Why anti-Trinitarianism is not biblical

[Guest shiloh357]

33 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, shiloh357.

Yes, the Ruwach haQodesh IS a Person; He is GOD, YHWH Elohiym, the ONE GOD, who sent His Ruwach! The ONE GOD, who is Yeshua`s Father, can be communed/fellowshipped with.  The ONE GOD has a mind; the ONE GOD can be grieved, the ONE GOD inspires, the ONE GOD guides, convicts of sin, teaches and comforts.

You FRACTURE GOD when you split Him into the Father and the Holy Spirit! Yeshua` IS the Son of GOD and He came from the Father for He was the WORD of John 1:1 (and still is).

No, I am not fracturing God.   God is three distinct Persons.    All three are one God, but three Persons.   So there is no fracturing.  The Holy Spirit is mentioned in distinction from both the Father and Jesus.

[Retrobyter]

On 5/25/2017 at 6:52 AM, shiloh357 said:

No, I am not fracturing God.   God is three distinct Persons.    All three are one God, but three Persons.   So there is no fracturing.  The Holy Spirit is mentioned in distinction from both the Father and Jesus.

Shalom, shiloh357.

I've always been fascinated by the ... AUDACITY ... of the Trinitarian belief system. "All three (distinct Persons) are one God, but three Persons." Ask them to explain how that's possible, and all they can say is "we can't," if they're honest. Of course, you have some who offer several different analogies in a weak attempt to "explain" how it works, but when pushed to their limits, like all analogies, the analogies break down and are incapable of truly explaining the reality suggested behind the analogies.

Notice in your statement above, shiloh, that you have fallen back to the statement of the assumption: "God is three distinct Persons. All three are one God, but three Persons." That proves nothing.

Look, I know what you believe, but consider this for a moment:

IF God is NOT "three in one," then we have LIED about God with our theological jargon! I don't know what you think about that, but I for one don't like the risk! That seems pretty serious to me!

And, I REALLY dislike the history behind how "trinitarianism" superceded all other beliefs at the time it was being "discussed." Instead of changing the rules of engagement, so people could discuss these topics freely and without fear of retribution, they made matters WORSE by escalating the consequences of disagreement through excommunication, confiscation of property, banishment, and execution by being burned at the stake!

Did the punishment fit the crime? Not at all! I ENJOY talking about God! Wouldn't it be wonderful to discuss the wonders of our gracious God? Wouldn't it be wonderful to explore the attributes and the character of our awesome God? Wouldn't it be better to DISCUSS the pros and cons of a Trinity versus a Binity among friends and colleagues? Who really KNOWS which is true? Who has the "BETTER" viewpoint? We can have our beliefs, but do we really have a corner on "TRUTH?" (The real answer is "NO," btw.)

Why did they attack so vehemently? FEAR! They were AFRAID to discuss something they knew they couldn't win; so, they lashed out and SHAMEFULLY ELIMINATED their competition in a horrible, anything-but-Christian way!

Can we have such a wonderful discussion of our gracious God today? Not really. Try to find a Binitarian! Trinitarians DISGRACEFULLY destroyed all factions that disagreed with them back in the early centuries A.D!

---

Let me give you a different scenario:

If you said, "a man gave up his breath and was buried," would someone wonder what you were talking about? Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

Would you conclude that the man is no longer breathing? Yes.

Would you think of "his breath" as a separate person? Probably not. Who would?

Now, let's look at this definition:

OT:7307 ruwach (roo'-akh); from OT:7306; WIND; by resemblance BREATH, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) EXHALATION; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):
KJV - air, anger, blast, breath,  cool, courage, mind,  quarter,  side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest,  vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).

OT:7306 ruwach (roo-akh'); a primitive root; properly, TO BLOW, i.e. BREATHE; only (literally) to smell or (by implication, perceive (figuratively, to anticipate, enjoy):
KJV - accept, smell,  touch, make of quick understanding.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Now, let's read a very well known passage:

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Now, consider a different version:

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. 2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's Spirit was moving over the water. 
NCV (New Century Version)

Now, substitute the definitions for the word "Spirit":

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. 2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's wind was moving over the water. 
NCV (New Century Version) modified

or

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. 2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's breath was moving over the water. 
NCV (New Century Version) modified

If you had read this passage this way in the beginning (no pun intended), would you have come away with the opinion that "God's wind" or "God's breath" was "the third Person of the Trinity?" Be honest, and you don't have to say anything or admit to anything. Just silently consider it ... and don't be afraid. Silently pray to GOD for His wisdom that He gives to all men liberally and doesn't scold them for asking.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, shiloh357.

I've always been fascinated by the ... AUDACITY ... of the Trinitarian belief system. "All three (distinct Persons) are one God, but three Persons." Ask them to explain how that's possible, and all they can say is "we can't," if they're honest. Of course, you have some who offer several different analogies in a weak attempt to "explain" how it works, but when pushed to their limits, like all analogies, the analogies break down and are incapable of truly explaining the reality suggested behind the analogies.

The Trinity doesn't make sense.  It's not intended by God to make sense.  It is a  truth about of God that is beyond our ability to explain.  It defies explanation.  The Trinity doesn't make sense to us because we have no point of reference for it in our reality.  It is as inexplicable or conceivable to us as God's eternal state of no beginning or end.   Just because we cannot explain it, doesn't make it untrue.  God is beyond our explanation. 

Quote

Notice in your statement above, shiloh, that you have fallen back to the statement of the assumption: "God is three distinct Persons. All three are one God, but three Persons." That proves nothing.

I am not trying to prove it.  I am simply framing the doctrine as it is demonstrated in Scripture.

Quote

 

Look, I know what you believe, but consider this for a moment:

IF God is NOT "three in one," then we have LIED about God with our theological jargon! I don't know what you think about that, but I for one don't like the risk! That seems pretty serious to me!

 

But we can demonstrate the Trinity.  It exists in Scripture as a functional doctrine.   As for lying, you can only apply the concept of lying to a deliberate attempt at deception.  A person can be wrong in what they say without it being a lie.  A lie is something people do in full knowledge of the truth.   Being wrong doctrinally about something you truly believe isn't lying.  It's simply being wrong.

But the Trinity is truth and we are not wrong about it.   To believe in the Trinity is to believe the Bible.  To reject the Trinity is to reject God's Word.  I would be more careful about rejecting what the Bible says.  That is far more dangerous than simply being wrong.

 

Quote

And, I REALLY dislike the history behind how "trinitarianism" superceded all other beliefs at the time it was being "discussed." Instead of changing the rules of engagement, so people could discuss these topics freely and without fear of retribution, they made matters WORSE by escalating the consequences of disagreement through excommunication, confiscation of property, banishment, and execution by being burned at the stake!

That has nothing to do with the doctrine itself.

Quote

Did the punishment fit the crime? Not at all! I ENJOY talking about God! Wouldn't it be wonderful to discuss the wonders of our gracious God? Wouldn't it be wonderful to explore the attributes and the character of our awesome God? Wouldn't it be better to DISCUSS the pros and cons of a Trinity versus a Binity among friends and colleagues?

But you're not even Binitarian because you reject the deity of Jesus, as well.  So you are neither trinitarian or binitarian.  So we really can't discuss either of those concepts with you, as you don't really believe either one.

 

Quote

Who really KNOWS which is true? Who has the "BETTER" viewpoint? We can have our beliefs, but do we really have a corner on "TRUTH?" (The real answer is "NO," btw.)

We actually do know that the Trinity is true.   The Trinity is the better and biblical viewpoint.  

Quote

 

Why did they attack so vehemently? FEAR! They were AFRAID to discuss something they knew they couldn't win; so, they lashed out and SHAMEFULLY ELIMINATED their competition in a horrible, anything-but-Christian way!

Can we have such a wonderful discussion of our gracious God today? Not really. Try to find a Binitarian! Trinitarians DISGRACEFULLY destroyed all factions that disagreed with them back in the early centuries A.D!

 

Again, none of that has any bearing on whether the Trinity is true or not.
 

Quote

Let me give you a different scenario:

If you said, "a man gave up his breath and was buried," would someone wonder what you were talking about? Seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

Would you conclude that the man is no longer breathing? Yes.

Would you think of "his breath" as a separate person? Probably not. Who would?

Now, let's look at this definition:

OT:7307 ruwach (roo'-akh); from OT:7306; WIND; by resemblance BREATH, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) EXHALATION; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):
KJV - air, anger, blast, breath,  cool, courage, mind,  quarter,  side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest,  vain, ([whirl-]) wind (-y).

OT:7306 ruwach (roo-akh'); a primitive root; properly, TO BLOW, i.e. BREATHE; only (literally) to smell or (by implication, perceive (figuratively, to anticipate, enjoy):
KJV - accept, smell,  touch, make of quick understanding.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Now, let's read a very well known passage:

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
KJV

Now, consider a different version:

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. 2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's Spirit was moving over the water. 
NCV (New Century Version)

Now, substitute the definitions for the word "Spirit":

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. 2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's wind was moving over the water. 
NCV (New Century Version) modified

or

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. 2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's breath was moving over the water. 
NCV (New Century Version) modified

If you had read this passage this way in the beginning (no pun intended), would you have come away with the opinion that "God's wind" or "God's breath" was "the third Person of the Trinity?" Be honest, and you don't have to say anything or admit to anything. Just silently consider it ... and don't be afraid. Silently pray to GOD for His wisdom that He gives to all men liberally and doesn't scold them for asking.

 

The problem with that line of argumentation is that we have a lot  more doctrinal information about the Holy Spirit than what is contained there.   If those verses were the sum total of all the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, then you would have a point.  But we have a fuller explanation of the Holy Spirit in the rest of the OT and the NT and so we understand the Holy Spirit to be Person and a divine Person, as well.    So I don't need to limit myself to the passages you cite. 

Rather it is you that needs to explain that an impersonal "spirit" can be grieved, communed with, lied to, prays, has a mind,  and is mentioned as a separate divine Person from both the Father and the Son.   You are simply living in a contradiction to the Word of God.   

[Retrobyter]

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The Trinity doesn't make sense.  It's not intended by God to make sense.  It is a  truth about of God that is beyond our ability to explain.  It defies explanation.  The Trinity doesn't make sense to us because we have no point of reference for it in our reality.  It is as inexplicable or conceivable to us as God's eternal state of no beginning or end.   Just because we cannot explain it, doesn't make it untrue.  God is beyond our explanation.

Shalom, shiloh357.

Well, THAT'S convenient! YOU said, "Just because we cannot explain it, doesn't make it untrue." Well, because you can't explain it, it also doesn't make it true! It's a 50-50 scenario BECAUSE it can't be explained!

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not trying to prove it.  I am simply framing the doctrine as it is demonstrated in Scripture.

I know.

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But we can demonstrate the Trinity.  It exists in Scripture as a functional doctrine.

Actually, you can "demonstrate the Trinity" because it exists in YOUR versions of Scripture. Not so much in the original languages. However, ALL of our translators these days are Trinitarians! I wonder why that is... Could it be because there's NO ONE LEFT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT?!

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

   As for lying, you can only apply the concept of lying to a deliberate attempt at deception.  A person can be wrong in what they say without it being a lie.  A lie is something people do in full knowledge of the truth.   Being wrong doctrinally about something you truly believe isn't lying.  It's simply being wrong.

True enough. However, has anyone had the courage to EXPLORE what is the "full knowledge of the truth?" OR, are you just willing to turn a blind eye to the possibilities so that you cannot be accused of deliberately deceiving others? "Ignorance is bliss."

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But the Trinity is truth and we are not wrong about it.   To believe in the Trinity is to believe the Bible.  To reject the Trinity is to reject God's Word.  I would be more careful about rejecting what the Bible says.  That is far more dangerous than simply being wrong.

That is a danger, yes. However, I do NOT reject God's Word; to the contrary, I believe it whole-heartedly. What I reject are people's interpretations of God's Word and the theological webs they weave on those interpretations!

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That has nothing to do with the doctrine itself.

Fine! But, it's still history!

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

But you're not even Binitarian because you reject the deity of Jesus, as well.  So you are neither trinitarian or binitarian.  So we really can't discuss either of those concepts with you, as you don't really believe either one.

You don't know me from Adam; so, how do YOU know what I believe about Yeshua`? Are the attributes attributed to the Being called "God" characteristic of God? If so, then how can Yeshua` be said to be "God" if He is no longer omnipresent or omniscient? I believe that Yeshua` is the EXACT SAME PERSON who is also known as the Word in John 1. Therefore, I believe that the Word was with God and the Word was God! I also believe that the Word - ALL of the Word -  was made flesh and dwelt among us as the Person named "Yeshua`" (for "He shall save" His people from their sins). In the process of being "made flesh," He became LIMITED in His location and His strength! He had a height; He had measurements to wear clothing, therefore He had width and thickness - three dimensions; He had to sleep; He had to eat; He had to rest. He became ONE OF US, so He could experience our infirmities and our weaknesses, yet without sin.

1 Peter 2:21-25
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
KJV

This is a reference to Isaiah 53:

Isaiah 53:1-12
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
KJV

Derive from that what you will, but I used to hate the statement "He was 100% God and 100% man" in our study on the hypostatic union in Christology. It SO reminded me of the idiocy of "giving 110%" in a sports event! One can give 100% amount of energy, but above that is IMPOSSIBLE! You can't give what you don't have!

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

We actually do know that the Trinity is true.   The Trinity is the better and biblical viewpoint. 

So says you.

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Again, none of that has any bearing on whether the Trinity is true or not.

Perhaps, perhaps not; all I know is that it shows the caliber of human beings who supported the Trinity view and rammed it down everyone else's throat!

14 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem with that line of argumentation is that we have a lot  more doctrinal information about the Holy Spirit than what is contained there.   If those verses were the sum total of all the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, then you would have a point.  But we have a fuller explanation of the Holy Spirit in the rest of the OT and the NT and so we understand the Holy Spirit to be Person and a divine Person, as well.    So I don't need to limit myself to the passages you cite. 

Rather it is you that needs to explain that an impersonal "spirit" can be grieved, communed with, lied to, prays, has a mind,  and is mentioned as a separate divine Person from both the Father and the Son.   You are simply living in a contradiction to the Word of God.   

GOD, whom Yeshua` called "Father," IS a SPIRIT (John 4:24)! Therefore, God, who is NOT impersonal, would not be "an impersonal Spirit!" GOD is Holy, "THRICE Holy" (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8), repeated for emphasis, not "once for each Person of the Godhead!" If GOD, who is Yeshua`s Father, is Spirit and if He is Holy, then He IS that "Holy Spirit!" THAT'S how He can be grieved, how He can be "communed with," how He can be lied to, and how He has a mind!

[Guest shiloh357]

41 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, shiloh357.

Well, THAT'S convenient! YOU said, "Just because we cannot explain it, doesn't make it untrue." Well, because you can't explain it, it also doesn't make it true! It's a 50-50 scenario BECAUSE it can't be explained!

No, it is not a 50-50 scenario.  Nor is it convenient.  There is a lot about God that is true and that we cannot explain.   The anti-trinitarians use the inexplicable nature of the Trinity to discredit it.   But my point is that such a line of argumentation isn't an argument against the Trinity since there is so many other things about God that we believe but are inexplicable and are inconsistent with our frame of reference in this world.  The Trinity is one of those things that transcends our reality/experience.  But it is true, even when we cannot make sense of it yet.

 

Quote

Actually, you can "demonstrate the Trinity" because it exists in YOUR versions of Scripture. Not so much in the original languages. However, ALL of our translators these days are Trinitarians! I wonder why that is... Could it be because there's NO ONE LEFT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT?!

Judging from your posts, you are not really skilled in the languages. And it really has nothing to do with the original languages.   The function of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, particularly in the New Testament where the fullest revelation  of Trinity is seen.   We do not need to know Hebrew or Greek to see the function of the Trinity in the life and ministry of Jesus, in particular. 

 

Quote

True enough. However, has anyone had the courage to EXPLORE what is the "full knowledge of the truth?" OR, are you just willing to turn a blind eye to the possibilities so that you cannot be accused of deliberately deceiving others? "Ignorance is bliss."

Rejection of the Trinity isn't a "full knowledge of the truth."  The Trinity is functionally apparent in the New Testament and as a Trinitarian, I am embracing a fuller knowledge of the truth.

Quote

That is a danger, yes. However, I do NOT reject God's Word; to the contrary, I believe it whole-heartedly. What I reject are people's interpretations of God's Word and the theological webs they weave on those interpretations!

The Trinity doctrine is based on God's word, not merely an interpretation of it.   If all we had were propositional claims, then you could make that argument, but the function of the Trinity is inescapable, so rejecting the Trinity isn't rejecting an interpretation.  It is rejecting the substance of Scripture. 

 

Quote

You don't know me from Adam; so, how do YOU know what I believe about Yeshua`?

You have denied the deity of Jesus a number of times on this board.

Quote

Are the attributes attributed to the Being called "God" characteristic of God? If so, then how can Yeshua` be said to be "God" if He is no longer omnipresent or omniscient?

So you're saying that Jesus, at some point, ceased being God?  Do you have any idea how absurd that is?

Jesus is God because that is who He is and has always been.   The Bible affirms Him as God in many places and Jesus is omniscient through the Holy Spirit.   He promises to always be with us, His Body, until the end of time.   Jesus is always with us and that promises isn't limited to a particular place.   He is with us no matter where we are in the world.   The believers in China, Russia, the Middle East, South America, the US, everywhere.   Jesus' promise to be with us is true for all of us, at the same time, no matter where we are.   He promises to abide, to dwell in each us.  Only an omnipresent Jesus could do that.   And Jesus hears all of our prayers, only an all knowing Jesus can be our High Priest and be our advocate on an individual basis.   Jesus holds each of in His Hand and no one take us out of His hand.

So you're claim that Jesus is no longer omnipresent or omniscient really doesn't hold water.  

 

Quote

I believe that Yeshua` is the EXACT SAME PERSON who is also known as the Word in John 1. Therefore, I believe that the Word was with God and the Word was God! I also believe that the Word - ALL of the Word -  was made flesh and dwelt among us as the Person named "Yeshua`" (for "He shall save" His people from their sins). In the process of being "made flesh," He became LIMITED in His location and His strength! He had a height; He had measurements to wear clothing, therefore He had width and thickness - three dimensions; He had to sleep; He had to eat; He had to rest. He became ONE OF US, so He could experience our infirmities and our weaknesses, yet without sin.

Jesus gave up, temporarily, some divine prerogatives, but He did not cease being God.  Jesus is still just as much God has ever was.  Jesus did not give up anything that made Him God when He came to earth.    John 1:1-3 affirms that Jesus is still God.

Quote

Derive from that what you will, but I used to hate the statement "He was 100% God and 100% man" in our study on the hypostatic union in Christology. It SO reminded me of the idiocy of "giving 110%" in a sports event! One can give 100% amount of energy, but above that is IMPOSSIBLE! You can't give what you don't have!

You might hate that statement but it is true.   Jesus fully man and fully God while on earth.  You could say it this way:  Jesus was truly God and truly man.  A mere man could not have affected salvation for us.  When Jesus went to the cross He was both God and man on the cross paying for our sins.
 

Quote

 

GOD, whom Yeshua` called "Father," IS a SPIRIT (John 4:24)! Therefore, God, who is NOT impersonal, would not be "an impersonal Spirit!" GOD is Holy, "THRICE Holy" (Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8), repeated for emphasis, not "once for each Person of the Godhead!" If GOD, who is Yeshua`s Father, is Spirit and if He is Holy, then He IS that "Holy Spirit!" THAT'S how He can be grieved, how He can be "communed with," how He can be lied to, and how He has a mind!

 

But trying to portray the Holy Spirit as the breath of God and only the breath of God, you were presenting the Holy Spirit as impersonal.  The Bible makes a clear distinction between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.    Nowhere in the Bible are the Father and Holy Spirit ever treated as the same Person.  That would be false teaching to say they are the same Person. 

[JohnD]

Three spatial dimensions. Everywhere all the time all at once there is height, length, width (from the greatest expanse to the smallest division).

One universe.

Somethings one simply has to accept as is.

(not meaning it is unexplained but rather is simply fact).

[JohnD]

Well. Let's look at what the Bible says.

The Father has ultimate authority (which the Son and the Spirit submit to).

Acts 1:6–7 (NIV84)
6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Matthew 24:36 (NIV84)
36 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

 

[JohnD]

Jesus (in Spirit) is God enough to create the entire universe AND the spirit realm by himself alone...

Isaiah 44:24 (NIV84)
24 “This is what the Lord says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

John 1:1–3 (NIV84)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Colossians 1:13–16 (NIV84)
13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

 

[JohnD]

The Holy Spirit is in the words of Jesus another comforter (in the Greek "another of the same kind") who the Bible clearly teaches is God:

John 14:16–17 (NIV84)
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Acts 5:3–4 (NIV84)
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?
4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Acts 13:1–2 (NIV84)
1 In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.
2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

 

 

[JohnD]

How many Gods are there?

The Bible says one.

Deuteronomy 6:4 (NIV84)
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.