All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

you are half right. Triniarian doctrine adds philosophical terminology to clarify the details found in scripture so that a unitarian or modalist or oneness heretic may not honestly claim orthodoxy via the creeds. The philosophical discussion is used to clarify and narrow the interpretations to only the scriptural revelation. Before that, and incrementally after each refined confession, sneaky heretics would hold to the earlier confessions even though not holding to the truth of scripture.

So you confess that trinitarians use terminology and ideas that God, Jesus, the prophets, and disciples never used? That's important that you can admit that as it is the first step in getting to the bottom of this. It's okay if they didn't use the exact wording and terminology that you all use because if they could describe it instead then that would be an acceptable substitute.

Begin here. No where does the Bible describe a compound god of three persons in the first place. Do you agree? If not, I ask for what must be the 100th time, where does the Bible even say God is three? See why we don't believe your philosophy?

Now the unitarians deny that the Word became flesh. They play word games to avoid the clear truth presented in John 1. There is no way to interpret this that the message was being proclaimed by a human. That would have included any prophet of the past. In reality, the Word, as one of what we recognize as the Triune God, became incarnate. There is no other way that the Word can have flesh and bones and a body. There is no other articulable alternative to this physical tabernacle of the Word could happen. But some people just will deny scripture until they stop breathing.

The word did become flesh, but the word isn't flesh right now. Right? Think about it. God isn't a man, but you are saying the word is god. In your reasoning, Jesus is still a flesh man therefore the word is still flesh and always will be flesh doesn't make sense from a Biblical perspective. God is said to be invisible and Jesus is visible (Colossians 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17) there is also the problem of "the Word became flesh" not referring to an incarnation since there are no examples or descriptions of an incarnation to support it.

Bottom line is, you all have a lot of ideas and beliefs but the Bible never really comes right out and states what your ideas are. You're taking it all out of context and it's possibly because you've been deceived by bad theologians, translators, and people who had no business explaining what the Bible means to others.

 

[Peterlag]

The God of the Old Testament communicates to His people, at that time were the Patriarchs and then to the Jews.
As God always communicates to His people even today through His Words the Bible, those whom have faith in Him.
If you feel that God's words does not concern you, I'll be worried because all God's messages are for His people.

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

 

[mikesw]

So you confess that trinitarians use terminology and ideas that God, Jesus, the prophets, and disciples never used? That's important that you can admit that as it is the first step in getting to the bottom of this. It's okay if they didn't use the exact wording and terminology that you all use because if they could describe it instead then that would be an acceptable substitute.

Begin here. No where does the Bible describe a compound god of three persons in the first place. Do you agree? If not, I ask for what must be the 100th time, where does the Bible even say God is three? See why we don't believe your philosophy?

Oh my such a sin to use words not in the unitarian pocket dictionary. I'm not able to convince God to rewrite the bible so unitarians can recognize the Trinity. We have shared plenty of evidence. You even deny the basic that God's Spirit does not exist or that the pre-existent Christ, known as the Word, became flesh, as in John 1.

The word did become flesh, but the word isn't flesh right now. Right? Think about it. God isn't a man, but you are saying the word is god. In your reasoning, Jesus is still a flesh man therefore the word is still flesh and always will be flesh doesn't make sense from a Biblical perspective. God is said to be invisible and Jesus is visible (Colossians 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17)

I do not know Jesus exact degree of physicality after he became flesh. I'm sorry again that you cannot comprehend the analogy of the Jesus as the Word or Message sent to use by the Father. Then with Col 1:15 and 1 Tim1:17 you conflate the full glory of God compared to the incarnation. Obviously those passages do not try to say Jesus was invisible. You are too confused to make sense.

there is also the problem of "the Word became flesh" not referring to an incarnation since there are no examples or descriptions of an incarnation to support it.

The very passage you quote speaks of incarnation. I'm not sure how you deny that. You are effectively saying that the incarnation of the Word does not mean the incarnation of the Word.

Bottom line is, you all have a lot of ideas and beliefs but the Bible never really comes right out and states what your ideas are. You're taking it all out of context and it's possibly because you've been deceived by bad theologians, translators, and people who had no business explaining what the Bible means to others.

You are just reliant on the unitarian pocket dictionary and cannot comprehend God because you cannot follow metaphor and analogy.
I suspect that you just sought evidence against the God of scripture when the church you were in was not able to explain the Triune nature of God. So you started to read the scripture to prove the impossible -- that the Son of God was not the Son of God and the Holy Spirit did not exist. That really is not a good reason to read scripture.

 

[Runningman]

Oh my such a sin to use words not in the unitarian pocket dictionary. I'm not able to convince God to rewrite the bible so unitarians can recognize the Trinity. We have shared plenty of evidence. You even deny the basic that God's Spirit does not exist or that the pre-existent Christ, known as the Word, became flesh, as in John 1.

You couldn't have a coherent conversation about trinitarianism if you used only the vocabulary of the Bible. Actually, I would love to challenge you personally to a debate on this. Our one and rule is to use the words of the Bible. Agreed? You will automatically lose pretty much all of your doctrines once this happens, by the way. I don't expect you to accept this invitation, but nevertheless I do put it out there. @civic @Red Baker @DavidTree @FreeInChrist @101G @Keiw1 @Peterlag and anyone else. Would you be willing to discuss your beliefs using only the vocabulary of the Bible?

I do not know Jesus exact degree of physicality after he became flesh. I'm sorry again that you cannot comprehend the analogy of the Jesus as the Word or Message sent to use by the Father. Then with Col 1:15 and 1 Tim1:17 you conflate the full glory of God compared to the incarnation. Obviously those passages do not try to say Jesus was invisible. You are too confused to make sense.

So now the Word didn't literally become flesh, but it's an analogy? Do you think God is flesh? I am not asking if you think Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. I am asking you if God is 100% man like your statements "The Word is God" and "the Word became flesh" and "God incarnated" require.

The very passage you quote speaks of incarnation. I'm not sure how you deny that. You are effectively saying that the incarnation of the Word does not mean the incarnation of the Word.

Ok, we have been here before. I would like you to show me where the Bible shows the Word is a pre-existent being and is called God.

You are just reliant on the unitarian pocket dictionary and cannot comprehend God because you cannot follow metaphor and analogy.
I suspect that you just sought evidence against the God of scripture when the church you were in was not able to explain the Triune nature of God. So you started to read the scripture to prove the impossible -- that the Son of God was not the Son of God and the Holy Spirit did not exist. That really is not a good reason to read scripture.

I use literary devices like metaphor or personification on John 1:1, but I do so informed. I know that 1 John 1:1-3 says the Word is a thing. I use literary devices like personification when it's necessary to not contradict Scripture and I do so sparingly and with good judgment. I know the Word is not literary God with the Father being the only true God. That's easy. Some Trinitarians seemed to have figured this out as well, the Word is not The God.

However, I don't reinterpret the entire Bible around John 1:1 like you seem to do. Clear and explicit statements about who God is get rejected rather than assimilated into your beliefs because your beliefs cannot coexist with the majority of the New Testament. I do read your writings closely, though, because I am looking for the way your mind works. I see you do understand that some things are literal. I think you have just gone the wrong direction with it.

Start with what the Bible is explicit about. The Bible puts up guardrails about the Father being the only true God. It means you aren't supposed to drive through the guardrails. Stay within the lines the Bible provides you and you'll see that Jesus, the Word, etc are not mutual Gods in the same sense the Father is.

 

[mikesw]

You couldn't have a coherent conversation about trinitarianism if you used only the vocabulary of the Bible. Actually, I would love to challenge you personally to a debate on this. Our one and rule is to use the words of the Bible. Agreed? You will automatically lose pretty much all of your doctrines once this happens, by the way. I don't expect you to accept this invitation, but nevertheless I do put it out there. @civic @Red Baker @DavidTree @FreeInChrist @101G @Keiw1 @Peterlag and anyone else. Would you be willing to discuss your beliefs using only the vocabulary of the Bible?

Duh. We could miss using the words that expose the unitarian heresy. The basis of the Triune God is evident in scripture and can only be missed by people who do not accept the testimony of Jesus.
If you restrict the language to preschool picture books, you also cannot describe the Triune God so as to expose the deceit against the Triune God. That does not mean God does not exist.

So now the Word didn't literally become flesh, but it's an analogy? Do you think God is flesh? I am not asking if you think Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. I am asking you if God is 100% man like your statements "The Word is God" and "the Word became flesh" and "God incarnated" require.

This is sort of the analogical wording. You are getting too confused and do not let scripture say what it says about Jesus being the incarnation. You misinterpret things because you did not recognize the warning signs that expose heresy.

Ok, we have been here before. I would like you to show me where the Bible shows the Word is a pre-existent being and is called God.

We covered this. Even the prophets say the Word of God came. This is not the clearest of the pre-existence but does meet your challenge earlier. But you forgot all that from yesterday.

I use literary devices like metaphor or personification on John 1:1, but I do so informed. I know that 1 John 1:1-3 says the Word is a thing. I use literary devices like personification when it's necessary to not contradict Scripture and I do so sparingly and with good judgment. I know the Word is not literary God with the Father being the only true God. That's easy. Some Trinitarians seemed to have figured this out as well, the Word is not The God.

Answered already. You cannot discern the difference even after many repetitions of what is happening here.

However, I don't reinterpret the entire Bible around John 1:1 like you seem to do. Clear and explicit statements about who God is get rejected rather than assimilated into your beliefs because your beliefs cannot coexist with the majority of the New Testament. I do read your writings closely, though, because I am looking for the way your mind works. I see you do understand that some things are literal. I think you have just gone the wrong direction with it.

We do not have to rely on John 1 to know the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. The Jews considered multiple powers of heaven that presented the mystery to them. Philo gave the abstract sense of logos. John shows this is the one who became Jesus. Unitarians cannot comprehend the basic ideas.

Start with what the Bible is explicit about. The Bible puts up guardrails about the Father being the only true God. It means you aren't supposed to drive through the guardrails. Stay within the lines the Bible provides you and you'll see that Jesus, the Word, etc are not mutual Gods in the same sense the Father is.

Are you hoping that everyone falls into the same misinterpretation that you follow?

You have had an opportunity to make an argument against the Triune God but everything you have said has failed in logic. You can try again and see if you can defy who Christ is with some new argument.

 

[Runningman]

Duh. We could miss using the words that expose the unitarian heresy. The basis of the Triune God is evident in scripture and can only be missed by people who do not accept the testimony of Jesus.
If you restrict the language to preschool picture books, you also cannot describe the Triune God so as to expose the deceit against the Triune God. That does not mean God does not exist.

You seem to show awareness that your religion is not in the Bible, but was rather invented later. There are a lot of terms invented and coined by trinitarians like trinity, homoousios, hypostasis, etc. That's a problem for you! It means that the Bible is not your helpful companion to explain anything that you believe. You would get the floor mopped with you in any debate that required you to strictly abide by Sola Scriptura.

This is sort of the analogical wording. You are getting too confused and do not let scripture say what it says about Jesus being the incarnation. You misinterpret things because you did not recognize the warning signs that expose heresy.

The word incarnation is also not in the Bible. Jesus is never described as being incarnated. Ok, we have seen you use the book of John exhaustively to rant about your incarnation beliefs. Which other writer, in your trinitarian view, stated or suggested Jesus was incarnated?

We covered this. Even the prophets say the Word of God came. This is not the clearest of the pre-existence but does meet your challenge earlier. But you forgot all that from yesterday.

They didn't say a person named the Word of God came. They talked about messages coming to people because God was speaking to them.

Answered already. You cannot discern the difference even after many repetitions of what is happening here.

We do not have to rely on John 1 to know the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. The Jews considered multiple powers of heaven that presented the mystery to them. Philo gave the abstract sense of logos. John shows this is the one who became Jesus. Unitarians cannot comprehend the basic ideas.

Here's another example of where you can't lean on the Bible. "The divinity of Christ in the Godhead" is not stated anywhere in the Bible. Also, you quoted John again. You are what is called a Logos Theologian and you have only 1 or 2 verses that you'll use for it, but the one that blows a smoking hole right through the center of it all is 1John 1:1-3. You still haven't wanted to play with that passage.

Are you hoping that everyone falls into the same misinterpretation that you follow?

You have had an opportunity to make an argument against the Triune God but everything you have said has failed in logic. You can try again and see if you can defy who Christ is with some new argument.

How is the Father being the one and only true God (explicitly stated in the Bible) an interpretation while the Trinity (not explicitly stated in the Bible or described) is not an interpretation?

 

[mikesw]

You seem to show awareness that your religion is not in the Bible, but was rather invented later. There are a lot of terms invented and coined by trinitarians like trinity, homoousios, hypostasis, etc. That's a problem for you! It means that the Bible is not your helpful companion to explain anything that you believe. You would get the floor mopped with you in any debate that required you to strictly abide by Sola Scriptura.

That is an ignorant remark on your part in trying to open the door for heresy. Sola Scriptura does not mean using only the words that are in the Bible. I would figure you are smarter than that. Sola Scriptura means that the scriptures are our final authority for doctrine and teaching. Summing up and clarifying the meaning with philosophical terms is not violating Sola Scriptura.

The word incarnation is also not in the Bible. Jesus is never described as being incarnated. Ok, we have seen you use the book of John exhaustively to rant about your incarnation beliefs. Which other writer, in your trinitarian view, stated or suggested Jesus was incarnated?

Irrelevant and debunked.

They didn't say a person named the Word of God came. They talked about messages coming to people because God was speaking to them.

irrelevant and debunked

Here's another example of where you can't lean on the Bible. "The divinity of Christ in the Godhead" is not stated anywhere in the Bible. Also, you quoted John again. You are what is called a Logos Theologian and you have only 1 or 2 verses that you'll use for it, but the one that blows a smoking hole right through the center of it all is 1John 1:1-3. You still haven't wanted to play with that passage.

irrelevant and debunked.

How is the Father being the one and only true God (explicitly stated in the Bible) an interpretation while the Trinity (not explicitly stated in the Bible or described) is not an interpretation?

never contested that Jesus was of the same God, not a separate god. Your argument is irrelevant and debunked.

You are repeating the same gibberish you have tried to make stick before.

 

[Runningman]

That is an ignorant remark on your part in trying to open the door for heresy. Sola Scriptura does not mean using only the words that are in the Bible. I would figure you are smarter than that. Sola Scriptura means that the scriptures are our final authority for doctrine and teaching. Summing up and clarifying the meaning with philosophical terms is not violating Sola Scriptura.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The words to describe your doctrines are not in Scripture, therefore they are not Sola Scriptura. Using nothing but Scripture, yes, you would lose any Sola Scriptura debate.

Irrelevant and debunked.

irrelevant and debunked

irrelevant and debunked.

never contested that Jesus was of the same God, not a separate god. Your argument is irrelevant and debunked.

You are repeating the same gibberish you have tried to make stick before.

It was going to be fun to watch you try to explain how the Father being the Only True God is an interpretation while the Trinity is not, at least fun for me and those who know Trinitarians have a hard time defending the trinity doctrine using the Bible which is the greatest weakness of your religion. Trinitarians should train for better ways to explain their beliefs using the words of the Bible. If you can't even do that much, maybe you all are looking in the wrong place.

 

[mikesw]

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The words to describe your doctrines are not in Scripture, therefore they are not Sola Scriptura. Using nothing but Scripture, yes, you would lose any Sola Scriptura debate.

That is so ignorant of the meaning it gets goofy. Where did you get your skills from?

It was going to be fun to watch you try to explain how the Father being the Only True God is an interpretation while the Trinity is not, at least fun for me and those who know Trinitarians have a hard time defending the trinity doctrine using the Bible which is the greatest weakness of your religion. Trinitarians should train for better ways to explain their beliefs using the words of the Bible. If you can't even do that much, maybe you all are looking in the wrong place.

uh. The point of the only true God is that the people had been following false concepts. It is not there to deny the divinity of God, as unitarians are so happy to insert into the meaning. Then you skip the pre-existence of the Word, the Son, which contradicts the unitarian beliefs. When you think you are winning, you actually destroy your argument

 

[Runningman]

That is so ignorant of the meaning it gets goofy. Where did you get your skills from?

uh. The point of the only true God is that the people had been following false concepts. It is not there to deny the divinity of God, as unitarians are so happy to insert into the meaning. Then you skip the pre-existence of the Word, the Son, which contradicts the unitarian beliefs. When you think you are winning, you actually destroy your argument

Scripture for the Unitarian understanding of God is very strong. You might not like it, might not agree with it, but it's still there and we take the gold medal for clearness about who God is using Sola Scriptura. It's funny that protestants made up the term Sola Scriptura , but they can't even use it to talk about who God is, but Unitarians can.

If you claim to be a Christian, and you see these verses below, and you find yourself disagreeing, maybe it isn't your debate opponents who are the problem.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 4
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[mikesw]

Scripture for the Unitarian understanding of God is very strong. You might not like it, might not agree with it, but it's still there and we take the gold medal for clearness about who God is using Sola Scriptura. It's funny that protestants made up the term Sola Scriptura , but they can't even use it to talk about who God is, but Unitarians can.

You get the gold medal for using scripture selectively so as to deny who Christ Jesus is. That is not the best type of metal to earn.

John 17
1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people,a so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. 3Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 4
6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

you keep missing that nothing says Jesus is some independent god in opposition to the Father. These verses do not contradict the fact of Jesus as God. The Joh 17:5 points to the fact that Jesus can point out the glory he has had before the incarnation. It is not too hard to figure out once you include John 17:5.

 

[Runningman]

You get the gold medal for using scripture selectively so as to deny who Christ Jesus is. That is not the best type of metal to earn.


you keep missing that nothing says Jesus is some independent god in opposition to the Father. These verses do not contradict the fact of Jesus as God. The Joh 17:5 points to the fact that Jesus can point out the glory he has had before the incarnation. It is not too hard to figure out once you include John 17:5.

Cease your whataboutisms. Does the Bible say the Father is the one and only true God, yes or no? Come clean with it already.

 

[mikesw]

Cease your whataboutisms.

what do you mean? I think you want me to stop pointing out the errors of your attempt to interpret scripture.

Does the Bible say the Father is the one and only true God, yes or no? Come clean with it already.

have we not addressed this a hundred times? There is only one God. Jesus is not a separate god but is one in the same God. duh.

 

[Capbook]

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

I believe you are just contradicting yourself I colored red above.
I believe nothing I've said offended God's people. Because God always communicates to His people in the Old Testament and in the New Testament so that many will be saved.

1Co 10:32 Do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God;
1Co 10:33 just as I also please everyone in all things, not seeking my own benefit but the benefit of the many, so that they may be saved.

 

[Capbook]

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The words to describe your doctrines are not in Scripture, therefore they are not Sola Scriptura. Using nothing but Scripture, yes, you would lose any Sola Scriptura debate.

Don't you believe what is written in the Bible?

It was going to be fun to watch you try to explain how the Father being the Only True God is an interpretation while the Trinity is not, at least fun for me and those who know Trinitarians have a hard time defending the trinity doctrine using the Bible which is the greatest weakness of your religion. Trinitarians should train for better ways to explain their beliefs using the words of the Bible. If you can't even do that much, maybe you all are looking in the wrong place.

I believe the same author of the book of John who wrote John 17:3 also quote Jesus as saying, He is the way, the truth and the life.
And in 1John 5:10-12, the Father had a testimony concerning His Son, that the eternal life is in His Son, and that if we do not believe the Father's testimony we make the Father a liar.
Do you believe that the Father's testimony just eight verses onward would expire?
Then who had the eternal life in 1John 5:20?
If you answer that question honestly, you'll just make the Father not a liar.(1John 5:11)

Joh 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
1Jn 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar , because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
1Jn 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1Jn 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.






Top

 

[101G]

you couldn't have a coherent conversation about trinitarianism if you used only the vocabulary of the Bible. Actually, I would love to challenge you personally to a debate on this. Our one and rule is to use the words of the Bible. Agreed? You will automatically lose pretty much all of your doctrines once this happens, by the way. I don't expect you to accept this invitation, but nevertheless I do put it out there. @civic @Red Baker @DavidTree @FreeInChrist @101G @Keiw1 @Peterlag and anyone else. Would you be willing to discuss your beliefs using only the vocabulary of the Bible?

you want to debate on trinitarianism? good, 101G is in.

101G.

 

[Peterlag]

I believe you are just contradicting yourself I colored red above.
I believe nothing I've said offended God's people. Because God always communicates to His people in the Old Testament and in the New Testament so that many will be saved.

1Co 10:32 Do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God;
1Co 10:33 just as I also please everyone in all things, not seeking my own benefit but the benefit of the many, so that they may be saved.

The following is a direct quote from E. W. Bullinger who is considered to be one of the best Biblical Scholars in the last 300 years and he does not contradit himself...

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

 

[101G]

It does not matter if you say you're Catholic or not. You believe the same doctrine as the Catholics.

who told you that? did 101G say he was trinitarian? now what about my question that you have not respond to? ... https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/thomas-my-lord-and-my-god.2310/post-197181

101G.

 

[Peterlag]

who told you that? did 101G say he was trinitarian? now what about my question that you have not respond to? ... https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/thomas-my-lord-and-my-god.2310/post-197181

101G.

In the Old Testament God is referred to as the redeemer because he sent the redeemer.

 

[Runningman]

what do you mean? I think you want me to stop pointing out the errors of your attempt to interpret scripture.

have we not addressed this a hundred times? There is only one God. Jesus is not a separate god but is one in the same God. duh.

So the Father is the one and only true God as the Bible says right? The Bible does say that.