Have people rightly understood the primary doctrine on Father, Son & Holy Ghost?

[BluePrints]

Have people rightly understood the primary doctrine on Father, Son & Holy Ghost? Why is it important to every other doctrine, and what is the connection to them?

Words and phrases have been created, like "trinity", "una substantia", "perfectly one superabound", "essence", among others, and yet seem to have only created confusion everywhere, and a 'thousand' factions and definitions. What is the truth? How can a person know? Well, turning to Jhn. 17:17, it says,

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.​

An all new resource on this topic has been made available for discussion, questions, and prayerful consideration on the very words of God as found in scripture and while also, considering some additional historical materials as well - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Questions like,

What is the name of God?​

​

Does 1 Jhn. 5:7 belong in scripture, and if so, what does it mean in context?​

​

Who is Jesus?​

​

What about the Holy Ghost / Spirit, is this a Personal Being or a non-Personal Being, something only rather than a someone?​

​

Where is God? Is God in the sinner? Is God in the tree, and / or the rock? Does the Bible teach pantheism, or panentheism, or are those teachings dangerous and counterproductive to the Gospel in salvation / redemption?​

​

Are there three, two, or one Persons / Beings? If more than one, how are they one?​

As always, please feel free to comment, ask questions, participate in discussion, engage in prayerful bible study together! Take the time to follow scriptural counsel and read the material before entering into conversation, Pro. 18:13,17, and come to listen to what is being presented, as in Job before speaking. There is no need to rush into anything when discussing such weighty matters. Better to ask clarifying questions, and listen to one another, and then go to the Bible together.

I will be glad to discuss this topic with those also desiring to do so.

 

[Lamb]

Here's a great video on the Trinity:

 

[BluePrints]

Here's a great video on the Trinity:

Did you consider the original linked material? Pro. 18:13,17?

If I consider the video, and time index it for discussion, will you do so with me about it?

 

[BluePrints]

Here's a great video on the Trinity:

As for instance:

Time Index - 0:50 - 0:52 - Henry Eyster Jacobs (November 10, 1844 – July 7, 1932 - Henry Eyster Jacobs - Wikipedia ) and his book "Elements of Religion" (1894 - Elements of religion : Jacobs, Henry Eyster, 1844-1932 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ). This man was a Lutheran (- Henry Eyster Jacobs - Wikipedia ), and thus adheres to certain Lutheran ideology, which came ostensibly, and originally, from Romanism (Roman Catholicism), and thus his "trinity" is Roman.

The Roman Catholic "trinity" is erroneous and illogical for numerous reasons. First of all, the Roman "trinity" carries within its doctrine, the error of Tertullian, who described the Roman trinity as "una substantia" (one substance / essence - Trinity - Wikipedia ; or as Jacobs says, "simple Substance" (page 47)), and others later call "perfectly one superabound" - CATHOLIC LIBRARY: The Credo of the People of God (1968)

He (Jacobs) was also a spiritualist (immortal soul / spirit, pagan dualism) and proclaimed certain pantheist / panentheist ideology (while proclaiming the Personality of God, contra page 38 to the pagan pantheists), for in his book, it is stated,

"... [Page 41] As the soul, a finite, simple substance, is everywhere present in the body, so God, an infinite, simple Substance is everywhere present in the universe. ..." - Elements of religion : Jacobs, Henry Eyster, 1844-1932 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

Immortal Soul / Spirit theology stems from the enemy of all souls, and may be considered here - Sincerely Dead Dying, To Know Jesus by brother Aaron Earnest : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

As to the omnipresence of God the Father, this was already addressed in the OP linked materials, as for instance on pages 59-60:

"... [page 59] God is omnipresent through omniscience (Psa. 139:1-24 KJB). What does the Bible say, where God [the Father] actually is?​

​

Matthew 6:9 KJB - After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (See also Luk. 11:2 KJB)​

​

Matthew 16:17 KJB - And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.​

​

The 3rd “heaven”, also known as “paradise”, and God’s “garden” of heavenly “eden”, is a real tangible place, just beyond the first (atmosphere; Gen. 1:20 KJB) and second heavens (local Sol system; Gen. 1:14-19 KJB), filled with living beings (Eze. 28:13; Luk. 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:2,4; Rev. 2:7, 12:12, 22:2,14 KJB). [page 59-60]​

​

The Father dwells there “in heaven” (Mat. 5:16,45,48, 6:1,9, 7:11,21, 10:32,33, 12:50, 16:17, 18:10,14,19, 23:9; Mar. 11:25,26; Luk. 11:3, Jhn. 12:28, 17:1; 1 Jhn. 5:7 KJB), though by His omniscient mind (Job 21:22, 40:2; Psa. 113:5-6; Isa. 40:13-14, 46:9-10; Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16 KJB) is everywhere present (omnipresent; 1 Kin. 8:27,39; 2 Chr. 2:6, 6:18,30; Psa. 11:4, 14:2, 53:2; Pro. 15:11 KJB) by His all-knowing (Psa. 139:1-24 KJB). He is a “Person” (Job 13:8; Heb. 1:3 KJB), of which His Son (Jesus) is the “express image” of.​

​

God is local (Gen. 4:16; Exo. 19:17,21, 20:21, 33:14-15; Num. 23:15; Deu. 5:5; 1 Kin. 19:11 KJB),​

has dwelt among mankind (Exo. 25:8, 29:43-45; Lev. 26:11-12; 1 Kin. 6:11-13, 8:13; 2 Chr. 6:2,18; Psa. 132:14; Mic. 1:2; Hab. 2:20; Zec. 2:10; Rev. 21:3 KJB) ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

Nowhere in scripture is the Godhead said to be of "one substance". More on this later.

The rest of the video may be discussed in each of its Time Indexes.

 

[Lamb]

Did you consider the original linked material? Pro. 18:13,17?

If I consider the video, and time index it for discussion, will you do so with me about it?

The trinity is not up for debate here on CH. It is a core belief for Christians.

 

[BluePrints]

The trinity is not up for debate here on CH. It is a core belief for Christians.

I hear what you are saying, but if I may point out, that I am posting (as I am allowed to by this forums own regulation, correct? - Site Rules as I saw no regulation posted that stated it is not allowed, correct, or am I mistaken, and if so, please point me to the correct regulation that is posted, and it would be appreciated) in the "Non-Trinitarian & Non-Credal Discussions", in the "World Religion & Speculative Theology" section of the forums. This is the correct place to have such discussions, is it not? Or, are you saying that the position of the forums on the 'Nicaean Trinitarianism' cannot be questioned / discussed, at all (ever), by anyone, from either a scriptural and / or historical consideration?

I am aware that the forum itself is "Nicaean Trinitarian" (ie. Roman Catholic) in its credalism. I accept that is this forum's position. I was very honest in my enrollment in answering the question of whether or not I agreed with that position. My answer, respectfully, and yet clearly, was "No," I do not agree with that position, as it is in error, and out of harmony with scripture (ie. the Bible).

The position that the forums have taken may indeed have a certain length of history behind it, as well as a certain level of support from varied writers, theologians, scholars, but those things do not guarantee the truthfulness / rightness of those stated positions (the question then is raised, "What does determine what is truth from error?"). In other words, error hoary with age does not ever sanctify the error into the truth (that is a logical fallacy, often called 'argumentum ad antiquitatem / traditionem'). In other words, the amount of persons who have adhered or accepted an error, does not ever sanctify the error into the truth (that is also a logical fallacy, such as 'ad majorem', 'ad populum', at the least).

As you can see, I am not "trinitarian" in the Roman Catholic definition of the word. You are aware that there are multiple definitions of that word, correct? The OP linked material provided this in brief, as for instance:

"... [Page 189] Tertullian; Against Praxeas, Chapter XXV (25) - The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as to Their Divine Nature. Other Quotations Out of St. John's Gospel.​

​

[Latin] “... Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum sint, non unus. ..." dynaXML Error: Invalid Document ynchronizedEN/anf.000073.Tertullian. AgainstPraxeas.html;chunk.id—00000053​

​

[English] *... Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one347essence, not one Person,348 ..." ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

"... [Page 496, emphasis supplied (bold & underline)] Wikipedia – Trinity:​

​

“... The word “trinity” is derived from Latin trinitas, meaning “the number three, a triad, tri”. This abstract noun is formed from the adjective trinus (three each, threefold, triple),[21] as the word unitas is the abstract noun formed from unus (one). [Page 496-407]​

​

The corresponding word in Greek is tριάς, meaning “a set of three” or “the number three”.[22] The first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology was by Theophilus of Antioch in about the year of 170. …​

​

Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited as being the first to use the Latin words “Trinity”,[26] “person” and “substance”[27] to explain that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “tres personae, una substantia”.[28] While “personae” is often translated as “persons,” the Latin word personae is better understood as referring to roles as opposed to individual centers of consciousness. ...” - Trinity - Wikipedia​

​

Already, a thinking person can see at least 2 varying definitions, [1] between Theophilus of Antioch (which is where they were first called “Christians”; Act. 11:26 KJB), and [2] the later Latin Tertullian, which included “una substantia” (one / single substance; false doctrine). There is nowhere in scripture (KJB) which states that all three Persons / Beings are of “one substance”. If a person desires to use the word “trinity” without the “una substantia” (one substance) of Tertullian and other such things from the Roman definition (denying such as error), and simply means it as ‘three Persons / Beings of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost / Spirit all working together in perfect harmony’ under the Hebrew word “Elohiym” (“God/s”) and sharing the family name “JEHOVAH” as “Godhead” over all creation, that is not really an issue with this author, but most do not mean it that way. ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

... to be continued ...

 

[BluePrints]

The trinity is not up for debate here on CH. It is a core belief for Christians.

... continued ...

Others, learned in the material of scripture and history, have also made the same distinctions:

"... [Page 497] A.T. Jones, himself, a lawyer, and one-time Seventh-day Adventist, understanding words and definitions, also makes the distinction, between one “trinity” definitional use (Rome’s) and another (others):​

​

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Volume 69, May 31, 1892, page 337.13:​

​

“[page 337.13] BY ELDER A. T. JONES ...​

​

... After citing “historical” statements which show that the Roman Catholic religion might be the religion of this nation; which establish the righteousness of religious test-oaths as a qualification for office; which require belief in the doctrine of the Trinity—the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, of course—and in the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments; and which establish the righteousness of Sunday laws,—after citing statements which establish the legality of all these religious things, then the court quotes from the First Amendment to the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and upon this, flatly declares:—ARSH May 31, 1892, page 337.13 ...” - https://text.egwwritings.org/read/1058.19 ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

​

This is common knowledge (or at least should be at the very least) in that the "trinity" of, say, the LDS (Mormon) is not the same definitionally as the "trinity" of the Roman Catholic or Lutheran. There are other variations as well among those who call themselves "Christian" (and this is not to say automatically that such are not, for that is determined by other factors).

From the evidence and documented sources in the linked material, as is also in general knowledge base of the world (see Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive, other Libraries (digital or physical), etc., it has not always been the case that "it" (Nicaean Trinitarianism) was a "core belief" of "Christians". Nicaean council itself was literally first begun in the 4th century - First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia when the power of Rome was prevailing everywhere, consider "The Two Republics" by A. T. Jones - SDA A T Jones The Two Republics : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive or consider "Truth Triumphant" by Benjamin G. Wilkinson - Doctrine Bible Benjamin G Wilkinson Truth Triumphant : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive or several other histories that could be provided.

If something cannot be discussed in a peaceful rational and even prayerful fashion, one begins to question "Why?" and what is the motivation behind the "curtain" / "veil" that is over it? What is it that is not meant to be seen and understood into the broad daylight?

Joh_18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.​

Is that an example that Jesus gave? In other words, Jesus, laid everything bare (even unto Himself exposed in nakedness upon the cruel cross) for all the world, and the unfallen worlds to witness, so that no confusion, no mistaken notion, would be had about whom God is.

I am not expecting you to necessarily answer the questions asked. They are more for internal thinking, but if you feel you desire to answer them, I will read your responses and consider them in the light of the scriptures (Isa. 8:20). Perhaps, you may have a misunderstanding about what I believe on this matter. If you have some questions for me, I would be glad to consider them in response on this subject. I mean you, nor anyone here, any ill will.

 

[BluePrints]

The trinity is not up for debate here on CH. It is a core belief for Christians.

Maybe I should ask this:

If I am not allowed to question / discuss the Forum's position in a negative light (ie. contrary), then am I allowed to discuss my own position without getting into the Forum's position (where possible)?

In other words, if I cannot ask this forum about its position (ie. in question / dicussion fashion), is it possible for others (including yourself) to ask me about my position (no one has asked me anything, really as of yet about my position, and there seems to be some assumptions (incorrect ones) going on, but perhaps not), and perhaps, in addition, show the differences between the two?

 

[Frankj]

Maybe I should ask this:

If I am not allowed to question / discuss the Forum's position in a negative light (ie. contrary), then am I allowed to discuss my own position without getting into the Forum's position (where possible)?

In other words, if I cannot ask this forum about its position (ie. in question / dicussion fashion), is it possible for others (including yourself) to ask me about my position (no one has asked me anything, really as of yet about my position, and there seems to be some assumptions (incorrect ones) going on, but perhaps not), and perhaps, in addition, show the differences between the two?

Independent from Lamb's answer whatever it may be, I'm interested in where you are intending to go with this, what are you trying to accomplish and for what purpose?

 

[BluePrints]

Independent from Lamb's answer whatever it may be, I'm interested in where you are intending to go with this, what are you trying to accomplish and for what purpose?

The OP's intent was to have all understand what the truth of the matter (on the subject) is, from scripture, in a study together, and a prayerful discussion / searching of the matter. The purpose is so that all may come to have a "love of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:10), and that "truth" (Deu. 32:4; Psa. 25:10, 119:142,151; Jhn. 14:6, 17:17; 1 Jhn. 5:6) is found in the Bible. If that, by so doing, means that certain things fall away that may have long been accepted in truth's place, but are found to be out of harmony with that "truth", then all the better, for error never helped anyone in the long run, and usually attracts other errors in an ever widening sinkhole. I (and my position) are not excluded from being discussed in that same light and purpose. For instance, if I (my position) were to be in error, I would not desire to remain in it either, but to "come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4), but how could such as I know that 'I am in error' (as others may assume, but usually without even asking) unless someone show me from scripture, rather than from a seemingly 'pious' and long-held 'infallible creed' that 'shall not be questioned (ever)'. Even Jesus accepted the questions of His disciples about many matters and took the time to help them come to understanding. Jesus wanted them to understand about the Father, Himself (Son) and Holy Ghost and their relation to each other and to the disciples.

 

[Frankj]

The OP's intent was to have all understand what the truth of the matter (on the subject) is, from scripture, in a study together, and a prayerful discussion / searching of the matter. The purpose is so that all may come to have a "love of the truth" (2 Thes. 2:10), and that "truth" (Deu. 32:4; Psa. 25:10, 119:142,151; Jhn. 14:6, 17:17; 1 Jhn. 5:6) is found in the Bible. If that, by so doing, means that certain things fall away that may have long been accepted in truth's place, but are found to be out of harmony with that "truth", then all the better, for error never helped anyone in the long run, and usually attracts other errors in an ever widening sinkhole. I (and my position) are not excluded from being discussed in that same light and purpose. For instance, if I (my position) were to be in error, I would not desire to remain in it either, but to "come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4), but how could such as I know that 'I am in error' (as others may assume, but usually without even asking) unless someone show me from scripture, rather than from a seemingly 'pious' and long-held 'infallible creed' that 'shall not be questioned (ever)'. Even Jesus accepted the questions of His disciples about many matters and took the time to help them come to understanding. Jesus wanted them to understand about the Father, Himself (Son) and Holy Ghost and their relation to each other and to the disciples.

When you say "Jesus wanted them to understand about the Father, Himself (Son) and Holy Ghost and their relation to each other and to the disciples." I have to ask:
What is Your understanding of this?

Because that seems to be what you are trying to promote and convince others that your understanding is the right one and others that their understanding is the wrong one.

In my experience this leads only to the setting of one Christian against another, introducing hostilities where there should be none. Something that seems to be an increasing trend in the Church today with denominations and sects being set against one another and draining the power of the Church so that it has less and less influence on out civilization. The Church has become what Jesus directly warned against, a house divided against itself.

As I see it, and not necessarily the only right way of seeing it. I tend to look for truth as proven by the results of practicing it, not the theory.

BTW, totally aside from this discussion your screen name suggests you may be a fellow maker of things, are you?

 

[BluePrints]

When you say "Jesus wanted them to understand about the Father, Himself (Son) and Holy Ghost and their relation to each other and to the disciples." I have to ask:
What is Your understanding of this? ...

My position is the OP linked materials position, as standing upon the scriptures therein provided, for any to consider as well (Pro. 18;13,17). My understanding, is standing under the Bible (Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11) as final authority in all matters of faith and practice. I do not adhere to "private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20) of the scripture, and am forbidden to do so, since it is the Author of scripture, which interprets the scripture (Gen. 40:8), and given in such a fashion that the words of God explain themselves, perfectly (Jhn. 10:35), and are internally defined, "line upon line" (Isa. 28:10,13). I (and any really) am only allowed to 'amen' ('second') the scriptures, in what they say (Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 4:11).

There is a chapter on each; speaking of the Father (Chapter's 3-4), the Son (Jesus; Chapters 5-7) and the Holy Ghost / Spirit (Chapters 8-9) in the provided and linked material. Here is a small excerpt on each [pages 121-123, edited]:

"... [Page 121] QUESTION: WHO MADE THE WORLD, THE HEAVEN (SKY) & EARTH, AND ALL THAT IS ON IT?​

​

GOD – ELOHIYM (THREE PERSONS/BEINGS THAT WORK TOGETHER IN HARMONY, AS FAMILY, AS MARRIAGE, AS TEAM, AS CHORD)​

​

“Elohiym” (Gen. 1:1 HOT, etc.) x (a lot) (true plural, 3 or greater form), “us” x 4 (plural pronoun), “our” x 3 (plural pronoun): Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isa. 6:8; “we” x 3 (plural pronoun): Jhn. 3:11; “Creators” x 1 (Ecc. 12:1 HOT, “בוראיך”) (plural pronoun) (see also Job 33:4; Isa. 43:7; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2, 2:10; Rev. 4:11), “Makers” x 3 (Job 35:10 HOT, “עשׂי”) & (Psa. 149:2 HOT, “בעשׂיו”) & (Isa. 54:5 HOT, “עשׂיך”) (plural pronoun); “Holy Ones” x 1 (Pro. 9:10 HOT, “קדשׁים”) (plural pronoun); &c; Verbs are plural in association with Elohiym: Gen. 20:13, “התעו” (wander) connected to Elohiym is plural; Gen. 35:7, “נגלו” (revealed) connected to Elohiym is plural; Deu. 4:7, “קרבים” (nigh) connected to Elohiym is plural; Jos. 24:19, “קדשׁים” (Holy) connected to Elohiym is plural; 2 Sam. 7:23, “הלכו” (went) connected to Elohiym is plural; Psa. 58:11, “שׁפטים” (judge) connected to Elohiym is plural; Pro. 30:3-4, “קדשׁים” (holy) connected to vs 4 with the “name” (of the Father), and that of “son’s name”. Even the word “Adonai” (“לאדני”) is given mostly / majority in the plural (Gen. 18:30; Exo. 34:23; Deu. 10:17; Jos. 3:11,13; Psa. 45:11; 114:7; 135:5; Mal. 1:6).​

​

(A.) Genesis 1:1 KJB - In the beginning God (H430; Elohiym, true plural, 3) created the heaven and the earth. (“God said”, “God made”, “God saw”)​

​

(B.) Zechariah 3:2 KJB - And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?​

​

(C.) 1 John 5:7 KJB - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (“agree in one”, parallel in 1 Jhn 5:8 KJB) ​

​

(D.) Ecclesiastes 4:12 KJB - "... a threefold cord is not quickly broken." [Page 121-122]​

​

(1.) The Person / Being of the Father (Mat. 6:9; Luk. 11:2 KJB), JEHOVAH (“the LORD”, Gen. 19:24b; Zec. 3:2b KJB), the “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:9,13,22 KJB), “the only true God” (Jhn. 17:3 KJB; “τον μονον αληθινον θεον”), “God” (Psa. 45:7b.; Heb. 1:9b.; Jhn. 1:1b KJB, “τον θεον”), speaking to the Son: ​

​

(A.) Revelation 4:11 KJB - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.​

​

(B.) Revelation 10:6 KJB - And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:​

​

(C). Genesis 1:6 KJB - "And God said, ..."​

​

(2.) The Person / Being of the Son, Jesus JEHOVAH ((H3444; H3068) “ישׁועתה ליהוה”; Gen. 49:18; Exo. 14:13; 2 Chr. 20:17; Jon. 2:10; Psa. 119:174 HOT) or JEHOVAH Immanuel ((Psa. 46:7,11) Psa. 46:8,12 HOT, (H3068; H5973; H430), “יהוה ... עמנו... אלהי”), “the LORD” (Gen. 19:24a.; Zec. 3:2a.; Heb. 1:10; Psa. 102:12,25-27; Heb. 13:4-8), “the son of man” (Dan. 7:13), “the only begotten” (Jhn. 1:14,18, 3:16,18; Heb. 11:17; 1 Jhn. 4:9, is basically monogene (μονογενῆ; Jhn. 3:16; Heb. 11:17; 1 Jhn. 4:9) or monogenes (μονογενὴς; Jhn. 1:18) or monogenous (μονογενοῦς; Jhn. 1:14, 3:18)), “the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father” (2 Jhn. 1:3; Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ πατρός), “the express image of his (God, The Father’s) person” (Heb. 1:3; χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ), being Himself also “God” (Jhn. 1:1c., “θεος ην ο λογος”; Jhn. 1:14,18, 3:16,18; Heb. 11:17; 1 Jhn. 4:9; Psa. 47:5a.; Heb. 1:8,9a.), even “O God” (Heb. 1:9, “ο θεος”), and the “son of man” (Dan. 7:13), the “fellow” (Zec. 13:7), who acted, “made” all things (Jhn. 1:1-3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:1-3), on behalf of the Father’s will (Pro. 8:22-36; Jhn. 5:30, 6:38), though, a father in His own right (Isa. 9:6; Heb. 2:13; Isa. 8:16,18; Jhn. 13:33), and yet also the perfect Son (Num. 19:2; “without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke”), the “Angel (Messenger)” (Mal. 3:1b) “of the LORD (Father)” (Zec. 3:1); “Michael” (Dan. 10:13,21, 12:1; 1 Thes. 4:16; Jud. 1:9; Rev. 12:7), the great “I am” (Jhn. 8:58; ἐγὼ εἰμί), see also Jhn. 4:26, 6:20,35,41,48,51, 8:12,18,24,28,58, 9:5, 10:7,9,11,14, 11:25, 14:6, 15:1,5, 18:5,6,8, 13:19: ​

​

(A.) John 1:1 KJB - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

​

John 1:2 KJB - The same was in the beginning with God.​

​

John 1:3 KJB - All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.​

​

(B.) Ephesians 3:9 KJB - "... God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:"​

​

(C.) Colossians 1:16 KJB - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:​

​

(D.) Hebrews 1:1 KJB - God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,​

​

Hebrews 1:2 KJB - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [Page 122-123]​

​

(E.) Genesis 1:7 KJB - "And God made ..."​

​

(3.) The Person / Being of the Holy Ghost / Spirit, the “another Comforter” (Jhn. 14:16 KJB), the “Spirit of truth.” (Jhn. 14:17 KJB), “Comforter ... the Holy Ghost” (Jhn. 14:26 KJB), the “LORD” (Zec. 3:2c KJB), and a father in His own right (Mat. 1:18; Luk. 1:35; 1 Pet. 1:23; Jhn. 1:13, 3:3-8; 1 Jhn. 3:9, 4:7, 5:1,4,18 KJB), yet differing than the Father or the Son (Isa. 48:16; Jhn. 14:26 KJB): ​

​

(A.) Job 33:4 KJB - The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.​

​

(B.) Genesis 1:2 KJB - "... the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."​

​

(C.) Genesis 1:31 KJB - And God saw ..." - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive​

Is this what you were seeking to know about my position?