Trinity Proof Scriptures

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
No, I was challenging you to point out anything that I had said that came from pagan philosophy.

By saying "trinitarians take 90% pagan philosophy", you by default included me.

In other words, you're poisoning the well against me, by claiming (indirectly) that I use pagan philosophy to support my beliefs.

Yet, you refuse to point out any sources that I have used that are pagan.

I can tell you right now, that EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID comes from scripture, none of it comes from any pagan source.

In other words... I have been convinced through Scripture alone that God is triune,
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Where in the bible does it state you can't worship a created thing?

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.“You shall have no other gods before Me.“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, - Exodus 20:2-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:2-5&version=NKJV

(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), - Exodus 34:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus34:14&version=NKJV

And Jesus answered and said to him, [JESUS]“Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[/JESUS] - Luke 4:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke4:8&version=NKJV

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=worship+god+alone

Show me such a verse for you to imply that it is wrong to worship God through the created man Jesus.

See above.

If YHWH himself commands that we are to worship him through a person who perfectly images him are you to say that YHWH is wrong?

Show us scripture where God tells us to worship Him through a created being.

Jesus has become the high priest (Hebrews 6:20, Heb 9:11) and is the person who people should go to, to offer up worship to God, this resembles the means of worship that God commanded to the nation of Israel, this is clearly explained in Hebrews.

How many priests in scripture were rightly worshipped, NWL?

(Hebrews 9:24-26) "..For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf. 25 This was not done to offer himself often, as when the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself.."

People approached and gave worship to God through the High priest for sin offerings, since the High priest was the only one who could approach God directly in the tabernacle. Jesus has become high priest and is thus the person we go to when offering worship to God.

Did the people worship the priest or did the people worship God?

If they worshipped God, then your argument falls apart.

Once again, scripture states "No one comes to the Father except through me [Jesus].” (John 14:6)

Because Jesus was God made flesh, the perfect mediator.

Trinitarians worship the Father, Son and HS equally,

Because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequally the one God.

as this includes Jesus yes you worship him.

Because He is coequally the one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I would not call this proper worship though, since for one, you worship the HS, when this is never commanded, and you give worship to Jesus with the thought that he should receive ultimate worship when he does not, only the Father does.

We worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because God is worthy of worship, and since those three Persons are coequally the one God, they receive worship coequally.

True worshipers worship God with the view the Father receives all worship according to accurate knowledge of the scripture.

Those who do not worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit coequally are not worshipping God according to accurate knowledge of the scripture.

(John 4:23) "..[Jesus said] Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.."

No mention of true worshipers worshiping Jesus or him stating that ultimate worship should be given to anyone but the Father.

Prooftexting won't get you anywhere here on TOL.

Neither will taking scriptures out of context, especially out of the context of the whole Bible.

You can't just ignore other verses because one verse says something else.
 

NWL

Active member
Summarizing what you said here, then?

1. Names and titles cannot be used for identification. "The first and the last" is accepted as a title in one prophet but rejected in another. It's meaning must be invented under the standard of aligning with Unitarianism. By no means must the unique title "I am the first and the last" be interpreted as if it were a unique title. The Holy Spirit must have been unaware that this title was already taken.

No meaning has been invented, I understand the title according to the context of the verses whether titles are found. Jesus is called the "first and the last", the context shows that its relating to his death and resurrection in both the verses Jesus is spoken as the F&L, this is undeniable and cannot be ignored.

Again context overrides titles. If Jesus is called "the kings of kings over the dead" and "King of king over the all the kings of the earth" he is the king of kings in two different senses, same title with two different meanings. I have already shown you this idea according to scripture. Jesus being king of kings does not mean that YHWH the Father is also not the ultimate king of kings or that there are other that can be called king of kings as titles can be applied to multiple people in different senses, just like how I can say Adam was the first and the last in the sense he was the first and last human ever to be created from the dust.

"I am the first and the last" means "I am NOT "the first and the last?"
I didn't get the point you were trying to make by saying this, please expand.

2. When Jesus says that He will raise the dead "I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:54) and the scripture tells us that life and death are the sole realm of God "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up" (1 Sam 2:6) and "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; ... you conclude that He who claims this power as his own certainly cannot be God.

Only God can raise the dead + Jesus raises the dead = Jesus is not God?

(do you really think that Elijah and Paul raised the dead themselves?)

I don't get your issue here. If Paul was alive today and said to you "I raised Bob from the dead" I'm sure you would conclude he raised Bob up by means of God, you wouldn't assume Paul to be implying that he was God. Likewise Jesus stated he would raise people up from the dead, you assume that he talking about raising people from the dead without the aid of God's life force power.

In John 11:40-43 Jesus prays to the Father for the sake of the crowd before him so they knew it was the Father was giving Jesus the power to raise Lazarus from the dead. In the next chapter in v9 is says about Jesus "see Lazʹa·rus, whom he [Jesus] raised up from the dead.". The father raised Lazarus from the dead through Jesus, yet in v9 it states Jesus raised Lazarus. So yes, Jesus in John 6:54 says he will raise people, but it should be presumed based on previous resurrection events that the Father is the own who is ultimately enabling Jesus to resrrected people. This become clearer when we study verses such as these:

(Acts 17:31) "..Because he [God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed.."

(John 5:26) "..For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.."


God the Father is clearly the one who has empowered Jesus to resurrect. Jesus is empowered the same sense prophets the apostles were empowered by God to resurrect.

3. You admit that Jesus is coming, but because of a passage that says he is the Alpha and Omega and the first and the last and he is coming, you say that this cannot be Jesus. There must be a SECOND "Alpha and Omega' then? So you claim "The Father is coming" but NOT REALLY which is to satisfy "I am to come?"

He is coming means he is NOT coming?

To you realize how convoluted and artificial all of that sounds?

It's actually much simpler than that. The Father is God and is the one who is ultimately coming, he is the one being spoken of in Rev 1:8. The same way it was the Father who shared his message on earth, despite it being Jesus who came down is the same way the Father in Rev 1:8 is coming despite Jesus being the actual one who comes on behalf of the Father.

Whose message was preached on earth according to the NT, Jesus or the Fathers message?

Who is ultimate judge according to Acts 17:31, the Father or Jesus?
(see also John 5:22)

Once you've answered those you've solved the issue and principle of both the Father being the one "who is coming" and Jesus being the actual person "who is coming" on behalf of God, its quite basic.

Also, I've heard no reasoning as to how my reasoning is incorrect, I can only assume you cannot find a kink.

Already addressed. You're just not listening. It is quite within the realm of speech to use multiple forms of address. If I was hailing you from afar, I might say "Hello from Andrew, and the staff at TOL, and Rosenritter..." and this would not turn Andrew and Rosenritter into two separate beings. Nor should one use that sentence in an attempt to turn the rest of the message inside out when it is filled with heavy-laden description of who Rosenritter actually is.

What you did was to take a statement and then jump to a conclusion, an unsupported conclusion, and then act as if your conclusion was fact. Then you disregarded all clarification based on your new "fact."

If a hundred random people read the statement "Hello from James, and Bob who lives opposite James, and from John", how many people would conclude that James was John? Let be honest here I would wager a lot of money that none would. You are ignoring every single bible translation that has ever been written my friend and basic language. You accused me earlier that my reasoning was convoluted and artificial and yet here you are ignoring basic sentence structure.

If a hundred random people read Acts 1:13, how many individuals do YOU believe they would list.


Rosenritter said:
P.S. Would you like to rethink this answer below?
Rosenritter said:
Matthew 27:50-53 KJV
(50) Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
(51) And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
(52) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
(53) And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

How do the dead breaking free from the tomb because of an earthquake and becoming visible to many people make me have to rethink my point? Are you one of the people who have been taught the assumed teaching that these people were alive? The verse makes no mention of them being alive but rather raising out of the ground, this is no doubt due to the earthquake and has been historically been recorded as happening throughout history (Ecuador in 1949 and again in Sonsón, Colombia, in 1962, when 200 corpses in the cemetery were thrown out of their tombs by a violent earth tremor).

I think that your saying that prophets (like Elijah and Paul) raised the dead (thus it was not GOD raising the dead) is a bit absurd, but even then who would you say raised these dead that came out of the tombs? Jesus was not the FIRST that was raised to life without a human prophet nearby asking God for a miracle. Who would you say raised these saints? You're reduced "the first and the last" to be meaningless.

As you can see by my last response I do not believe these people were raised to life, but were simply raised out of the ground due to the earthquake, there is nothing in the text that says there were raised to life.

Also, I do believe it was God who raised the dead through people like Paul and Elijah, both could be said to have raised the dead, the power of course came from God. I have never made the claim that anyone has raised people from the dead without it being done by means of God.

Rosenritter said:
Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

There's no point in Jesus identifying himself as Alpha and Omega, and the Almighty, and the first and the last, except for identification and clarification, specifically clarification on exactly this topic for the very precise reason of correcting the misunderstanding you're at right now. Which "Alpha and Omegas" are Christ in Revelation, and which are someone else?

We know that Jesus being the "first and the last" is something different to YHWH being the F&L since the Almighty cannot die. Rev 1:18 has Jesus as the F&L who who believe to be the Almighty according to v8 saying "I became dead", this to you is Jesus speaking in according to his deity since he is clearly see saying "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead". Jesus proclamation blows your idea out of the water.

All the alpha and omega mentions are in relation to the Father (Rev 1:8, Rev 21:5, Rev 22:12)
All the F&L mentions, where is mentions Jesus and said context are about Jesus (Rev 1:17-18, Rev 2:8)
 
Last edited:

NWL

Active member
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.“You shall have no other gods before Me.“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, - Exodus 20:2-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:2-5&version=NKJV

(for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), - Exodus 34:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus34:14&version=NKJV

And Jesus answered and said to him, [JESUS]“Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”[/JESUS] - Luke 4:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke4:8&version=NKJV

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=worship+god+alone

Where in any of the scripture you listed did it say that we can't worship God through a created being?


JudgeRightly said:
Show us scripture where God tells us to worship Him through a created being.

Asking such a specific question is bad practice, it's like me asking you show me the verse that states God is three persons who is one and is co-equl and co-eternal? Could you provide such a verse that covers all those point? I think not.

I can show you the verses that show Jesus as part of creation (Rev 3:14, Col 1:15, Pro 8:22) and can show you the verses that show God telling us to worship him with all that worship ultimately going to the Father, namely Phil 2:8-11.

(Philippians 2:9-11) "..God exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.."

(John 14:6) "..Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.."

JudgeRightly said:
How many priests in scripture were rightly worshipped, NWL?

None, but no priest ever had Phil 2:9-11 said about them. Jesus became priest, the person whom was elected to act as a representative of the people to God, thus their worship was given to God by means of the high priest. Likewise, Jesus has become out representative today, he is the mediator as taught in scripture (1 Timothy 2:5), this is irrefutable.

(Hebrews 8:1-3) "..We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister of the holy place and of the true tent, which the Lord set up, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer...But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry because he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established on better promises.."

JudgeRightly said:
Did the people worship the priest or did the people worship God?

If they worshipped God, then your argument falls apart.

As stated the priest was a representative for the people, the priest was the ONLY one permitted to enter in the holy place in front of God and gave worship on behalf the people. Jesus has now taken this role.


JudgeRightly said:
Because Jesus was God made flesh, the perfect mediator.

This is not taught in scripture. Where is your scriptural evidence?
JudgeRightly said:
Because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequally the one God.

This is not taught in scripture. Where is your scriptural evidence?

JudgeRightly said:
Because He is coequally the one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

This is not taught in scripture. Where is your scriptural evidence?

JudgeRightly said:
We worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit because God is worthy of worship, and since those three Persons are coequally the one God, they receive worship coequally.

Then you cannot be a "true worshipper", since true worshipers worship the Father ultimately, not the trinity.

(John 4:23) Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him.

JudgeRightly said:
Those who do not worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit coequally are not worshipping God according to accurate knowledge of the scripture.

Show us the scripture that tells us to worship Jesus, show us the scripture that states to worship the HS.

JudgeRightly said:
Neither will taking scriptures out of context, especially out of the context of the whole Bible.

You can't just ignore other verses because one verse says something else.

How have I taken John 4:23 out of context and what verses am I ignoring as you say?
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
I've followed this tread and others of the same genre and, as an atheist disinterested (except for the topic I don't care one way or the other what theists choose to believe) outside observer, would like to make a few observations on the latest posts which, I think for the most part, sum the whole...

Because Jesus was God made flesh, the perfect mediator.
This is not taught in scripture. Where is your scriptural evidence?
No doubt trinitarians will quote John 1,

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. 16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

I find it interesting trinitarians say, "The bible is filled with figurative (metaphorical) language", EXCEPT FOR verses such as John 1:1-18.

Throughout GJohn Jesus says he delivers the words his deity has told him to speak. It stands to reason the meaning of John 1:1-18 is the "word was made flesh" through (because of) Jesus speaking the words he was given.

Because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequally the one God.
This is not taught in scripture. Where is your scriptural evidence?
… and...
Because He is coequally the one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
This is not taught in scripture. Where is your scriptural evidence?
Perhaps the best among trinitarian "proof texts" on this is John 10...

"22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: 23 it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one. 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The writer of GJohn, whoever he was, is simply documenting what he observed and heard. He isn't drawing any conclusions, the mark of a good historian.

A common and overriding theme of GJohn is the Jews seem to NEVER understand what Jesus is saying even after he explains to them what he means, which is, unfortunately for the Jews, often equally obscure.

The term "son of god" is the title given to the king of the Jews. Saul and David were "sons of god". Jesus, as the messiah (Greek, "christ") was (to be) the future king of the Jews and by extension the son of god. Exactly why the Jews did not understand this fact is not explained but could be because of time removed from the events of Kings Saul and David.

The prayer Jesus gives to his deity in John 17 explains the meaning of, "I and the Father are one". Sadly, the Jews were not privy to this. The astute reader should notice reference to John 1 and the "word".

"17 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me. 24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me; 26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them."

Prooftexting won't get you anywhere here on TOL.

Neither will taking scriptures out of context, especially out of the context of the whole Bible.

You can't just ignore other verses because one verse says something else.
… which makes me wonder why trinitarians are so consistently guilty of ignoring texts contradicting their "doctrine" as shown above.

My conclusion:

Is Jesus "the word made flesh"? Literally, no. Metaphorically, yes.
Is Jesus "the son of god"? Physically and/or genetically, no. As heir to the throne of his father David, yes.
Is Jesus equal to god? No.
Is Jesus "god"? No.
 
Last edited:

genuineoriginal

New member

genuineoriginal

New member
Says you.
Everybody knows when it was committed to writing, which is wholly irrelevant to when its contents originated.
It means both what the Apostles themselves taught, and what the Apostles themselves approved of that others taught, with the most prominent example being 2nd Peter 3:15-16 KJV, when Peter approves so much of what Paul wrote that he declared all Paul's epistles to be Scripture, and another example are the Gospels of Mark and Luke, which were written by non-Apostles, but were approved of by Apostles; Luke is very possibly what is always meant when Paul says, "My," or, "Our Gospel" (e.g. 2Ti2:8KJV, 2Th2:14KJV).
The Trinity doctrine was not created until there were no longer any living Apostles to oppose it.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
...John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
As I've already addressed, and to which you haven't adequately answered, from another thread:
You're right, He did say that. And He said, "I and my Father are one."

There's only one explanation for that---and that's the Trinity....
The Trinity has zero difficulty with both utterances of our Lord, "my Father is greater than I," and, "I and My Father are one."

The Trinity is the Apostolic definition of "God." I.e., according to the Apostles, who taught with the same teaching authority of Christ Himself, "God" is "the Trinity." Where does Jesus of Nazareth fit into the definition of God as the Trinity? He is the Son. Matthew 28:19 KJV
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
The Trinity doctrine was not created until there were no longer any living Apostles to oppose it.
Or, the Apostles defined the Trinity during their own lifetimes, and by the 4th century, a deformity in how Apostolic teachings were disseminated among all the Church's bishops (an inadvertent distortion of 2Ti2:2KJV) came to light, and the Western bishops, who had had more of the Trinity teaching transmitted to them from their predecessors, then set all the Church's bishops straight.

Today, in comparison, the entire Apostolic witness is collected and published in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' but that's the view of Catholicism. Both the Orthodox and Catholics receive that the Nicene Creed is Apostolic however, and most Protestant also believe it to be authentically Christian, even though they don't receive it as by the same authority as the Apostles (this they reserve only for what was actually written in scriptures).
 

Rosenritter

New member
Only MOST of the Jews. There were a "few", like the apostles, who understood, and proclaimed Jesus as "the Christ", "the son of the living God".

Only MOST of those calling themselves "Christian" don't understand, there are "a few" that do.

You mean Like,

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Or,


John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.


John 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


John 18:4-5 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.


John 20:17 ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


LOL ..... you guys must HATE John's gospel!


You do keep bringing up the same distorted interpretations of perfectly good verses, and I have to keep showing you what the Scriptures REALLY say.

See, this is why you should apply the thread theme to your own self, of recognizing why most of your arguments don't find any ground against anyone. They are simply bad arguments that unaware of to whom you are speaking. For example, I cannot even imagine why you think that John 18:5 is significant and it's a demonstration that you're rather desperate for anything to bolster your verse roster.

Just for the record, John's gospel is probably the single most hated part of the bible that is despised and argued against by Unitarians, precisely because he has the divinity of Christ as one of his specific emphasis.
 

Rosenritter

New member
No, I was challenging you to point out anything that I had said that came from pagan philosophy.

By saying "trinitarians take 90% pagan philosophy", you by default included me.

In other words, you're poisoning the well against me, by claiming (indirectly) that I use pagan philosophy to support my beliefs.

Yet, you refuse to point out any sources that I have used that are pagan.

I can tell you right now, that EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID comes from scripture, none of it comes from any pagan source.

In other words... I have been convinced through Scripture alone that God is triune,

The "untouchable unfeeling Father" is a concept from Greek philosophy, Plato even. The idea is that God cannot be "perfect" if he can be harmed by his creation, therefore he must be unfeeling, without passion, without emotions. Yet Jesus who is the very image of the invisible God and of his person was certainly not unfeeling or without passion, and the passion of the Christ flies against the Greek notion of God.

When you read Tertullian and how he spoke of what he believed of God and Trinity, he was enraged that anyone would suggest that the Father was passionate or could be harmed (by rejection or otherwise) by his creation. He allowed this for a "second person of the Trinity" the Son of God whom we call Jesus, but not "God the Father!" That God could care and be rejected, that would be heresy most dire, as he saw it.

That pagan Platonic concept of God is like Tertullian's concept of the First Person Trinity "the Father" but the Hebrew notion of God is quite different. The Hebrew God cares, he is hurt when he is rejected by his people, he loves, he cares, he is dynamic, he is passionate... just as we see in Jesus, our God who was manifest in the flesh. When we see Jesus we see God, not in a third part, or a third of his personalities, but if we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.

If Trinity is to be faulted as being from paganism, it would be for the reason I gave above, from borrowing elements from philosophy and gnosticism and adding elements to God other than that which we are given, from depriving our Father in heaven of his character and passion. If it is to be praised, it is from where it departs from that outside influence (and Tertullian, etc) and recognizes God as he chose to reveal himself to us.

Where Unitarianism is to be faulted is as it embraces the very thing it supposedly refutes, taking Plato's "perfect God" and Tertullian's "God the Father does not feel and does not have passion" and placing this flawed concept as their only concept of God, rejecting God himself when he made himself flesh and came unto his own. In this they know him not but have only a very muted concept of God, but without his love and his passion, not recognizing his very character. The Greeks might approve of this "perfect God" but it's not what is revealed in our testaments Old and New.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Spoiler
I've followed this tread and others of the same genre and, as an atheist disinterested (except for the topic I don't care one way or the other what theists choose to believe) outside observer, would like to make a few observations on the latest posts which, I think for the most part, sum the whole...

No doubt trinitarians will quote John 1,

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. 15 John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me. 16 For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

I find it interesting trinitarians say, "The bible is filled with figurative (metaphorical) language", EXCEPT FOR verses such as John 1:1-18.

Throughout GJohn Jesus says he delivers the words his deity has told him to speak. It stands to reason the meaning of John 1:1-18 is the "word was made flesh" through (because of) Jesus speaking the words he was given.

… and...
Perhaps the best among trinitarian "proof texts" on this is John 10...

"22 And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: 23 it was winter; and Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon’s porch. 24 The Jews therefore came round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou hold us in suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believe not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, these bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one. 31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do them, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

The writer of GJohn, whoever he was, is simply documenting what he observed and heard. He isn't drawing any conclusions, the mark of a good historian.

A common and overriding theme of GJohn is the Jews seem to NEVER understand what Jesus is saying even after he explains to them what he means, which is, unfortunately for the Jews, often equally obscure.

The term "son of god" is the title given to the king of the Jews. Saul and David were "sons of god". Jesus, as the messiah (Greek, "christ") was (to be) the future king of the Jews and by extension the son of god. Exactly why the Jews did not understand this fact is not explained but could be because of time removed from the events of Kings Saul and David.

The prayer Jesus gives to his deity in John 17 explains the meaning of, "I and the Father are one". Sadly, the Jews were not privy to this. The astute reader should notice reference to John 1 and the "word".

"17 These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. 6 I manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them to me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they know that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are from thee: 8 for the words which thou gavest me I have given unto them; and they received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine: 10 and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine: and I am glorified in them. 11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me: and I guarded them, and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy made full in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me. 24 Father, I desire that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee; and these knew that thou didst send me; 26 and I made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them."

… which makes me wonder why trinitarians are so consistently guilty of ignoring texts contradicting their "doctrine" as shown above.

My conclusion:

Is Jesus "the word made flesh"? Literally, no. Metaphorically, yes.
Is Jesus "the son of god"? Physically and/or genetically, no. As heir to the throne of his father David, yes.
Is Jesus equal to god? No.
Is Jesus "god"? No.
I think that your argument is deft, but I caution you that you are not considering the possibility that Christians are not to derive their theology from just the Christian scriptures. This notion that we are, was popularized in the Reformation, and has passed into lore as a fact, when cursory study of the history of Christianity shows that it was invented some time very later than the Church began in the first century.

In contrast to that view, which you've probably unwittingly presupposed, is that the whole entire authentic teaching of the Christian faith was only partially captured in the Scripture, and that in order to learn what else is authoritative, we must listen to what the Church's authentic bishops say that they have learned from their predecessors, who learned from their predecessors, who learned from their predecessors, etc., until you get all the way back to the Apostles (e.g., 2Ti2:2KJV, where Paul instructs Bishop Timothy on how he is to ensure that subsequent generations of Christians will always know the full truth).

When we consider this view, that the whole deposit of faith is possessed and transmitted only by the bishops, and that only part of it is captured in the Bible, then the question of the Trinity is an open-and-shut case. There is no room for doubt. The Trinity is authentically Christian, and is as I mentioned in an earlier post, it is the definitive Christian definition of the word "God."

Note also that this view positively asserts that the Scripture is not and cannot be contradicted by any other authentically Apostolic teaching, so it's not as if the Scripture is not presently some sort of yard stick of authenticity, it's just that the Bible does not all by itself contain the entire Apostolic witness.
 

Dartman

Active member
The Trinity has zero difficulty with both utterances of our Lord, "my Father is greater than I,"
Please explain how trinitarians view this verse.

Idolater said:
and, "I and My Father are one."
Jesus explains "one" perfectly,
John 17:20-22 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


Idolater said:
The Trinity is the Apostolic definition of "God." I.e., according to the Apostles, who taught with the same teaching authority of Christ Himself, "God" is "the Trinity."
Says no verse ever.
The apostles DID teach with authority given by Christ, who was given authority from his God.
The apostles taught a Biblical Unitarian Jesus without exception.
The apostles never even mentioned "trinity", nor did they EVER preach a trinitarian or oneness "Jesus".

So, your claim is ...... inaccurate.
 

Rosenritter

New member
No meaning has been invented, I understand the title according to the context of the verses whether titles are found. Jesus is called the "first and the last", the context shows that its relating to his death and resurrection in both the verses Jesus is spoken as the F&L, this is undeniable and cannot be ignored.

1. Jesus was not the first to be raised from the dead, and he is not the last to be raised from the dead. Jesus raised people himself, and there will be a resurrection of the dead, both the just and the unjust.

2. Jesus was not the first to be raised by God without a human prophet, even if you rationalize that Jesus (and not God) raises the dead in the resurrection. The dead came out of their tombs when he was crucified.

3. Jesus may have been the first to have been raised to eternal life, but he is not the last to be raised to eternal life. There is a resurrection unto eternal life.

Your meaning was invented and even then it falls apart under any scrutiny.

On the other hand, "the first and the last" in Isaiah identifies he who created the worlds, and amazingly enough, John and Paul also identify he who created the worlds as Jesus. And the Old Testament also tells us (Genesis, Isaiah, etc) that the Creator who created the world alone is whom we call God.

Imagine that.

You've been arguing the invented and implausible against that which is actually explicitly stated, of which the meaning is confirmed through other avenues and sources.

And if your theory is to be believed, "I am the first and the last" is totally unnecessary in those passages (besides being rather difficult for you to explain) and "Alpha and Omega" gets the same title in the context of Revelation as well. Now you'd have to reason that the same unique title means different things in the same book.

Somewhere in here maybe there's a point where you'd be willing to consider that maybe Jesus and his apostles actually meant what they said... the way it sounds.
 

NWL

Active member
He's not separated. That's your argument you've created for me... that you're inventing for the purpose of having an easier answer.

I've previously had this discussion with you and have the following analogy that images the wording of Rev 1:4,5:

John...May you have undeserved kindness and peace from “the One who is and who was and who is coming,” and from the seven spirits that are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.” To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood—

Rosenritter may you have blessings from Paul and from the people who live in his house and from James the worlds strongest man, the Olympic athelite, the winner of the gold, he James made us enter into the trials for the worlds strongest man so that we could be henchmen to his Father and hero"


I asked you if "in the example I gave that the everyday person who read it would understand the the people who lived in the house (plurual) was Paul, and that James was also Paul, lets try and be honest when answering this, is that what you truly believe?"

Your answer was the following "I answered in part because of trying to decrease words. Paul is Paul, the people who live in the house includes Paul, there may or may not be anyone else other than Paul included in the people in the house, and as you phrased it James seemed like a different person. You're not proving your point here."

Do you still agree with you answer in relation to the analogy I just quoted from an old thread?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
The "untouchable unfeeling Father" is a concept from Greek philosophy, Plato even. The idea is that God cannot be "perfect" if he can be harmed by his creation, therefore he must be unfeeling, without passion, without emotions. Yet Jesus who is the very image of the invisible God and of his person was certainly not unfeeling or without passion, and the passion of the Christ flies against the Greek notion of God.

When you read Tertullian and how he spoke of what he believed of God and Trinity, he was enraged that anyone would suggest that God was passionate or could be harmed (by rejection or otherwise) by his creation. He allowed this for a "second person of the Trinity" the Son of God whom we call Jesus, but not "God the Father!" That God could care and be rejected, that would be heresy most dire, as he saw it.

That pagan Platonic concept of God is like Tertullian's concept of the First Person Trinity "the Father" but the Hebrew notion of God is quite different. The Hebrew God cares, he is hurt when he is rejected by his people, he loves, he cares, he is dynamic, he is passionate... just as we see in Jesus, our God who was manifest in the flesh. When we see Jesus we see God, not in a third part, or a third of his personalities, but if we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.

If Trinity is to be faulted as being from paganism, it would be for the reason I gave above, from borrowing elements from philosophy and gnosticism and adding elements to God other than that which we are given, from depriving our Father in heaven of his character and passion. If it is to be praised, it is from where it departs from that outside influence (and Tertullian, etc) and recognizes God as he chose to reveal himself to us.

Where Unitarianism is to be faulted is as it embraces the very thing it supposedly refutes, taking Plato's "perfect God" and Tertullian's "God the Father does not feel and does not have passion" and placing this flawed concept as their only concept of God, rejecting God himself when he made himself flesh and came unto his own. In this they know him not but have only a very muted concept of God, but without his love and his passion, not recognizing his very character. The Greeks might approve of this "perfect God" but it's not what is revealed in our testaments Old and New.
Just fyi, Tertullian was not a bishop. He was influential, I'm not contesting that, I'm just adding in a pertinent fact here. What Tertullian did was to take the scriptures and the Apostolic traditions that he knew, and he pondered them. He was an outstanding thinker, like Origen, and like Aquinas much later, but none of these men were bishops.
 

Rosenritter

New member
My conclusion:

Is Jesus "the word made flesh"? Literally, no. Metaphorically, yes.
Is Jesus "the son of god"? Physically and/or genetically, no. As heir to the throne of his father David, yes.
Is Jesus equal to god? No.
Is Jesus "god"? No.

How would one qualify to be "god" in your understanding? I understand that you have an atheist view, but if you could give some qualification as to what you consider "god" qualities it might assist the discussion.
 

Rosenritter

New member
As I've already addressed, and to which you haven't adequately answered, from another thread:
The Trinity has zero difficulty with both utterances of our Lord, "my Father is greater than I," and, "I and My Father are one."

The Trinity is the Apostolic definition of "God." I.e., according to the Apostles, who taught with the same teaching authority of Christ Himself, "God" is "the Trinity." Where does Jesus of Nazareth fit into the definition of God as the Trinity? He is the Son. Matthew 28:19 KJV

I suggest that it does present a problem for Trinity doctrine, at least for the former passage.Within Trinity doctrine, all "persons" are equal in rank and status and so forth, and it would be "God" or "the Trinity" (the sum of the persons) that is greater than I, not "my Father" is greater than I... Just think of the Trinity diagrams that you see drawn out everywhere.

Unless you have a different understanding of what is meant by "greater" in that context?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Please explain how trinitarians view this verse.
God is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and not the Spirit. The Son is not the Spirit.
The Father generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son. That's the whole doctrine.
The apostles taught a Biblical Unitarian Jesus without exception.
That's just a bald assertion, to which I'll say that the Apostles taught the Trinity without exception.
The apostles never even mentioned "trinity", nor did they EVER preach a trinitarian or oneness "Jesus".
No, the word "Trinity" is a man-made word, that is true, but the substance of the Trinity is Apostolic. And as for "oneness," idk anybody arguing for "Oneness." You're dealing with Trinitarians.
So, your claim is ...... inaccurate.
Likewise.
 
Top