he is? Why do Trinitarians indicate that God is like a puzzle that must be figured out and put together? Isn't that just a bit absurd?

And why is it that Trinitarian apologists so often seem to be denying the above facts are significant? Is it because they need to downplay the facts? And why do they deny other facts that indicate their doctrine is wrong? For example, why do they conveniently deny "the Lord" of 2 Corinthians 3:17 is Jesus even though the context demands it is Jesus? Is it because it does not fit their doctrine which demands Jesus is not the Spirit? And why have so many contrivances been designed to avoid the implications of evidence which indicates their doctrine is wrong? Why do they find it necessary to do such things? And why do those contrivances fall apart under the scrutiny of intelligent minds?

These are mere examples. The suspicious character of Trinitarian claims are found everywhere one looks. Why? If their claims have any veracity whatsoever, why do they have so many suspicious problems attached to them? Why are these suspicious problems associated with every single claim they make?

I have not posted on this site before but I do feel compelled to address this particular issue.
I think the reason many people have a difficult time grasping the concept of a triune God is because they fail to recognize the inherent problem of trying to use human language to explain something they have no point of reference to explain. This creates a linguistic valence problem. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example.

“God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man” (unknown source).

Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it does present three immediate problems.

1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels that he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it.
This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of God. It is simply not possible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.
2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.
3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have used this word in relation to God does not seem to fit the profile of God presented in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the characteristics and relations of a thing.

In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns the following definition to the triadic unity. “God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being’; an undivided essence.”

The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions.

God has never given us anything by which we could formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take a flower for example. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. The extended properties of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.

The ‘essence’ of God defines the intrinsic qualities of God. They do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.

 

[oldhermit]

When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describes as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological diciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.

Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God in three hypostatic distinctions. These three distinct functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.

These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.

We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.

I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it is demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?

 

[B-A-C]

It has been said that we ourselves are triune beings in a sense.

We are made up of flesh (like Jesus when He came to earth)
We also have a spirit, like God is a Spirit ( John 4:24; )
We also have a soul/ego/mind.

Usually we don't have trouble knowing what our flesh is.
But what is the difference between our spirit and our soul?

Our spirit is who/what we are. What we believe. Who we believe in.

Our mind/soul/ego is what we do. The decision we make. You would think that we always
would do things compatible with what we believe, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes we
know something is wrong, but we do it anyway. We might even know we will have consequences to face,
but we do it anyway.

This is the battle zone, that place between the spirit and the flesh that are always at war with each other. ( Gal 5:17; )

 

[B-A-C]

bump

 

[Dave M]

Of course Jesus is God only God is omnipresence and Jesus declares himself Omnipresence .