Do you have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

[1Mind1Spirit]

Christ is the visibility of the invisible God.

Nope.




1 Corinthians 15:27 KJV


27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Anyone who claims they worship God is lying because He cannot be known...except through Christ...

We are to honor the Son the same as the Father.



Matthew 11:27 KJV


27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

the ONLY way to worship God is by worshipping Christ.

That's not what Christ said.



John 6:63 KJV


63 It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.




John 4:23 KJV


23 But the hour cometh , and now is , when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 KJV



24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[daqq]

Please provide valid and substantial genetic proof to know who the alleged "Joos" are that you love fervently. Thanks in advance.

And why are you a respecter of persons and a racist?

I did not want to go that far, but, well, um . . . :shut: :chuckle:

:thumb:
on this we agree, which is why I cannot attest to the Nicene or other creeds which teach He was begotten before all ages or worlds.
That, however, does not mean that he was begotten on this world as your codex Bezae tries to change in Luke (only I might add). All the NT shows that He was sent and came as the only begotten Son - therefore eliminating the possibility that He was begotten in His baptism. According to the truth of the whole gospel, He was begotten before He came to this creation. Cheers

In the portion of your post which I have highlighted in yellow you are mistaken.

1) It is not "my Codex Bezae" but rather you try to make it "my opinion".
2) Codex Bezae is also not the only manuscript evidence, (see link below).
3) There is also plenty of Patristic evidence that should also be taken into account.
4) Your understanding of Acts 13:33 is lacking as we have discussed before and that is why you posted the portion in red the way in which you did, (which others here may have wondered about if they know the argument and were paying attention to what you posted).
5) Here is a fairly simple place to begin your search: Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account

 

[Ben Masada]

Paul was brought by Barnabas and introduced to the already growing [multiplying] and vibrant church at Antioch.

The assemblies planted by Paul in all the cities he visited are upon the model of the Jerusalem church showing exactly the same ministrations as that church.

The Congregation of Antioch was not a church but a synagogue of the "New Way" aka the Jewish Sect of the Nazarenes composed of mostly members converted from the Gentiles by Peter. BTW, Peter was the one assigned for the apostle of the Gentiles. (Acts 15:7)

What happened is that news had arrived in Jerusalem that Rome had expelled the Jews from Rome and obviously, most of them were of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Then, they all spread throughout Asia Minor, especially Antioch. Then, James and the Elders in Jerusalem anointed Barnabas to send to Antioch and obsessed with Paul, Barnabas went out to Tarsus, looking for Paul and brought him over to work together on the pay-list of Jerusalem. (Acts 11:25,26)

At the end of a whole year, the Nazarenes members in Antioch started being called Christians. That was the first time Christians were called Christians. Obviously because Paul would preach about Jesus as Christ. Both Paul and Barnabas were bachelors; Paul from the Greek city of Tarsus and Barnabas from the Greek city of Cyprus.

 

[oatmeal]

Christ is the visibility of the invisible God. Anyone who claims they worship God is lying because He cannot be known...except through Christ...the ONLY way to worship God is by worshipping Christ.

So then, you do see no difference between God who is invisible and a man that is visible?

If that is so, then it is easy to see how you and other trins were so easily doped/scammed into believing such obvious error.

Why is it that when people talk theology all rules of language and logic and evidence are tossed into the trash?

 

[Ben Masada]

You Joos are responsible....Christ is the translation of Messiah or Anointed.

Anointed holy One we come before You
lifting holy hands unto Your name

Linnet, do you believe in the Prophets? If you do, do you remember Prophet Habakkuk? If you do, he offered a new concept for the Messiah as the anointed one of the Lord when he wrote, "The Lord goes forth to save His People, to save His anointed one." (Hab. 3:13) That's what the Messiah is, the anointed one of the Lord impersonated by the collective concept of the People and not of the individual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a different Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to physically die but to remain as a people before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:35-37)

 

[aikido7]

Well, thats where we are :chuckle:: Theology Online.
It quote did. Thank you :e4e: for reminding us that the Apostle's were all also theologian's.
I think its very material, in contrast. When the Church celebrate's the mass, the mass is Trinitarian. A non-Trinitarian Christian need's to accept it, and not be offended, and judging; but its difficult for them.
I don't really know what that mean's particularly, as it could mean a wide variety of thing's potentially, many of which are fine point's. The bishop's of the Church in communion with the successor of Peter say that a Christian is somebody who believe's that Jesus is the Christ, and who is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
:e4e:


Daniel

1.1
​

I think we generally agree here....

Anyway, thanks for the respectful reply!

 

[genuineoriginal]

This is a weak response, I am [I have to confess] dismayed by your Unitarianism.

I defend the plain teaching of the scriptures.
It is no mystery that the scriptures teach Unitarianism, since the Bible was written by Unitarians.

I was saved in my own home, so wonderful, so dramatically was I saved that I immediately [or at least after a couple of hours running and jumping and glorying in the experience of being saved on Hampstead Heath] I went to the Christian book shop off Oxford St London and spent hours and hours scouring the shelves in order to discover what kind of Christian I had become.

I barracked every new assistant who appeared with questions with regard to the evangelistic organization through whose ministry I had been saved but was met with blank looks.

At last I picked up a book that related some stories about some of the evangelistic campaigns conducted by that ministry.

When I attended the fellowship meetings of the denomination attributed I found it sadly not at all what I expected or desired, the fact is the denomination was [and is] in a backslidden condition, however I still fellowship among them.

So whatever doctrines I hold were fashioned in that experience...to use the Pauline expression "not in wisdom of men's words but in the power of God"

You were indoctrinated into believing in the Trinity before reading the scriptures.

Before I accept any doctrine I want that it accords with scripture.

That Christ is very God does accord with scripture.

Yes, you can find scriptures that can be used to show Jesus is God, if you focus on proof texts and ignore the majority of the words written about the relationship between Jesus and God.

The fight that Trinitarians have started against Unitarians is foolishness.

Belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Oh do shut up

LOL. Spoken (written?) like a true deluded Dispensationalist racist and biggoted respecter of persons who can't even identify the focus group of their alleged "love".

You Dispies ignorantly deny Christ and are oblivious to the ontological Gospel of Paul, entrusted to him by God. So all you can do is demand for others to shut up so your blatant false doctrines don't get exposed as ridiculous.

And WOW, what a double standard. Demanding someone else not speak when your indoctrination error is outed. You should start a death squad to eradicate and exterminate all who disagree with your fallacies.

No. I shan't shut up. Send your goons. Or better yet, attempt to answer the question, and then you'll see how stupid your unscriptural modern theology is.

Big smile!

 

[RevTestament]

1) It is not "my Codex Bezae" but rather you try to make it "my opinion".

I think we both realize that you didn't write it, but that you do like it and refer to it - even though it is inherently unreliable due to its late date and inconsistent change only in Luke while its other gospels continue to read the same as the traditional Greek.

2) Codex Bezae is also not the only manuscript evidence, (see link below).

see below

3) There is also plenty of Patristic evidence that should also be taken into account.

There is tons of conflicting "patristic evidence" about most theologically controversial points.

4) Your understanding of Acts 13:33 is lacking as we have discussed before and that is why you posted the portion in red the way in which you did, (which others here may have wondered about if they know the argument and were paying attention to what you posted).

I posted accurately what the Greek says: anistemi (raised) Iesous (Yahushua) anistemi(raised again). This is further reinforced by
John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Men are the ones who did not understand what Jesus said, and changed it in the other gospels.

5) Here is a fairly simple place to begin your search: Hebrew Matthew - Baptismal Account

While I'm sure you will not accept it, I recently prayed about this very topic and received confirmation that Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew as it is called is an "unreliable version" of the original Matthew. Nor is it clear to me that Hebrew Matthew found in Caesarea by Jerome was actually the Ebionite version Jerome was told about and discussed in his writings we still have. And unfortunately, we do not seem to have a copy of the translation he made of it. However, Jerome told us enough things about the "Ebionite version" to convince me they had changed it to align with their theological views, and it should be noted that it conflicts with other gospels we have in significant ways.

 

[daqq]

While I'm sure you will not accept it, I recently prayed about this very topic and received confirmation that Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew as it is called is an "unreliable version" of the original Matthew. Nor is it clear to me that Hebrew Matthew found in Caesarea by Jerome was actually the Ebionite version Jerome was told about and discussed in his writings we still have. And unfortunately, we do not seem to have a copy of the translation he made of it. However, Jerome told us enough things about the "Ebionite version" to convince me they had changed it to align with their theological views, and it should be noted that it conflicts with other gospels we have in significant ways.

The Luke 3:22 variant "ego semeron gegenneka se", (I, this day, have begotten thee") is attested by D, ita, b, c, d, ff2, l, r1, Justin, Origen, Diognetus, Gospel of the Ebionites, (Clement), Didascalia, Methodius, Juvencus, (Ambrosiaster), Hilary, Apostolic Constitutions, Faustinus, (Tyconius), Augustine.

I posted accurately what the Greek says: anistemi (raised) Iesous (Yahushua) anistemi(raised again). This is further reinforced by
John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Men are the ones who did not understand what Jesus said, and changed it in the other gospels.

Hmmm, I guess you do not actually remember my argument. Your reading of the Acts passage in and of itself is what I find lacking. The Father raised up Yeshua just as He raised up all the Prophets of Yisrael and sent them to His people. This is exactly the language that Moshe writes concerning the Messiah to come and what is quoted by Peter in the Acts 3 passage which follows. Anastasis-anistemi and egeiro are just about equally used for both meanings of "raising up", "standing up", or "rising up".

Acts 3:22-23 (Re: Deuteronomy 18:15-22)
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up [anastesei] unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

The Acts 13 passage is backtracking and recounting at the point where you desire to make it mean the opposite of what it means from within its own context:

Acts 13:28-35
28. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.
29. And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30. But God raised him [egeiren] from the dead:
31. And he was seen for many days of them that came up with him, from the Galilees to Yerushalaim, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers:
33. That God has fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up [anastesas] Yeshua; as also it is written in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
34. But as concerning that he raised him up again [anestesen] from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.
35. Because he says also in another Psalm, Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption.

If you step back and take the context as a whole you might see that you are only gleaning a tiny portion from one verse while your eye is ignoring what is all around it. The first "raising up" of Yeshua is at his immersion where the Father raised him up, putting His Holy Spirit upon him, and after the trials in the wilderness sent him to herald the Gospel of the Kingdom to Yisrael. This is the "raising up" of Acts 13:33. The Resurrection of Yeshua or "second raising up" is Acts 13:34-35 and that is clear if one simply renders "de" as "but" at the beginning of that verse. If now you had read this as one complete work originally written from one author, which included what we now call the Gospel according to Luke, you would have already understood the context here in Acts 13 because in the original work you would have already read that the Father spoke the full choq-decree from Psalm 2:7 in Luke 3:22. Neither would any original author, who respected the Holy Word of Elohim, have quoted HALF of a CHOQ-DECREE-STATUTE from GOD ALMIGHTY concerning what was stated to Yeshua at his immersion. It is a big huge LIE what the church-father heretics have done and you are only supporting what they have done because it suits your current paradigm. Seek the truth as opposed to what will make your viewpoint correct in your own eyes, (I too learned this the hard way and we all do if we do at all).

 

[rainee]

To all of you non Trinitarians, I have to appeal to you or warn you...
You can try to gang up on Tot, or any other Trin here but these people are not your problem. Your problem is scriptures.
Behold a small example:

Nope.
1 Corinthians 15:27 KJV

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

We are to honor the Son the same as the Father.

Matthew 11:27 KJV
27 ]All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Now the two types of Scripture quoted above are great, we should all
Either love or wonder at them. But please note the first one is in regards to prophecy so you can't really use it to prove anything --other than prophecy is not your friend. For it will always say what you least expect it to, just ask Israel...

But let's just say you do want to use it the way it is presented above...
So now, good sir, please explain why, or at least what it means, when Rev 1:14 is using Daniel 7:9 to describe what The Lord Jesus looks like when He appears in a vision to John?


You see the Trins of the past looked at ALL the Scriptures.

It may take a long long time but will anyone ever get more verses on one side or another? That's Trinity for you. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity.

 

[genuineoriginal]

To all of you non Trinitarians,
. . .
Your problem is scriptures.
. . .
You see the Trins of the past looked at ALL the Scriptures.

It may take a long long time but will anyone ever get more verses on one side or another? That's Trinity for you. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity.

No, there will not be more verses on one side or the other.
There may be around two dozen verses used to support the Trinity, depending on who provides the list. The number of verses really will not increase from that.
There are several different ideas on what constitutes a Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and these fine details formed the majority of the debates between Trinitarians.

There may be around 1200 verses used to support Unitarianism, again depending on who provides the list. The number of verses really will not increase from that.
The evidence from scriptures is that everyone that wrote the scriptures was a Unitarian.

Trinitarian and Unitarian are not the only valid views.
Some people only see Jesus and the Father as persons, and hold the Dinitarian view.
Other people count the seven spirits as the Holy Spirit, and hold the Nonitarian view (nine in one).

In order of scriptural support, the overwhelming majority of scripture supports a Unitarian reading.

Of the rest, the Dinitarian view has stronger scriptural support than the Trinitarian view, and the Nonitarian view is a variation of the Trinitarian view with a bit weaker support than the standard Trinitarian variations.

 

[Totton Linnet]

I defend the plain teaching of the scriptures.
It is no mystery that the scriptures teach Unitarianism, since the Bible was written by Unitarians.


You were indoctrinated into believing in the Trinity before reading the scriptures.


Yes, you can find scriptures that can be used to show Jesus is God, if you focus on proof texts and ignore the majority of the words written about the relationship between Jesus and God.

The fight that Trinitarians have started against Unitarians is foolishness.

Belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation.

You defend [if they need defending] scripture only so far as the light you have on them, there were many much more intellectual scholars than Thomas yet Thomas got the light and fell before Him proclaiming Him Lord and God. If God does not teach you a thing, howsoever plain and simply it is writ...you will not understand it.

John was no Unitarian, "He was with God and He was God and all things were made by Him and the Logos became flesh and dwelled among us"

I care not for theological labels but I see from this that John was not Unitarian.

Proof texts are texts that are used to prove doctrine. The relation between God and the Christ is Father and Son.

....it really is quite foolish not to understand what a father is to the son and the son to the father. The Jews understood for they took up stones to stone Him...they handed Him over to be crucified for blasphemy.

How often we have been accused of blasphemy for worshipping Christ as God.

No YOU are the cult, the motley crowd, the outsiders, don't kid yourself....in the world you are the majority for the world does not believe but the Church of the Living God has always been Trinitarian.

He was in the world and the world was made by Him but the world knew Him not....you are of the world then.

Only God can save.

 

[Totton Linnet]

To all of you non Trinitarians, I have to appeal to you or warn you...
You can try to gang up on Tot, or any other Trin here but these people are not your problem. Your problem is scriptures.
Behold a small example:




Now the two types of Scripture quoted above are great, we should all
Either love or wonder at them. But please note the first one is in regards to prophecy so you can't really use it to prove anything --other than prophecy is not your friend. For it will always say what you least expect it to, just ask Israel...

But let's just say you do want to use it the way it is presented above...
So now, good sir, please explain why, or at least what it means, when Rev 1:14 is using Daniel 7:9 to describe what The Lord Jesus looks like when He appears in a vision to John?


You see the Trins of the past looked at ALL the Scriptures.

It may take a long long time but will anyone ever get more verses on one side or another? That's Trinity for you. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity.

If he thinks I am dispy he is speaking through his pants anyway.

 

[daqq]

To all of you non Trinitarians, I have to appeal to you or warn you...
You can try to gang up on Tot, or any other Trin here but these people are not your problem. Your problem is scriptures.
Behold a small example:


Now the two types of Scripture quoted above are great, we should all
Either love or wonder at them. But please note the first one is in regards to prophecy so you can't really use it to prove anything --other than prophecy is not your friend. For it will always say what you least expect it to, just ask Israel...

But let's just say you do want to use it the way it is presented above...
So now, good sir, please explain why, or at least what it means, when Rev 1:14 is using Daniel 7:9 to describe what The Lord Jesus looks like when He appears in a vision to John?

You see the Trins of the past looked at ALL the Scriptures.

It may take a long long time but will anyone ever get more verses on one side or another? That's Trinity for you. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity.

Daniel 10:5-6
5. Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:
6. His body also was like the Beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

Revelation 1:13-16
13. And in the midst of the seven lamps one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15. And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shines in his strength.

Lamentations 4:7
7. Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

Ah, yes, I too LOVE the Scripture!

 

[achduke]

To all of you non Trinitarians, I have to appeal to you or warn you...
You can try to gang up on Tot, or any other Trin here but these people are not your problem. Your problem is scriptures.
Behold a small example:




Now the two types of Scripture quoted above are great, we should all
Either love or wonder at them. But please note the first one is in regards to prophecy so you can't really use it to prove anything --other than prophecy is not your friend. For it will always say what you least expect it to, just ask Israel...

But let's just say you do want to use it the way it is presented above...
So now, good sir, please explain why, or at least what it means, when Rev 1:14 is using Daniel 7:9 to describe what The Lord Jesus looks like when He appears in a vision to John?


You see the Trins of the past looked at ALL the Scriptures.

It may take a long long time but will anyone ever get more verses on one side or another? That's Trinity for you. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Blessed Trinity.

Hi rainee,

They are the same vision. This would make sense if what we see is the Christ(Temple) with the Spirit of God that dwells IN him.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[RevTestament]

The Luke 3:22 variant "ego semeron gegenneka se", (I, this day, have begotten thee") is attested by D, ita, b, c, d, ff2, l, r1, Justin, Origen, Diognetus, Gospel of the Ebionites, (Clement), Didascalia, Methodius, Juvencus, (Ambrosiaster), Hilary, Apostolic Constitutions, Faustinus, (Tyconius), Augustine.

I do not know what those letters refer to. Origen was not a very trustworthy witness to the truth imho, and clearly misunderstood the word, even castrating himself. Augustine is another hugely untrustworthy theologian imho. Justin is about the only "source" you list which would carry much weight with me. However, I must say I generally distrust all the Greek sources outside the Bible, as history has proven them to be generally unreliable.

Hmmm, I guess you do not actually remember my argument. Your reading of the Acts passage in and of itself is what I find lacking. The Father raised up Yeshua just as He raised up all the Prophets of Yisrael and sent them to His people. This is exactly the language that Moshe writes concerning the Messiah to come and what is quoted by Peter in the Acts 3 passage which follows. Anastasis-anistemi and egeiro are just about equally used for both meanings of "raising up", "standing up", or "rising up".

I recall your argument, but simply disagree with it. There is no indication that the author of Acts or Christ Himself was mixing the meaning of being raised up as a prophet with being raised up in resurrection like you are trying to do.

Acts 3:22-23 (Re: Deuteronomy 18:15-22)
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up [anastesei] unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

The Acts 13 passage is backtracking and recounting at the point where you desire to make it mean the opposite of what it means from within its own context:

Acts 13:28-35
28. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.
29. And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30. But God raised him [egeiren] from the dead:
31. And he was seen for many days of them that came up with him, from the Galilees to Yerushalaim, who are now his witnesses unto the people.
32. And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers:
33. That God has fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up [anastesas] Yeshua; as also it is written in the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
34. But as concerning that he raised him up again [anestesen] from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.
35. Because he says also in another Psalm, Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption.

If you step back and take the context as a whole you might see that you are only gleaning a tiny portion from one verse while your eye is ignoring what is all around it. The first "raising up" of Yeshua is at his immersion where the Father raised him up, putting His Holy Spirit upon him, and after the trials in the wilderness sent him to herald the Gospel of the Kingdom to Yisrael. This is the "raising up" of Acts 13:33. The Resurrection of Yeshua or "second raising up" is Acts 13:34-35 and that is clear if one simply renders "de" as "but" at the beginning of that verse. If now you had read this as one complete work originally written from one author, which included what we now call the Gospel according to Luke, you would have already understood the context here in Acts 13 because in the original work you would have already read that the Father spoke the full choq-decree from Psalm 2:7 in Luke 3:22. Neither would any original author, who respected the Holy Word of Elohim, have quoted HALF of a CHOQ-DECREE-STATUTE from GOD ALMIGHTY concerning what was stated to Yeshua at his immersion. It is a big huge LIE what the church-father heretics have done and you are only supporting what they have done because it suits your current paradigm.

You choose to believe that all 3 of the gospels which address his baptism got it wrong or were changed with little evidence to support your view. The evidence which supports you is quite dubious. God didn't quote Psalms at all in Jesus' baptism - much less half a decree according to 3 gospels in the most ancient manuscripts we have. What motives would anyone have for taking that out like you claim? However, there are plenty of motives for adding it in like you do - exactly to stop the interpretation I reveal. I feel it quite telling that the most direct evidence you cite comes into the picture AFTER the big debate on the issue of the begotten nature of Jesus at the time of Nicea - all too convenient and inconsistent for my taste.

 

[daqq]

I do not know what those letters refer to. Origen was not a very trustworthy witness to the truth imho, and clearly misunderstood the word, even castrating himself. Augustine is another hugely untrustworthy theologian imho. Justin is about the only "source" you list which would carry much weight with me. However, I must say I generally distrust all the Greek sources outside the Bible, as history has proven them to be generally unreliable.


I recall your argument, but simply disagree with it. There is no indication that the author of Acts or Christ Himself was mixing the meaning of being raised up as a prophet with being raised up in resurrection like you are trying to do.

You choose to believe that all 3 of the gospels which address his baptism got it wrong or were changed with little evidence to support your view. The evidence which supports you is quite dubious. God didn't quote Psalms at all in Jesus' baptism - much less half a decree according to 3 gospels in the most ancient manuscripts we have. What motives would anyone have for taking that out like you claim? However, there are plenty of motives for adding it in like you do - exactly to stop the interpretation I reveal. I feel it quite telling that the most direct evidence you cite comes into the picture AFTER the big debate on the issue of the begotten nature of Jesus at the time of Nicea - all too convenient and inconsistent for my taste.

Uh-huh, sure, everything is the opposite of what you claim. There is very much evidence but you simply choose to ignore it. Half of the quote still remains and the quotes do not even all agree with each other as it currently stands. Do you even recognize the difference here:

Matthew 3:17 KJV
17. And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mark 1:11 KJV
11. And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Luke 3:22 KJV
22. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Matthew says: "THIS is My beloved Son"
Mark and Luke say: "THOU art my beloved Son"

The reason this is so is because BOTH statements were made:
The Mark and Luke statements are made from the Father to Yeshua.
The Matthew statement is from the Father to Yeshua and Yochanan.

Mark and Luke record HALF of Psalm 2:7 and therefore divide the choq-decree spoken to king David which is a terrible corruption that only corrupt people would not see any harm in doing:

Psalm 2:7 KJV
7. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.

And likely for this obvious reason many translations now rearrange Mark and Luke dropping the definite article from "the beloved" and putting "beloved" into the middle of the statement so that what has been done is not so blatantly obvious:

Mark 1:11 W/H
καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

Luke 3:22 W/H
καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ' αὐτόν, καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

"Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου" ~ "Thou art My Son" (ὁ ἀγαπητός - the beloved)

This is clearly the first half of the choq-decree given to king David in Psalm 2:7. The hackers chopped of half of a decree from God to king David and to Messiah Yeshua the son of David at his immersion because if left intact it nullifies the "Eternal Son" (oxymoronic-unprovable) doctrine.

 

[eddie17]

No, and im a non trin.(and i despise titles)

 

[Bright Raven]

No, and im a non trin.(and i despise titles)

So what you are saying is that you do not have a proper understanding of the nature of God?