The Trinity.

  • 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.
CorrectiveLens said:
Five Major Problems with the Trinity by Sean Finnegan
In mathematics, for something to be true, it must always be true. To prove something false, all you have to do is provide a contradiction. Most people's belief on the Trinity is pretty much set so the plan is to be respectful of their belief and simply show that their belief is inadequate.
Our Strategy
Assume the Trinity is true and see from an internal perspective what problems there might be. People aren't willing to consider a new option until they are convinced that their old option is inadequate.
Problem #1. Jesus was a Jew who believed the same about God as other Jews. First century Jews did not believe in the Trinity. Their Scriptures proclaimed radical monotheism. The reason why the Jews do not believe in the Trinity, then or now, is because of the Jewish Scriptures that proclaim monotheism. Deut 4: 35, 39 To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. So acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. In Mark 12: 28-34 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all commandments is: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is no other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Jesus confessed the Shema, the core creed of Judaism, without altering it at all. How would the Jewish scribe have heard this? As a Trinitarian creed? If the Trinity was true, Jesus would have corrected or altered the Shema. Instead, he praises the scribe.
Problem #2 The Trinity is never explained in Scripture. Sure one can pull together a verse here and there, in order to find support for an a priori theory ( not based on evidence). There is not a book, a chapter, or a verse that mentions or explains God as a Trinity.
What is the Trinity?
one God in three persons (one being or essence with 3 personalities)
co-eternal (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed)
co-essential (they share the same essence)
co-equal (the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God)
eternal generation (the begotten Son has always existed)
dual natures of Christ in one person (divine and human)
in their union each nature preserves its distinct attributes (Jesus is all human and all God)
two wills in Christ- divine and human- never conflict
The Trinity is like an oral tradition taught along side of Scripture passed down from the apostles (remember that we are assuming that the Trinity is true) from generation to generation, and it was never written down and no one really ever talked about it until the heretics came to challenge it. This is analogous to the Pharisees who made a big deal about maintaining tradition and were denounced by Jesus.
Is It Really Necessary If.....
it is never explained by Jesus
it is never preached as gospel in the book of Acts
it is never explained in the epistles of Paul, James, Peter, or John
it is just one theory among several which tries to explain God in light of Scripture
Click to expand...

I know who this guy is? He's a Unitarian just like the other Unitarian I know about named Anthony Buzzard. They deny the deith of Jesus Christ. One of the very first things he says is, "Assume the Trinity is true."

My response is this: "The doctrine of the trinity is not an "assumption." It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is BASED on the fact that the Bible is explicit in telling us that there is, was and forever will be only ONE God AND the fact that the Bible identifies three (and only three) persons as God.

So what is "systematic theology? It's about organizing the teachings of the Bible into categorical systems. For example are there any verses in the whole of the Bible that identify the three persons of the trinity as God, either directly or by deductive/inductive reasoning. I could go into a lot of detail on this issue but instead I'm going to take the short route.

We already know that God the Father is God, that's a given and there are verses that prove it. Some of us also know that the Holy Spirit is identified as God at Acts 5:3-. It should also be noted the Holy Spirt has all the characteristics of being a person and is described as such in the Bible.

What about God the Son? Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE." You then have John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being. Colossians 1:16, "For by Him/Jesus Christ all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created BY Him and for Him."

Then there is Hebrews 1:10 where God the Father is speaking and He says, "And, Thou Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands." Perfectly consistent with Isaiah 44:24. One more! Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the Lord, the KIng of Israel And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

Compare this with Revelation 1:17, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last," And Revelation 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the firs and the last, the beginning and the end." Now, I could provide a ton of evidence that supports the three persons of the Godhead as being the one God. What say you CorrectiveLens? Let me give you a piece of advice, you should be correcting your errant theology.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angela53510 and evyaniy
CorrectiveLens said:
Five Major Problems with the Trinity by Sean Finnegan
In mathematics, for something to be true, it must always be true. To prove something false, all you have to do is provide a contradiction. Most people's belief on the Trinity is pretty much set so the plan is to be respectful of their belief and simply show that their belief is inadequate.
Our Strategy
Assume the Trinity is true and see from an internal perspective what problems there might be. People aren't willing to consider a new option until they are convinced that their old option is inadequate.
Problem #1. Jesus was a Jew who believed the same about God as other Jews. First century Jews did not believe in the Trinity. Their Scriptures proclaimed radical monotheism. The reason why the Jews do not believe in the Trinity, then or now, is because of the Jewish Scriptures that proclaim monotheism. Deut 4: 35, 39 To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him. So acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. In Mark 12: 28-34 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all commandments is: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God, and there is no other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Jesus confessed the Shema, the core creed of Judaism, without altering it at all. How would the Jewish scribe have heard this? As a Trinitarian creed? If the Trinity was true, Jesus would have corrected or altered the Shema. Instead, he praises the scribe.
Problem #2 The Trinity is never explained in Scripture. Sure one can pull together a verse here and there, in order to find support for an a priori theory ( not based on evidence). There is not a book, a chapter, or a verse that mentions or explains God as a Trinity.
What is the Trinity?
one God in three persons (one being or essence with 3 personalities)
co-eternal (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed)
co-essential (they share the same essence)
co-equal (the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God)
eternal generation (the begotten Son has always existed)
dual natures of Christ in one person (divine and human)
in their union each nature preserves its distinct attributes (Jesus is all human and all God)
two wills in Christ- divine and human- never conflict
The Trinity is like an oral tradition taught along side of Scripture passed down from the apostles (remember that we are assuming that the Trinity is true) from generation to generation, and it was never written down and no one really ever talked about it until the heretics came to challenge it. This is analogous to the Pharisees who made a big deal about maintaining tradition and were denounced by Jesus.
Is It Really Necessary If.....
it is never explained by Jesus
it is never preached as gospel in the book of Acts
it is never explained in the epistles of Paul, James, Peter, or John
it is just one theory among several which tries to explain God in light of Scripture
Click to expand...

One problem with trying to apply "maths" to this type of issue, is that most mathematicians really stink at languages and communications.

The Trinity is one God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angela53510
CorrectiveLens said:
the Trinity is pretty much set so the plan is to be respectful of their belief and simply show that their belief is inadequate.
Assume the Trinity is true and see from an internal perspective what problems there might be. People aren't willing to consider a new option until they are convinced that their old option is inadequate.
Click to expand...


Ok, that's fine, that is an opinion, which he gave. That's not a matter of fact. He's basically saying people are too stupid to read the Bible for themselves and just believe whatever the preacher/priest spews out. Again, opinion, and that may be even be true of some people. But I think the vast majority of people here study and read the Bible for themselves.

CorrectiveLens said:
Problem #1. Jesus was a Jew who believed the same about God as other Jews.
Click to expand...

Really, so why did Jesus keep correcting them and telling them they were not truly understanding WHO He was and WHAT His mission was? Why did they continue to accuse Him of blasphemy.

CorrectiveLens said:
First century Jews did not believe in the Trinity. Their Scriptures proclaimed radical monotheism. The reason why the Jews do not believe in the Trinity, then or now, is because of the Jewish Scriptures that proclaim monotheism.
Jesus confessed the Shema, the core creed of Judaism, without altering it at all. How would the Jewish scribe have heard this? As a Trinitarian creed? If the Trinity was true, Jesus would have corrected or altered the Shema.
Click to expand...

Well, first you need to understand the trinity, and you don't. ONE God in THREE PERSONS, the TRINIY. No one has claimed here that there are 3 different Gods. No seems to like the egg as an example but it works. One egg, three parts.



CorrectiveLens said:
Problem #2 The Trinity is never explained in Scripture. Sure one can pull together a verse here and there, in order to find support for an a priori theory ( not based on evidence). There is not a book, a chapter, or a verse that mentions or explains God as a Trinity.
Click to expand...

All three mentioned in below verses.

1. Matthew 3:16
“After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him.”

2. Matthew 12:28
“But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

3. Matthew 28:19
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”

4. Luke 3:22
“And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

5. John 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

6. John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me . . .”

7. Acts 1:4
“Gathering them together, He [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me . . .”

8. Acts 2:33
“Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Jesus] has poured forth this which you both see and hear.”

9. Acts 10:38
“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”

10. Romans 1:4
“Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . .”

11. Romans 8:9
“However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

12. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

13. 2 Corinthians 13:14
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

14. Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

15. Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.

16. Ephesians 2:18
For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

17. Ephesians 2:22
In whom [Jesus] you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

18. Titus 3:6
Whom [the Holy Spirit] He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.

19. Hebrews 9:14
How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

20. 1 Peter 1:2
According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: may grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.




CorrectiveLens said:
The Trinity is like an oral tradition taught along side of Scripture passed down from the apostles (remember that we are assuming that the Trinity is true) from generation to generation, and it was never written down and no one really ever talked about it until the heretics came to challenge it.
Click to expand...

Just proved that wrong with the above Scriptures.




CorrectiveLens said:
Is It Really Necessary If.....
it is never explained by Jesus
it is never preached as gospel in the book of Acts
it is never explained in the epistles of Paul, James, Peter, or John
it is just one theory among several which tries to explain God in light of Scripture
Click to expand...


Yes, it's really necessary. Let's start with Jesus is God.

  • Jesus possesses divine ATTRIBUTES. He is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, unchanging, holy, and sinless. These are all characteristics of God, yet they are attributed to Jesus.
  • Jesus ASSERTED he was God. The Jews understood this was what Jesus meant because they tried to stone him after he claimed it.
  • Jesus has divine AUTHORITY. He not only asserted he was God, but he did things only God can do, like forgive sins, raise the dead, and accept worship.
  • Jesus’s enemies ACCUSED him of claiming to be God. It is clear that Jesus spoke and acted like God.
  • Jesus was AFFIRMED by other New Testament writers. The earliest disciples of Jesus taught that he was God. To have done this, they needed to truly believe that he was God. They had seen, heard, and confirmed he was who he claimed to be. 1. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Well, it was God the Father (Gal 1:1; 1 Thess 1:10); it was also Jesus Himself (Jn 2:19; 10:17-18); and it was the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11). 2. Who gave the new covenant? The Father (Jer 31:33-34); Jesus (Heb 8:1-13; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20); the Holy Spirit (Heb 10:15-17).
    3. Who sanctifies believers? The Father (1 Thess 5:23); Jesus (Heb 13:12); the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:2).

    4. Who is the creator? The Father (Gen 1:1; Is 44:24; Acts 17:24; Eph 3:9); Jesus (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:8, 10); the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4).Job 33:4.

    5. Who indwells believers? The Father (1 Cor 3:16a; 2 Cor 6:16; 1 Jn 3:24); Jesus (Jn 6:56; Rom 8:10; Eph 3:17); the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16-17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16b). The Bible even describes this in terms of different combinations: Father and Son (Jn 14:23); Father and Holy Spirit (Eph 2:21-22; 1 Jn 3:24); Son and Holy Spirit (Gal 4:6).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluto
Saul-to-Paul said:
John 8:38
But the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Colossians 2:9
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Click to expand...

Godhead refers to the Divinity of Jesus.
You might have heard the term "maidenhead ". That is an older way of saying maidenhood, or the state of being a virgin/ maiden.
Godhead is an older form of the word Godhood, or the state of being God.
So, Colossians 2:9 is not saying that Jesus is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
Rather, He is completely/ fully God.
 
HealthAndHappiness said:
Godhead refers to the Divinity of Jesus.
You might have heard the term "maidenhead ". That is an older way of saying maidenhood, or the state of being a virgin/ maiden.
Godhead is an older form of the word Godhood, or the state of being God.
So, Colossians 2:9 is not saying that Jesus is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
Rather, He is completely/ fully God.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:27, For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works:

Why wouldn't the Son of man shall come in the second person of the trinity's glory, if the second person of the trinity is God?

I'll tell you why he wouldn't. Jesus is the everlasting Father as Isaiah 9:6 claims and the trinity is a lie.
 
Saul-to-Paul said:
Matthew 16:27, For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works:
Click to expand...

It is estimated that over 100 billion people have lived with over 8 billion being currently alive. I wonder how long it is going to take to hand out an award to each one of them?
 
Let's be pragmatic about this.

If I give a 5-year old a box of legos and ask them to build me a ship, and then I give a 10-year old a box of legos and tell them to do the same, will their ships be the same? Not unless they carefully follow the instruction manual.

If the 5-year old was a little girl, we might get a dainty pink ship, perhaps looking closer to something out of a Barbie movie. If the 10-year old was a boy, we might get a ship that corresponds closer to the instruction manual (due to the age differential)... or maybe one that looks a bit like it came out of a Transformer movie.

Just because you confess that Jesus is "the Son of God" does not mean you are saved. You not only have to confess it, but you have to believe it. That said, if your "Son of God" looks like the 5-year old's lego ship, and the NT's "Son of God" looks like the 10-year old's lego ship then you quite obviously do not have the same "Son of God." One's bigger and badder, and corresponds with the manual. The other is a complete wimp.

When a Unitarian refers to Jesus as the "Son of God" it is with hollow words. They simply cherry pick all the "good stuff" that agrees with their theological framework.

Ones belief in “the Son of God" must be on par with what the apostles believed about Him, else their view of Christ as "the Son of God" is distorted. It is not as simple as believing in Jesus as "the Son of God" in some titular, round-a-bout sense. But that one has to fully, and absolutely embrace the things said about the Son of God as intended by the NT's authors. And if you can't do that then you really don't believe in the Son of God of the NT. Your portayal of Jesus as "the Son of God" is skewed, and you don't believe in the same Jesus as they, and are therefore in jeopardy of God's judgment.

Set "the Trinity" to the wayside for a second. Quite literally, when Paul writes in Romans 10:13, "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1-3), from what OT text is Paul alluding to? And who is He referring to as "Lord"? And by Paul's use of "Lord," what is meant? I'll give you a clue: Joel 2:32. Paul's use of "Lord" is an allusion to Joel 2:32's use of "Lord," and according to Paul, in order to be saved you must call on the name of that Lord.

If for you, Jesus is not "Lord," in the sense that Paul demands it be taken (in harmony with Joel 2:32), then what are the implications? Do you believe "Christ is Lord" in the same way Paul does?
 
Saul-to-Paul said:
Matthew 16:27, For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works:

Why wouldn't the Son of man shall come in the second person of the trinity's glory, if the second person of the trinity is God?

I'll tell you why he wouldn't. Jesus is the everlasting Father as Isaiah 9:6 claims and the trinity is a lie.
Click to expand...

"Oneness" (or Modalists) never do like being called for what they are: "Unitarian."

If I could prove to you that Jesus was not the Father; the most natural recourse would be to retain your Unitarianism and defect to Socinianism, only because Socinianism shares much of your already established Unitarian framework. That is because Socinians and Modalists ("Oneness") are of the same Unitarian framework.

If I run you through with my sword of zeal then I'd feel rather guilty, as it is really of no value to even argue with a Modalist, because they will only retain their Unitarianism unless the Spirit of God works in your heart.
 
Artios1 said:
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I know how people try to attribute this to Jesus Christ … But that is biblically wrong.

Logos (word) has a wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind, like reason (thus logic is related to logos) ….the other is the expression of that reason as, a word, saying, command, etc.

Logos is used in the Greek over 300X and translated over 35 different ways, including ….appearance, book, command, conversation, flattery, grievance, instruction, matter, message, ministry, proposal, question, report rumor, sentence, speaker, speaking,………… and more.

Jesus Christ it's not a lexicon definition of logos….and it does not say in the beginning was Jesus. The word (logos) is not synonymous with Jesus or even the Messiah …..The word logos in John_1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression…. his reason purpose and plan especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of himself.


Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.



Jhn 1:3 All things were made by Him (God); and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

Jhn 1:4 In Him (God) was life; and the life was the light of men.

Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Jhn 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.


Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light (God), that all men through him (John) might believe.


Jhn 1:8 He (John) was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light (God).


Jhn 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. ←[That’s God]


Jhn 1:10 He (God) was in the world, and the world was made by him (God), and the world knew him (God) not.



Jhn 1:11 He (God) came unto his own, and His own received him not. ←[His own… Israel]


Jhn 1:12 But as many as received Him (God), to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: his name = name sake

Now Jesus is on the scene

Jhn 1:13 Which (Jesus) was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Click to expand...


I cannot help but facepalm. You are being quite hypocritical here. You just got done saying that "Jesus Christ" is not a lexical definition of the term, "Logos." Yet, what do you go on to do? Apply lexical definitions to the term "Light" that is no lexical source ever applies to the term; hence, your scribal emendations and paranthentical remarks, i.e., "That's God."

All roads point to the Word as being the pre-incarnate Christ, who existed eternally alongside the Father. There are multiple lines that point to this, which you don't cover at all.
 
Sean Finnegan has (pun intended) a Problem with "Problem #1." How does he not see the irony in this? Why does he assume Judaism was monolithic, when Christianity itself is not even monolithic? By "monolithic," I mean they were not "rigid." There were a wide variety of views in Judaism, yet, Finnegan tries to make it seem they all believed the same thing. No they did not, hence, the differences between the Pharisee, Sadduccee, and Essene's in Paul's day. Just like we have Christian commentaries that hold to different stances on a wide variety of issues, the same can be said in Judaism.

Finnegan should probably try picking up one of these reads, each of which articulate the point in finer detail:

Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal
Two Powers in Heaven: Or the Making of a Heresy by Daniel Boyarin
Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity by Peter Schäfer

Don't be disuaded by the terms, "Two Gods," as if they were polytheists, but rather, understand that what is trying to be communicated by such terminology is equivocal to "Two YHWH's."
 
williamjordan said:
I cannot help but facepalm. You are being quite hypocritical here. You just got done saying that "Jesus Christ" is not a lexical definition of the term, "Logos." Yet, what do you go on to do? Apply lexical definitions to the term "Light" that is no lexical source ever applies to the term; hence, your scribal emendations and paranthentical remarks, i.e., "That's God."

All roads point to the Word as being the pre-incarnate Christ, who existed eternally alongside the Father. There are multiple lines that point to this, which you don't cover at all.
Click to expand...


Syntax and context dictate what is written… I just point out through my “parenthetical remarks” what many people have misconstrued…..

I don’t have a dog in the fight to prove or disprove any theology …… What the Word says… is what the Word means…..I guess, if anything, that would be my dog.

Your argument is not with me ….it’s between your belief and what is written. When you say “all roads” …I understand that…. I used to read this from that perspective…..but that perspective was distorted by reading what I believed as opposed to reading what God had written, and that is not an easy thing to expel.

We frequently verbalize “read what is written, in the context it is written” … but if you have had any previous or current religious or theological teaching …. you will read into the Word what you were taught….and that is clearly exemplified concerning this particular subject.

In order to conclude that Jesus was that light in verse 1:9 you have to throw out the rules of language and add your own private interpretation.

All these roads that you speak of “that point” in that direction ....have a chasm between the end of the road and the destination you seek to prove …. maybe they lead there, maybe not. But those roads do not have a bridge (in the Word of God) to the destination you seek. The bridges are being built by people with their own beliefs…. I can’t go there …. Because the Word of God interprets itself …. And God has given us in writing what He wants us to know. And though the human mind wants to build bridges with speculation ….it is not up to us to interpret it, nor to extrapolate our beliefs into it.

Does this change your thinking ….probably not….but like yourself…. it expresses my stand.
 
It never ceases to amaze me the arguments of those who say bad things or attack the Concept of the Trinity and the Divine Natural of God.
The Truth is the Divine Nature of God no man can fully understand.
The problem is not the ability to know the Trinity. It is of those who profess to be saved YET. Live like God doesn't exist at all or is not Holy.

It is those who sin and think God winks at it and that God is impressed with one's theological rigor or intellect.

Yet many Onesness pastors and Trinitarian pastors: will not talk about

Their divorces and addition to Pornography. or Drunkness. How they abuse their wives, The secret lifestyles they live in private yet think God doesn't see it.

Homosexuality, adultery, and drunkness. Then try to teach about the Divine Nature of God, yet their own LIFE doesn't show they know God in any form or nature.

Many have been baptized in Jesus' Name, too, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The hundreds and thousands of people have been turned off from the Gospel message because of their legalism and hypocrisy.

Yet they are not free from perversion or addiction, but they were baptized in Jesus' name and speak in tongues. They have been divorced and remarried and think they can judge the action of one who has not been baptized in Jesus' name, yet they themselves live like a devil. Controlling people with fear and legalism.

FYI, that is not freedom nor walking in the Spirit. That is not the testimony of one who is saved. That is a Testi-phony.

Having a form of godliness but Denying the Power thereof.
The Trinity, the rapture, the baptism in the name of Jesus or in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not the issue or Problem. It is SIN! and fake preachers and pastors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluto
Artios1 said:
Syntax and context dictate what is written… I just point out through my “parenthetical remarks” what many people have misconstrued…..

I don’t have a dog in the fight to prove or disprove any theology …… What the Word says… is what the Word means…..I guess, if anything, that would be my dog.

Your argument is not with me ….it’s between your belief and what is written. When you say “all roads” …I understand that…. I used to read this from that perspective…..but that perspective was distorted by reading what I believed as opposed to reading what God had written, and that is not an easy thing to expel.

We frequently verbalize “read what is written, in the context it is written” … but if you have had any previous or current religious or theological teaching …. you will read into the Word what you were taught….and that is clearly exemplified concerning this particular subject.

In order to conclude that Jesus was that light in verse 1:9 you have to throw out the rules of language and add your own private interpretation.

All these roads that you speak of “that point” in that direction ....have a chasm between the end of the road and the destination you seek to prove …. maybe they lead there, maybe not. But those roads do not have a bridge (in the Word of God) to the destination you seek. The bridges are being built by people with their own beliefs…. I can’t go there …. Because the Word of God interprets itself …. And God has given us in writing what He wants us to know. And though the human mind wants to build bridges with speculation ….it is not up to us to interpret it, nor to extrapolate our beliefs into it.

Does this change your thinking ….probably not….but like yourself…. it expresses my stand.
Click to expand...

Response forthcoming! Will likely have something by tomorrow... grab the glasses while you wait. This is gonna be good.
 
williamjordan said:
Let's be pragmatic about this.

If I give a 5-year old a box of legos and ask them to build me a ship, and then I give a 10-year old a box of legos and tell them to do the same, will their ships be the same? Not unless they carefully follow the instruction manual.

If the 5-year old was a little girl, we might get a dainty pink ship, perhaps looking closer to something out of a Barbie movie. If the 10-year old was a boy, we might get a ship that corresponds closer to the instruction manual (due to the age differential)... or maybe one that looks a bit like it came out of a Transformer movie.

Just because you confess that Jesus is "the Son of God" does not mean you are saved. You not only have to confess it, but you have to believe it. That said, if your "Son of God" looks like the 5-year old's lego ship, and the NT's "Son of God" looks like the 10-year old's lego ship then you quite obviously do not have the same "Son of God." One's bigger and badder, and corresponds with the manual. The other is a complete wimp.

When a Unitarian refers to Jesus as the "Son of God" it is with hollow words. They simply cherry pick all the "good stuff" that agrees with their theological framework.

Ones belief in “the Son of God" must be on par with what the apostles believed about Him, else their view of Christ as "the Son of God" is distorted. It is not as simple as believing in Jesus as "the Son of God" in some titular, round-a-bout sense. But that one has to fully, and absolutely embrace the things said about the Son of God as intended by the NT's authors. And if you can't do that then you really don't believe in the Son of God of the NT. Your portayal of Jesus as "the Son of God" is skewed, and you don't believe in the same Jesus as they, and are therefore in jeopardy of God's judgment.

Set "the Trinity" to the wayside for a second. Quite literally, when Paul writes in Romans 10:13, "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1-3), from what OT text is Paul alluding to? And who is He referring to as "Lord"? And by Paul's use of "Lord," what is meant? I'll give you a clue: Joel 2:32. Paul's use of "Lord" is an allusion to Joel 2:32's use of "Lord," and according to Paul, in order to be saved you must call on the name of that Lord.

If for you, Jesus is not "Lord," in the sense that Paul demands it be taken (in harmony with Joel 2:32), then what are the implications? Do you believe "Christ is Lord" in the same way Paul does?
Click to expand...
Paul saw Jesus as: 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
 
williamjordan said:
Let's be pragmatic about this.

If I give a 5-year old a box of legos and ask them to build me a ship, and then I give a 10-year old a box of legos and tell them to do the same, will their ships be the same? Not unless they carefully follow the instruction manual.

If the 5-year old was a little girl, we might get a dainty pink ship, perhaps looking closer to something out of a Barbie movie. If the 10-year old was a boy, we might get a ship that corresponds closer to the instruction manual (due to the age differential)... or maybe one that looks a bit like it came out of a Transformer movie.

Just because you confess that Jesus is "the Son of God" does not mean you are saved. You not only have to confess it, but you have to believe it. That said, if your "Son of God" looks like the 5-year old's lego ship, and the NT's "Son of God" looks like the 10-year old's lego ship then you quite obviously do not have the same "Son of God." One's bigger and badder, and corresponds with the manual. The other is a complete wimp.

When a Unitarian refers to Jesus as the "Son of God" it is with hollow words. They simply cherry pick all the "good stuff" that agrees with their theological framework.

Ones belief in “the Son of God" must be on par with what the apostles believed about Him, else their view of Christ as "the Son of God" is distorted. It is not as simple as believing in Jesus as "the Son of God" in some titular, round-a-bout sense. But that one has to fully, and absolutely embrace the things said about the Son of God as intended by the NT's authors. And if you can't do that then you really don't believe in the Son of God of the NT. Your portayal of Jesus as "the Son of God" is skewed, and you don't believe in the same Jesus as they, and are therefore in jeopardy of God's judgment.

Set "the Trinity" to the wayside for a second. Quite literally, when Paul writes in Romans 10:13, "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1-3), from what OT text is Paul alluding to? And who is He referring to as "Lord"? And by Paul's use of "Lord," what is meant? I'll give you a clue: Joel 2:32. Paul's use of "Lord" is an allusion to Joel 2:32's use of "Lord," and according to Paul, in order to be saved you must call on the name of that Lord.

If for you, Jesus is not "Lord," in the sense that Paul demands it be taken (in harmony with Joel 2:32), then what are the implications? Do you believe "Christ is Lord" in the same way Paul does?
Click to expand...

just because one gets baptized in Jesus doesn't mean you're saved either.

If you remove Belief and faith. What are you receiving? You can't see it, but you have to accept it as truth. What moves one to be baptized IF there was no faith in doing or belief? It Belief come after the water baptism? NO!. Salvation comes after water baptism? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Watchers_2017
Aussie52 said:
Coming out of discussion in one of the threads, "Can you be a true Christian and deny belief in the Trinity?"
Let's discuss.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you could but life will be harder without this understanding. I have to teach it over and over to my son bc he naturally says "there's only 1 God " which is also true. 😆
 
"Some Bible translators of past centuries were so zealous to find support for their belief in the Trinity in the Scriptures that they literally added it. A case in point is 1 John 5:7-8. " 😮
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back