Is it theologically sound to suggest the Father and Spirit may take on a physical nature like the Son in Heaven?

[Bluejay4]

Before you call me a heretic let me try and explain myself, we know the Son is currently the only viewable member of the trinity, but what about when New Earth and New Heaven role around? Perhaps the Father and Spirit will also take on some form of physical nature to personally and physically interact with their children on a very intimate scale, it'd also make sense that there would be three thrones in Heaven. I'll try and support my theory with some scripture.

Moses and the Burning Bush

3 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”

and...

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night.

Just some examples of God revealing some of himself to us through veiled forms, it's possible he may do something similar while in Heaven.

Example

"I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire.

I'll continue the post later, for now you guys can tell me what you think.

[EssentialSacrifice]

I think this is a great question. I guess I just always assumed His vision after glorified bodies have been given. Here's some bible references from the "hub" that entertain we can / will the Father, but not so much the Holy Spirit. I bet there's discussion in there somewhere..

http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-4.htm

[melanie]

ES, there is not a discussion in scripture anywhere in regards to the HS being in physical form or spiritual form in regards to the seating of what is called the Holy Trinity in the heavenly realm.
It does not exist.
The father sits on His throne, with Jesus on the right side.
There is zero reference to the Holy Spirit's place in the spiritually hierarchy. Apart from twisted scripture.
It is obsolete.

How blasphemous against the Holy Spirit if he in some kind of physical sense is sitting on the left side or anywhere in this triune God equation.
The Holy Spirit is God, Jesus said if you have seen the Father you have seen me.
The Holy Spirit is Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is God.

We can theorise and theologise all we like.
Till the cows come home.
But the Trinity doctrine is faulty.
It's mans attempt at assuming the understanding God.
We are curious creatures with an array of motives.

The Holy Spirit is your Almighty God and precious Saviour exhibiting omnipresence, omnipotence and Omniscient.

[RickD]

mel wrote:
Holy Spirit is your Almighty God and precious Saviour exhibiting omnipresence, omnipotence and Omniscient.

Mel,

You do realize that there's nothing in the doctrine of the Trinity, that goes against what you're saying here, right?

mel wrote:
...The Holy Spirit is God, Jesus said if you have seen the Father you have seen me.
The Holy Spirit is Jesus.
The Holy Spirit is God.

We can theorise and theologise all we like.
Till the cows come home.
But the Trinity doctrine is faulty...

If the Holy Spirit is Jesus, then why did Jesus talk about the Holy Spirit, as if he was talking about a different person:
John 14:16
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;


This one verse shows all three persons of the holy trinity.

I'd really like to hear a valid, and convincing argument, as to why the doctrine of the Trinity is faulty. As much as you say you understand it, I really don't think you do.

[melanie]

There is nothing in the 'doctrine' of the Trinity that is implicitly sound biblically either.
It is a man made doctrine.
That many believe
Doctrinally albeit mistakingly so

Religion has a habit of doing that.
Don't question
Assume
Assimilate
Ect
Ect
I have a habit of going through everything with a fine tooth comb.
People may not agree that's okay, but let's use viable arguments.

[RickD]

Mel, I edited my post while you posted.

For you to say that there's nothing in the doctrine of the Trinity that's biblically sound, leads me to believe you REALLY don't understand the doctrine.

[RickD]

Even Wikipedia gets it right.

I challenge you to show what is unbiblical about the doctrine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

[melanie]

Haha trust me Rick
I don't speak out of place.
I understand what you are saying
We have discussed this in previous posts although some time ago.

I understand the doctrine. I disagree
There is a notable difference.
This is not the first time I have brought it up.
I differentiate between religious indoctrination and biblical truth

[melanie]

Ohh if Wikipedia confirms it must be true

[RickD]

Haha trust me Rick
I don't speak out of place.
I understand what you are saying
We have discussed this in previous posts although some time ago.

I understand the doctrine. I disagree
There is a notable difference.
This is not the first time I have brought it up.
I differentiate between religious indoctrination and biblical truth

Mel,

I remember those discussions. And I saw what you wrote. And I still say that you don't understand the doctrine. Because, if you understood, you wouldn't say there's nothing biblical in it.

You haven't shown what is unbiblical about the doctrine.

[melanie]

Dido Rick.
I say you understand the 'doctrine'
But can you think outside it, and look at scripture??

[melanie]

Ohh look. I can see how it could be sloppily interpreted to mean as such.
I See how ridiculously Christians are handed their beliefs on a platter without thinking about it.
How if you're dare too question then your a whatever.
But Rick
I'm not perfect in my understanding of scripture but I'm not too shabby either.
You can question my interpretation. Fair enough.
But......
Don't question my ability for basic understanding, cause well I'm quite well equipped to have the basics well under control

[RickD]

Dido Rick.
I say you understand the 'doctrine'
But can you think outside it, and look at scripture??

Dido?

Mel,

I've looked at scripture, and found the best doctrine to describe God, is the Trinity.


Now, you said that it's a man made doctrine. And you've also said that there's nothing biblical about it.

Are you saying there's nothing biblical about it because it's a man made doctrine?

[RickD]

Ohh look. I can see how it could be sloppily interpreted to mean as such.
I See how ridiculously Christians are handed their beliefs on a platter without thinking about it.
How if you're dare too question then your a whatever.
But Rick
I'm not perfect in my understanding of scripture but I'm not too shabby either.
You can question my interpretation. Fair enough.
But......
Don't question my ability for basic understanding, cause well I'm quite well equipped to have the basics well under control

But I do question your understanding of the doctrine. I feel there's something you're just not grasping. To say "there's nothing biblical about the doctrine" just shows a lack of understanding.

[melanie]

You put the emphasis on me to prove otherwise,
I see no sounding board scripturally to have to do so.
If I'm presented with such perhaps we can go from there.
But I stand solid in my belief as I have done so since I joined this forum that it has its standing in religious indoctrination not in scriptual truth.