Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ---- What does the Bible teach?

[Guest]

Haas, you asked me this question:

Quote:
Since it appears that you are arguing against the logic of a triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). What is your "logical" description of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?


Haas, I don't have any exclusively "logical" description. I gained my understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from scripture and from second-century writer Justin Martyr. Here is a testimony of my personal search, and how Justin helped me to reach my present understanding:


How I Came to Learn About the Deity from
The Dialogue With Trypho
by Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)


The Begetting of the Son before Creation:
When, as a young man, I read in the New Testament the expression, “The only-begotten Son”, I assumed that the expression denoted the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Having been taught that God is a Trinity of three divine Persons, whose existence is from “eternity past” to “eternity future”, it never occurred to me that the begetting of the Son was an event at the beginning of time, before all creation and before all ages.

I used to wonder how it was possible to determine what Jesus and His apostles really meant. For there are hundreds of sects and denominations of Christendom, those in each claiming to believe the Bible in its entirety, and yet interpreting what they read in various, and even contradictory ways. How could I ever know who, if anybody, was right? I began to think that if I could read some of the early Christian writings after the days of the apostles, they would be in a better position, culturally, linguistically, and spiritually, to understand what Christ and His apostles meant, than individuals and groups who came into existence two millennia later.

In The Dialogue With Trypho, Justin describes his talks with Trypho, a Jew, and a number of Trypho’s companions. Justin explained that Jesus was the Messiah, that He had appeared to Abraham and others, that his birth and death had been predicted by the prophets, that Jesus had been generated (or “begotten”) by the Father as an event before creation, and as He was the only one who had been begotten in that way, He was in fact divine as was His Father. Justin also taught that Jesus shared the name “Yahweh” with His Father, quoting Genesis 19:24 which speaks of two “Yahwehs”, one on earth who rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah from one in heaven.

Justin used the analogy of lighting a small fire from a larger one. The smaller one is of the same substance as the larger one, and the larger one is in no way diminished from having lit the smaller one. Thus the Son of God, having been begotten by God, is of the same “substance” as God, and the Father is in no way diminished by having begotten Him.

Justin spent a great deal of his time trying to convince Trypho and the other Jews that Jesus the Messiah, was another divine Individual just like the Father, and that He had frequently appeared to the saints of old. For example, Justin stated that of the three angels who appeared to Abraham, Christ was the one who remained behind and was addressed by Abraham as “Yahweh”.

Both Justin and Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Trypho, a Jew, when using the term “Holy Spirit” did not have in mind another divine Person. For He believed in a single divine Person only, namely “Yahweh”. At no time did Justin suggest that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual. Indeed, at one point, he asked Trypho an amazing question:

“Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called Lord and God in the scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Messiah, who by so many scriptures was proved to you to have become man?”

And Trypho replied, “How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?”

Here would have been the perfect occasion for Justin to have introduced the Holy Spirit as a third divine Individual. But he didn’t. He just said the following:

“I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago.”

Justin sometimes referred to the Holy Spirit “speaking from the Person of the Father” or “speaking from the Person of the Son.” This caused me to wonder whether the Holy Spirit was the very Persons of the Father and the Son, extending throughout the world, and speaking to people.

After I realized that Justin Martyr taught that Jesus was begotten as a single act “before all created things”, and that he didn’t teach that the Holy Spirit was a third divine Individual, I began to look at the scriptures to see whether they said the same thing. Justin and other second century Christian writers taught that Proverbs 8:22-31 was a record of the begetting of the Son and His activities in the beginning. He is called “Wisdom” in that record, and it was believed that Christ was the personification of wisdom, and that “Wisdom” was actually one of His names. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 1:30 that “Christ has been made wisdom to us from God”, a statement which could refer to his generation in the beginning as recorded in Proverbs 8.

The apostle John records Jesus as having said, “I emerged out of the Father and have come into the cosmos…” That sounds a lot like a statement about his having been generated (begotten) from the Father ---- the little fire that came out from the greater one.

Concerning the Holy Spirit, I notice that Jesus said to His disciples:

Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. John 14:23

If Jesus and His Father make their home within us, is that not the Holy Spirit?

In John 14:16, 14:18, 15:26, and 16:7, John refers to the Holy Spirit as “The Paraclete” [advocate, encourager (literally “one who is called to one’s side”). For example John 14:18

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The same apostle states that Jesus is the Paraclete:

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

The Spirit of God is not a mere “force” as some claim. Rather the Spirit is personal ---- the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Indeed, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:17 that the Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit! So why is a third divine Individual supposed?

Even the Nicene Creed in its original form as set out in 325 A.D. did not assign the Holy Spirit as “the Third Person of the Trinity”. All that was stated in that creed was, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.”

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send it to you.

If the Spirit is a Third Divine Person, why could He not come to the apostles until Jesus departed from this life? But if Jesus was sending His very Person to them, it was necessary for Him to die first. For while He lived as a human being, His person was confined to His body. But after His death, His spirit could be extended anywhere in the Universe!

You will point out to me, perhaps, that John 16:7 says, “I will send him to you” not “it”. Yes, the word has been so translated perhaps because the Spirit is assumed to be a Third Divine Person. The Greek pronoun is the masculine accusative singular, but that doesn’t necessarily mean “him”.
In Greek, a pronoun’s number and gender must agree with that of its antecedent. In this case, its antecedent is “Counselor”, a word which is masculine singular in Greek. So whether or not “it” or “him” is meant, the pronoun must be masculine singular. Actually the word in question is not a personal pronoun but the demonstrative pronoun “ekeinos” [that one].

Actually, Augustus Strong points out in his volume Systematic Theology that in John 16:14, the masculine pronoun “ekeinos” is used in John 16:14 with the neuter antecedent “pneuma” [spirit]. For Strong, this is proof the Holy Spirit is a person. It is possible that John, was not careful in making the pronoun agree in gender with its antecedent according to the rules of Greek grammar. Yet, even if Strong is right, the “he” does not prove that the Holy Spirit is a third Person. I have no difficulty with the idea of referring to the Spirit as “he”. If my personality were not limited to my body, and I could extend it to you and speak with you, would you not say “he” [Paidion] spoke with me today even though I was not bodily present? So the writers of the New Testament may be using “he” for the spirit of the Father, or the spirit of the Son. The Father and the Son share the same spirit, just as they share the same name “Yahweh”. They share all things. So even though the Father and the Son both dwell within us, they share One Spirit, which we may call either “it” or “he.”
_________________
Paidion

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

While I don't think that your understanding is illogical, I do disagree.

While we need not enter a long discussion, in this thread, a few scriptures come to mind when reading your story.

Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Luke seems to say that the "reason" that Jesus is called the Son of God, is becuase He was begotten by the power of the most high overshadowing Mary.

Also interesting, is that this verse is rather trinitarian, in that it mentions the Holy Spirit, the Father (most High), and The Son all in distinction from one another.

Justin spent a great deal of his time trying to convince Trypho and the other Jews that Jesus the Messiah, was another divine Individual just like the Father...[underline mine]]

What do you make of the following passage in light of the underlined statement above?

Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

This is obviously a rhetorical question, the answer of which is "no one", yet you are saying that there is at least one "divine individual just like the Father".

The Spirit of God is not a mere “force” as some claim. Rather the Spirit is personal ---- the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Indeed, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:17 that the Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit! So why is a third divine Individual supposed?

The bible repeatedly makes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A few examples:

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

1Pe 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Luk 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

This last verse is particularly relevant. Do you think that it is the "persons of the Father and Son" that descended upon the Son, as though His "person" were not already in His body?

In John 14:16, 14:18, 15:26, and 16:7, John refers to the Holy Spirit as “The Paraclete” [advocate, encourager (literally “one who is called to one’s side”). For example John 14:18

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The same apostle states that Jesus is the Paraclete:

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous

What you are not pointing out in reference to the Holy Spirit in the Johanine passages is that the Holy Spirit is set out as distinct in every passage (aside from 14:18). But of course, there is a sense in which the Father and the Son do come to us in the Holy Spirit. But to me, only a trinitarian understanding can make sense of both senses.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Jesus will pray to the Father who will give another comforter.

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jesus will send the Comforter from the Father. Three distinct individuals.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Jesus has to go away so that another can come [cf. 14:16].

If the Spirit is a Third Divine Person, why could He not come to the apostles until Jesus departed from this life? But if Jesus was sending His very Person to them, it was necessary for Him to die first. For while He lived as a human being, His person was confined to His body. But after His death, His spirit could be extended anywhere in the Universe!

But Jesus didn't have to die so that the Holy Spirit could descend on Himself. It seems more natural, in my opinion, to understand it as God simply desireing to wait (for His own purposes), to send the Holy Spirit after the death of Christ.

God bless,

[Guest]

Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason[/u the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Luke seems to say that the "reason" that Jesus is called the Son of God, is becuase He was begotten by the power of the most high overshadowing Mary.

Also interesting, is that this verse is rather trinitarian, in that it mentions the Holy Spirit, the Father (most High), and The Son all in distinction from one another.

Interesting, Derek, that you should think the verse “rather Trinitarian”! I think there is at least one person in this forum who would consider it “rather Unitarian”, and another who would consider it “rather Christadelphian”. Couldn’t Unitarians and Christadelphians argue that Jesus didn’t become “the Son of God” until He was begotten in Mary’s womb? For them, that is pretty good evidence that He didn’t pre-exist.
As for the fact that the verse “mentions the Holy Spirit, the Father (most High), and The Son all in distinction from one another” does not really support Trinitarianism except in the mind of a Trinitarian. For example, modalists would consider that the “distinction from one another” is a distinction, not of persons, but of modes of expression. Some consider that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you” is just a repetition for emphasis of “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”, that is, that the Holy Spirit is in fact the power of God. Jesus Himself is also called “The power of God” in 1 Cor 1:24.

Derek, do you yourself think that the reason Jesus is called "the Son of God" is due to his having been conceived by Mary? Was He not the Son of God prior to that? Wasn't Luke actually indicating that for this reason Jesus the man would be called "the Son of God"? The early church in general, including the Nicean creed in its original form, spoke of Christ as having been begotten "before all ages". Even the early Trinitarians believed and taught this. Later, they changed the begetting of the Son from a single event to "an eternal begetting" (whatever they understood that to mean).

I have stated that the Holy Spirit is not a third divine Individual, but is the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Yet, I agree that they are mentioned many times “in distinction from one another”. I do not think this is a distinction of persons. Let me give an object lesson which I have given several times to illustrate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I used two pieces of wood, a longer and shorter piece which would fit together to form a cross. After fitting them together, I asked how many crosses? I was given the answer “one”. Then I separated them and held them up. How many things do you see? I was given the answer “two”.
“What if I told you I can name three?” I asked. “The longer piece, the shorter piece, and the wood itself.”

In the analogy, the longer piece represented the Father, the shorter piece the Son, and the wood the Holy Spirit. Jus as the longer piece is wood, and the shorter piece is also wood, so both the Father and the Son are spirit. This is born out in Scripture. The Father is spirit [John 4:24], and the Son is spirit [1 Cor 15:45]. The one cross represents the one Deity.
Trinitarians from the fourth century to the present affirmed that the Spirit “proceeded” from the Father and the Son. (This was the straw that broke the camel’s back in the 11th century when, on this issue the Catholic Church separated into the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Orthodox believed that the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone.)

Quote:

Justin spent a great deal of his time trying to convince Trypho and the other Jews that Jesus the Messiah, was another divine Individual just like the Father...[underline mine]

What do you make of the following passage in light of the underlined statement above?

Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

This is obviously a rhetorical question, the answer of which is "no one", yet you are saying that there is at least one "divine individual just like the Father".

Derek, it is puzzling to me that you should use this verse to argue against Jesus being a Divine Individual just like the Father. Is not that, in fact, your own belief? Do you not accept Heb 1:3 which states that Jesus is “the exact image of His (the Father’s) essence? --- or as the KJV has it “the express image of His person”? Is this not the sense in which Jesus was able to say to Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”?
As for the Exodus passage, the rhetorical question is, “Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the gods?” The reference is to the fact that none of the gods of the nations, demons, are like Yahweh. I am sure Moses had no thought of Son of God, who is Himself deity, being unlike the Father. Indeed, I am not sure whether Moses had any concept of the Son of God. He did mention two different Individuals, each of whom he called “Yahweh” in Genesis 19:24

Quote:

The Spirit of God is not a mere “force” as some claim. Rather the Spirit is personal ---- the very Persons of the Father and the Son. Indeed, Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:17 that the Lord [Jesus] is the Spirit! So why is a third divine Individual supposed?

The bible repeatedly makes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It is true that the three are frequently are mentioned. Nowhere does the Bible state that they are three distinct individual persons. Notwithstanding, I admit that I John 5:7 in the King James would Biblically indicate the Trinity if it had been John who wrote those words. However,no Greek manuscript contained it until the sixteenth century, and the only reason a Greek manuscript contained it then, was that it was translated to Greek from the Latin in order to justify it’s existence as part of the text. It was never quoted by early Trinitarians, even when they were arguing for Trinitarianism (because the text was unknown at that time).

A few examples:

With one exception, none of your examples indicate a distinction of persons, and therefore do not support Trinitarianism. But verse which speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one passage no more indicate a trinity of persons, than my “cross” example indicates three objects.
That one exception is the baptismal formula part of the great commission. Although Modalists claim that there is only one name “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, and that that one name is “Jesus”, and that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are but modes of His existence, I think the verse speaks of three names. I think “the name of” is understood in each case, so that it could have been written “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit”. If that were in fact the intended meaning, then three names implies three persons and hence Trinitarianism. However, since this Trinitarian baptismal formula occurs only here, and since in Acts, all baptisms are in the name of Jesus, I suspect that the Trinitarian baptismal formula was added by early Trinitarians or proto-Trinitarians. I am cannot unequivocally prove my hypothesis in the absolute way in which the comma Johanneum has been historically proven. I am presently working on this, and expect to report my findings in my next post.

Luk 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

This last verse is particularly relevant. Do you think that it is the "persons of the Father and Son" that descended upon the Son, as though His "person" were not already in His body?

No I don’t. Sometimes the Spirit is particularly the spirit of the Father--- “the spirit of the God” [I Cor 2:14, 1 John 4:2], and sometimes particularly the spirit of the Jesus [Acts 16:6, Philippians 1:19]. At other times, it is simply “the spirit of God” where “God” may refer to deity, where it is not specified whether it is “the spirit of the God” or “the spirit of Jesus”. In the passage you quoted it was the spirit of the Father which descended on Jesus. His own spirit was still within Him. After Jesus was raised from death, He and His Father were so united that they shared the same spirit. Thus Christ could not “send the spirit” in its fullness until He died and was raised.

If the Holy Spirit, were a third divine Individual, would we not expect to find the phrase “the spirit of the Spirit” in the New Testament?
What does a Trinitarian make of the following verse:
1 Corinthians 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
Here the spirit of the God[the Father] is compared with the spirit of man. Only the spirit of man knows his own thoughts. The spirit of man is not a different individual than the man himself. Only the spirit of God knows the thoughts of God. Can we also say that the spirit of God is not a different individual from God Himself?

Quote:

In John 14:16, 14:18, 15:26, and 16:7, John refers to the Holy Spirit as “The Paraclete” [advocate, encourager (literally “one who is called to one’s side”). For example John 14:18

John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

The same apostle states that Jesus is the Paraclete:

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous

What you are not pointing out in reference to the Holy Spirit in the Johanine passages is that the Holy Spirit is set out as distinct in every passage (aside from 14:18). But of course, there is a sense in which the Father and the Son do come to us in the Holy Spirit. But to me, only a trinitarian understanding can make sense of both senses.

I don’t think I am at all pointing out a distinction of the Holy Spirit as another divine Person. Rather I am pointing out that Jesus Himself is called the Paraclete.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Jesus will pray to the Father who will give another comforter.

The fact that the Father would send another Paraclete (encourager) supports what I wrote above. Jesus Himself is a Paraclete, as John stated. But as a Paraclete, his encouragement was limited by His body while He was on earth. But after His death, He could comfort through His indwelling presence, which IS the spirit of Jesus. Jesus who became a life-giving spirit, could extend Himself to all of His disciples simultaneously. Surely Jesus as a life-giving spirit can be described as other than Jesus as a human being. So He was “another” encourager, not in the sense of being another person, but in the sense of having, as encourager, a much broader scope.

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jesus will send the Comforter from the Father. Three distinct individuals.

It doesn’t say so. I think this simply means that, after Jesus had been raised, He sent, from the Father, the spirit of Himself and the Father to dwell with His disciples, instead of limiting their presence to heaven.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Jesus has to go away so that another can come [cf. 14:16]

If the other encourager is a third person, why could He not come while Jesus was on earth? Why could both encouragers not have ministered to people together?
The real reason is that the other encourager, Jesus the life-giving spirit, could not come because Jesus’ spirit was confined to His body.

[Guest]

Hi there brother,

Man, I'm about "trinitied" out on this forum. It seems that this doctrine is the only one I've talked about since Ely began posting his Unitarian stuff! It's such a complicated subject so it is incredibly time consuming to discuss.

Let me take a break and I'll get back to you soon.

God bless,

[Guest]

Paidion & Derek,

It is true that the three are frequently are mentioned. Nowhere does the Bible state that they are three distinct individual persons.

Got it right there! If there are either two or three "distinct individual persons", there are two or three Gods; that is, unless you are entitled to your own definition of the words "individual" and "person". A person is an individual. An individual can not be divided.

But if the Trinity (Paidion's binity?) is defined as God being three personae simultaneously ("all things being posible with God") then the Trinity is more easily comprehended.

Perhaps it is best for us to heed the advice to "remain silent where the bible is silent". Men are forever formulating their creeds which do little but divide Christians.

[Guest]

I don't have anything to post but....

Here's a cool link that talks about First Century Jewish Thought (for your listening pleasure: How First Century Jews -- and Jesus Himself -- viewed God, the Messiah, "Divine Mediator Figures," etc.):

N.T. Wright Page:
download "Jesus and God" lecture

Actually I just found this in text:
Jesus and the Identity of God
by N.T. Wright

This is also the name of one of his books...I need to read....

It's just totally great, folks! Don't miss this one, please....

[Guest]

If there are either two or three "distinct individual persons", there are two or three Gods; that is, unless you are entitled to your own definition of the words "individual" and "person". A person is an individual. An individual can not be divided.

But if the Trinity (Paidion's binity?) is defined as God being three personae simultaneously ("all things being posible with God") then the Trinity is more easily comprehended.

Homer, it seems to me that you are affirming in your second paragraph what you denied in the first. If not, please explain.

Or is "the Trinity" simply a self-contradictory concept which we must "accept by [blind?] faith"? ---part of a category which includes the statement"God knows the unknowable"(such as knowing what a person will freely choose) or "God can know whether or not a person is lying when he utters the statement, 'The statement I am now making is false.'" or "God can do the undoable"(such as create a stone so large that He cannot lift it).

[Guest]

Paidion,

I've enjoyed seeing the various pictures of you. Have you continuously had the beard since your youth? I have had a mustache continuously since 1970.

At the risk of being cast into the heretic category, here is some food for thought:

"This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.

"Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking... but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)

I am not saying this is the nature of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but it makes more sense to me than saying there is one God who is three individuals, a contradiction in terms. We hear Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, a statement not found in scripture. I just think it best to speak as the bible speaks as much as possible.

[Guest]

Paidion, et al,

If you want to make your head spin regarding the Trinity check this out:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm

[Guest]

I've enjoyed seeing the various pictures of you. Have you continuously had the beard since your youth? I have had a mustache continuously since 1970.

I'm glad you have enjoyed the pictures. But if so, you must have noticed that in the pictures of me at age 2, 4, 15, 19, and 22, there was no beard.
The present picture at age 27, is the first one in which I have a beard. It was during the time period between ages 22 and 27 that I came to the conclusion that God created male human beings (a very few races excluded) in such a way that facial hair would grow as they matured. I concluded that it was unnatural to shave it off, and contrary to the Lord's intention.

I am not saying this

is the nature of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but it makes more sense to me than saying there is one God who is three individuals, a contradiction in terms.

The quote which speaks of "the three faces of God" is exactly the modalist position. I wasn't aware that Tillich held this view. The best modern apologetic for this position, in my opinion, is David K. Bernard, who wrote The Oness of God, first published in 1983. The book was given to me by a United Pentecostal minister friend of mine.

Do you yourself, see it this way, Homer? If so, you are not a Trinitarian, but a modalist. There are many people who think they are Trinitarians, but are actually modalists.

I agree with you that "one God who is three individuals is a contradiction in terms" if by "one God" you mean "God" as a single individual. However, I think some trinitarians in making such a statement are using the word "God" in the sense of a class of divine Individuals, fully united in One ---- in which case there would be no contradiction.