The Trinity Test
- Thread starter Dave-L
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
These verses are almost assuredly altered. So anti-Trinitarians won’t be affected by them. They are not present in this form in the earliest manuscripts. They are called the Comma Johanneum.
They aren’t needed though because all the points I referenced earlier can be proven and together these points define the Trinity.
Additionally the thread op provided good Trinitarian verses.
They aren’t needed though because all the points I referenced earlier can be proven and together these points define the Trinity.
Additionally the thread op provided good Trinitarian verses.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Manifestation is a term associated with Oneness theology that denies the distinct Personhood of the Father, Sin and Holy Spirit.
In the Oneness world, it is like God is a puppet master who is using three sock puppets which he takes on and puts off. And at some points the sock puppets interact with each other but it’s not real relationship as it is really the same Puppeteer just different sock puppets on different hands.
That can’t be because the Scriptures are clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate to one another. The Father and Spirit bear witness to the Son, and the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. These relationships require personhood.
Anyways I like to call Oneness theology sock-puppet theology.
In the Oneness world, it is like God is a puppet master who is using three sock puppets which he takes on and puts off. And at some points the sock puppets interact with each other but it’s not real relationship as it is really the same Puppeteer just different sock puppets on different hands.
That can’t be because the Scriptures are clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relate to one another. The Father and Spirit bear witness to the Son, and the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. These relationships require personhood.
Anyways I like to call Oneness theology sock-puppet theology.
-
1
- Show all
This is not true. Cyprian quotes the Johannine Comma suggesting we have older manuscripts yet to be found.
CYPRIAN 200-258 AD. Treatises (I 5:423). "and again it Is written of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one' "
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”4 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5
Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). On the Unity of the Church. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 423). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
CYPRIAN 200-258 AD. Treatises (I 5:423). "and again it Is written of the Father, and of the Son. and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one' "
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”4 and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”5
Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). On the Unity of the Church. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, p. 423). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
-
1
- Show all
i have heard of it yes one joe made big point about it in a debate you can listen to here. unitarian vs trinitarian. the shaliach idea works to a certain point. we are doing things by name of Jesus as believers, but we are not Jesus ourself.
Jesus is God in the flesh. He was born of the Holy Spirit (son of God) and from the blessed virgin Mary (son of man)
Jesus is God in the flesh. He was born of the Holy Spirit (son of God) and from the blessed virgin Mary (son of man)
Actually in a sense we are indwelt by Christ, if we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit...Gal 2:20.
This is the concept of union with Christ.
The "agency" argument is most commonly used by Unitarians to claim that Jesus isn't YHVH, which is a total lie and blasphemous. I suppose one could use it in a representative sense, in terms of Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father...I don't have any real issue with that. I would use other language personally though.
This is the concept of union with Christ.
The "agency" argument is most commonly used by Unitarians to claim that Jesus isn't YHVH, which is a total lie and blasphemous. I suppose one could use it in a representative sense, in terms of Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father...I don't have any real issue with that. I would use other language personally though.
-
1
- Show all
Gotquestions.org says none of the very early church fathers refer to the verse:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
The information came from Gordon Fee's book.
Regarding manuscript evidence, I personally do not go along with the Textus Receptus/KJV crowd. I don't find them credible. But, it's a matter of personal opinion. Someone else may think otherwise, and as long as they don't get into the "modern translations are demonic" nonsense I don't care
At any rate the Trinity is plainly a biblical concept.
By the way some KJV guys don't even want you to use the word Trinity..they insist you use the word Godhead. As a result, they come across as cultish.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
The information came from Gordon Fee's book.
Regarding manuscript evidence, I personally do not go along with the Textus Receptus/KJV crowd. I don't find them credible. But, it's a matter of personal opinion. Someone else may think otherwise, and as long as they don't get into the "modern translations are demonic" nonsense I don't care
At any rate the Trinity is plainly a biblical concept.
By the way some KJV guys don't even want you to use the word Trinity..they insist you use the word Godhead. As a result, they come across as cultish.
Daniel Wallace is a textual critic and he says this (basically, that someone, maybe Cyprian, probably "interpreted" the verse within the verse, and this interpretation is only found in early Latin manuscripts, no Greek ones) :
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian
Daniel Wallace
A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late.
Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):
(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.
Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian
Daniel Wallace
A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late.
Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):
(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.
Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
Gotquestions.org says none of the very early church fathers refer to the verse:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
The information came from Gordon Fee's book.
Regarding manuscript evidence, I personally do not go along with the Textus Receptus/KJV crowd. I don't find them credible. But, it's a matter of personal opinion. Someone else may think otherwise, and as long as they don't get into the "modern translations are demonic" nonsense I don't care
At any rate the Trinity is plainly a biblical concept.
By the way some KJV guys don't even want you to use the word Trinity..they insist you use the word Godhead. As a result, they come across as cultish.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
The information came from Gordon Fee's book.
Regarding manuscript evidence, I personally do not go along with the Textus Receptus/KJV crowd. I don't find them credible. But, it's a matter of personal opinion. Someone else may think otherwise, and as long as they don't get into the "modern translations are demonic" nonsense I don't care
At any rate the Trinity is plainly a biblical concept.
By the way some KJV guys don't even want you to use the word Trinity..they insist you use the word Godhead. As a result, they come across as cultish.
While many people believe in a trinity, and not to debate a trinity or one God what some people use to support a trinity does not really support a trinity.
There may be a trinity but these scriptures do not support a trinity.
Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names but titles, and it says name singular not plural.
In the Old Testament the Father said He would reveal a new name to the Jews and speak to them, which Jesus said to Philip that if he has seen Him he has seen the Father, and the words that He speaks are not His own but the Father that dwells in Him, He does the works.
Jesus said He came in His Father's name.
The Bible says the Son inherited the name Jesus from the Father.
The Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.
Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
So while there may be a trinity the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus, and Jesus created all things, came in flesh, and dwells in the flesh, so that scripture does not support a trinity for it could be supporting one God with no distinction of persons.
Let us make man in our image.
Adam was created in the image of God, and in the New Testament Adam was created in the figure of Him to come who is Jesus.
The image of God is the image of Christ.
God calls things that have not happened yet, as though they already happened, for if it is a plan of God to happen in the future it is the same as if it happened in the beginning, for it will surely come to pass with no hindrance.
Which the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world even though it was a future event.
And Jesus is the beginning of creation, and the firstborn of the creatures, even though the man Christ Jesus was not born until 4000 years later, but as God He has no beginning.
Which in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, and without that plan God would of never created anything He created.
So God had the plan to come in the future in flesh before He created Adam, and created Adam in that image an innocent nature in flesh.
So the let us make man in our image has to include the man Christ Jesus for He is part of that image.
So while there may be a trinity let us make man in our image does not support a trinity for it is God the Father, and the Son, the man Christ Jesus.
Jesus at the right hand of God.
God's right hand represents power, wisdom, and salvation.
There is only one throne in heaven, and one who sits on that throne which is the throne of God and the Lamb, God in the glorified body of the man Christ Jesus.
Which Jesus said if you have seem Him you have seen the Father.
There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, which the man Christ Jesus is the Savior for only a sinless man can reconcile the world unto God, but no man is sinless so God manifest Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, God and man in harmony.
Jesus said all power has been given to Him in heaven and earth.
Which David said the LORD said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.
For the Son must reign until His enemies are conquered, and when they are conquered the Son shall submit to God the Father that God may be all in all.
God exalted the man Christ Jesus to exercise the throne of power be at His right hand until His enemies are conquered, and when they are conquered and the saints with Jesus then the Son shall cease exercising the throne of power stop being at the right hand that God may be all in all.
Jesus does not sit next to the Father on a throne of His own, but the only person we will see in heaven is Jesus which if you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father.
So while people say there is a trinity this does not support a trinity.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Also the Bible only attributes the Father as being God, and says the Father is above all so if there is a trinity they cannot be equal for the Father is above all.
The Bible says there is one God but they say God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit which then they are saying there is 3 Gods for if they are distinct persons then they would be 3 Gods which would go against the Bible.
There may be a trinity but these scriptures do not support a trinity.
Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names but titles, and it says name singular not plural.
In the Old Testament the Father said He would reveal a new name to the Jews and speak to them, which Jesus said to Philip that if he has seen Him he has seen the Father, and the words that He speaks are not His own but the Father that dwells in Him, He does the works.
Jesus said He came in His Father's name.
The Bible says the Son inherited the name Jesus from the Father.
The Holy Spirit comes in the name of Jesus.
Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
So while there may be a trinity the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus, and Jesus created all things, came in flesh, and dwells in the flesh, so that scripture does not support a trinity for it could be supporting one God with no distinction of persons.
Let us make man in our image.
Adam was created in the image of God, and in the New Testament Adam was created in the figure of Him to come who is Jesus.
The image of God is the image of Christ.
God calls things that have not happened yet, as though they already happened, for if it is a plan of God to happen in the future it is the same as if it happened in the beginning, for it will surely come to pass with no hindrance.
Which the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world even though it was a future event.
And Jesus is the beginning of creation, and the firstborn of the creatures, even though the man Christ Jesus was not born until 4000 years later, but as God He has no beginning.
Which in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, and without that plan God would of never created anything He created.
So God had the plan to come in the future in flesh before He created Adam, and created Adam in that image an innocent nature in flesh.
So the let us make man in our image has to include the man Christ Jesus for He is part of that image.
So while there may be a trinity let us make man in our image does not support a trinity for it is God the Father, and the Son, the man Christ Jesus.
Jesus at the right hand of God.
God's right hand represents power, wisdom, and salvation.
There is only one throne in heaven, and one who sits on that throne which is the throne of God and the Lamb, God in the glorified body of the man Christ Jesus.
Which Jesus said if you have seem Him you have seen the Father.
There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, which the man Christ Jesus is the Savior for only a sinless man can reconcile the world unto God, but no man is sinless so God manifest Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, God and man in harmony.
Jesus said all power has been given to Him in heaven and earth.
Which David said the LORD said unto my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.
For the Son must reign until His enemies are conquered, and when they are conquered the Son shall submit to God the Father that God may be all in all.
God exalted the man Christ Jesus to exercise the throne of power be at His right hand until His enemies are conquered, and when they are conquered and the saints with Jesus then the Son shall cease exercising the throne of power stop being at the right hand that God may be all in all.
Jesus does not sit next to the Father on a throne of His own, but the only person we will see in heaven is Jesus which if you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father.
So while people say there is a trinity this does not support a trinity.
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Also the Bible only attributes the Father as being God, and says the Father is above all so if there is a trinity they cannot be equal for the Father is above all.
The Bible says there is one God but they say God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit which then they are saying there is 3 Gods for if they are distinct persons then they would be 3 Gods which would go against the Bible.
-
2
- Show all
“Arianism is a nontrinitarian[1] Christological doctrine[1][2][3] which asserts the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was begotten by God the Father at a point in time,[1] a creature distinct from the Father and is therefore subordinate to him, but the Son is also God (i.e. God the Son).[1][4] Arian teachings were first attributed to Arius[1][3](c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria of Egypt.”
Gnosticism was the first major heresy surrouding Christianity (1st century AD). Non-trinitarianism or Arianism was the second (2nd century AD). I suppose you could consider Montanism the third (3rd century AD). You could number them the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th if you wanted to count the Judaizers of the New Testament that were addressed in the First Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts.
Elements of Arianism persist today in oneness Pentecostal and Mormon circles, and elements of Montanism in both oneness and trinitarian Pentecostals, charismatic, and the Word of Faith movement.
Gnosticism was the first major heresy surrouding Christianity (1st century AD). Non-trinitarianism or Arianism was the second (2nd century AD). I suppose you could consider Montanism the third (3rd century AD). You could number them the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th if you wanted to count the Judaizers of the New Testament that were addressed in the First Council of Jerusalem as described in Acts.
Elements of Arianism persist today in oneness Pentecostal and Mormon circles, and elements of Montanism in both oneness and trinitarian Pentecostals, charismatic, and the Word of Faith movement.
Right.
Oneness people believe that God "manifests" himself in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Somehow they relate this to time frames..he was the Father prior to the Incarnation, then the Son during the Incarnation, then the Holy Spirit after the Incarnation.
They claim that the God part talked to the flesh part (Jesus) during the Incarnation. However, they deny the distinct eternal Personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
There are various different positions amongst them.
However, their biggest issue is that there is no true, eternal relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They also claim that Jesus was only a "plan" prior to the Incarnation. This is one possible interpretation of Logos, but their view is not consistent with the rest of the Bible.
I came from a cultic background that denied the Trinity..groups like this create a suspicious, contentious mentality in their followers that views all Christianity as being false, and themselves as being the "true faith". They are the valiant defenders of the "true faith" who somehow avoided being corrupted by Roman Catholicism.
So, anti-trinitarianism goes beyond doctrinal issues to an underlying, spiritual issue. As I moved away from anti-Trinitarianism, I realized that the founder of the cult was a vain, prideful, contentious man. It wasn't just the doctrine; it was his underlying personality. I have read enough about other cult leaders to identify the same underlying spirit of contention, pride and vanity.
Quite often the followers are similar in their mentality, although some might be born into the religion or may have a different, more submissive personality type.
Oneness people believe that God "manifests" himself in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Somehow they relate this to time frames..he was the Father prior to the Incarnation, then the Son during the Incarnation, then the Holy Spirit after the Incarnation.
They claim that the God part talked to the flesh part (Jesus) during the Incarnation. However, they deny the distinct eternal Personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
There are various different positions amongst them.
However, their biggest issue is that there is no true, eternal relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They also claim that Jesus was only a "plan" prior to the Incarnation. This is one possible interpretation of Logos, but their view is not consistent with the rest of the Bible.
I came from a cultic background that denied the Trinity..groups like this create a suspicious, contentious mentality in their followers that views all Christianity as being false, and themselves as being the "true faith". They are the valiant defenders of the "true faith" who somehow avoided being corrupted by Roman Catholicism.
So, anti-trinitarianism goes beyond doctrinal issues to an underlying, spiritual issue. As I moved away from anti-Trinitarianism, I realized that the founder of the cult was a vain, prideful, contentious man. It wasn't just the doctrine; it was his underlying personality. I have read enough about other cult leaders to identify the same underlying spirit of contention, pride and vanity.
Quite often the followers are similar in their mentality, although some might be born into the religion or may have a different, more submissive personality type.
-
2
-
1
- Show all