Runningman
Active Member
Try meeting the Bible where it is. Your betters never talked about God the way you do.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
dwight92070
Active Member
I see, so you were there, so you know that no one in the first century believed the things that we do. And you know that there weren't any in the first century who could be considered an orthodox trinitarian, either in that century, or for several hundred years after that. And you know that if there were, they would be considered raging heretics, "by our standards"? Actually, by our standards, the early proto-trinitarians would be considered closer to the truth than you are today. And I'm not sure why we would think that they would be "raging". Raging anger is more closely associated with anti-Trinitarians like yourself, not us.
It's amazing how much you know - or more properly, how much you make up, out of whole cloth. Since you were not there, you know NONE of the things that you claim to know above. But that is typical of heresy. Just make things up that sound authoritative, make your own history and your own facts, mock those who disagree, and move on to the next gullible sucker.
Wow, I can't believe how much knowledge you have of the 1st century.
Really, and I thought they knew about it even during the time the gospels were written. Huh. How could I have been so wrong?
Here again, I thought Trinitarianism was a doctrine, not a religion. Not only that but I thought the doctrine was already fully developed. Huh. I'm sure you have historical data to support everything you say.
But for those of us who don't have all the historical knowledge that you do, why don't you just give us the source of your statements made above?
Please give us the information that you have about trinitarianism being repackaged and rebranded.
amazing grace
Active Member
Yes, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself - 2 Cor. 5:19. God was IN Christ-------not God was Christ.
Yes, Christ in us, the hope of glory - Colossians 1:27. Therefore it's God in Christ in us . . .
We are also one with Jesus and the Father. . . . John 17.
The last part of your post didn't show up when I hit reply......so, I didn't get to respond to it.
amazing grace
Active Member
Sure. . . . .The Son, who is God humbled Himself to be sent by God the Father who is also God.
The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, i.e. the Spirit of God. The 'helper', the 'Comforter' is just a way of personifying the gift God was sending through his exalted Son . . .Jesus referred to the holy spirit which would be IN them as 'rivers of living water':
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. [John 7:38,39]
Jesus told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father:
And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” . . .[Acts 1:5]
Jesus baptized in holy spirit . . . Jesus poured out the gift on the day of Pentecost:
Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. [Acts 2:33]
So the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the baptism with holy spirit is power from on high and that which with we are sealed [Eph. 1:13] ----not a third person of the Trinity.
Indeed the fullness of God dwelt in Christ as the incarnate Son. The verse can be read three ways and is not conclusive for any specific viewpoint but would have to be read in light of broader scripture.
That is fine eisegesis that does not match the passage. Also, if your twisting of the verse were true, you would not need Christ Jesus.Yes, Christ in us, the hope of glory - Colossians 1:27. Therefore it's God in Christ in us . . .
Per John 17 the disciples are not one with the Father. They are one with each other. The disciples could not be one with the Father because they are not also of the Godhead.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
You shouldn't add to scripture. It doesn't say anything about a trinity in the actual Bible.
you mean that people should not think what scripture means.
Runningman
Active Member
There are no such examples of what one would consider an orthodox trinitarian in the first century. This means that trinitarianism didn't exist. The best guess about when your cult finally got around to figuring everything out is the the late 4th century at the council of Nicaea and Constantinople. That's when you all decided Jesus is your god and the Holy Spirit as well. You seem you want to wine to me about history. How about you hit the books and get educated.
Runningman
Active Member
"Us" doesn't mean "the trinity" in the Bible. It can refer to more than one person, but if they aren't named then there is no inference about them being a trinity. God is also never referred to as a they or them, but rather a He/His/I. That means who God was with aren't members of a Godhead.
oh my. You are going to reject God because you do not like how he revealed his Triune nature.
Runningman
Active Member
Scripture doesn't mention any trinity that God may have been with so it really isn't up for debate. The way arguments work, is you need to provide evidence for your claims. A good way to establish evidence of a trinity would be for God to be called a they or them at least, but it would be even better if someone mentioned God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the standard for establishing evidence the world over and it's required.
If you want to remain ignorant then that is your option. We have provided quite a bit of evidence while you provide only weak denials. I know you love certain verses, but you have to love all the verses.
Runningman
Active Member
You're describing what you're doing. I have the upper hand here because we know that if God is an "Us" and "Our" then with consistency people would have said "They" or "Them" when referring to God. Not one single person did that in the entire Bible, not even once. God is Unitarian Mike. You don't understand it yet, but one day you will.
God can be called him/he because there is only one God. However, God is a Triune one. Otherwise you have to deny Jesus's pre-existence and all of John 1. It is those features that we have to recognize God is Triune or you just simply deny scriptures. But you seem happy to deny passages.
Angelo
Active Member
It's called a discussion about US, Our. The three that makes up the Trinity actually.
It is simply a literary form similar to what we call the editorial plural or the editorial “we, us, our” which a writer or speaker uses to communicate a point.
The point simply is that our Triune God made us in His... Father, Son. Holy Spirits image.
amazing grace
Active Member
Is there scholarly argument about this verse 2 Cor. 5:19?
ESV -- that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
KJV -- To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
NASB -- namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their wrongdoings against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
NIV -- that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
Seems pretty clear to me: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Doesn't match the passage? Was God in Christ as per 2 Cor. 5:19? Is Christ in us as per Colossians 1:27?
Then why wouldn't God in Christ be in us when we receive the gift of holy spirit - via born again aka the new birth, the new creation, the new man, the inner man, etc. --- which is how we now walk by the spirit and not the flesh.
That's fine eisegesis . . .My Bible doesn't specify a difference:
For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. . . . . And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. . . . . I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” [John 17:8,11,20-23,26]
And there we also have God in Christ Christ in us = God in Christ in us!!
See, that's the problem - Believing that Jesus is God - making "I and the Father are one" mean "Jesus is God" - you cannot believe what is plainly written in other parts of scripture. Jesus and his Father are one in purpose and mission - keeping the 'sheep' for the coming Kingdom. We are to be one in purpose and mission with Jesus and his Father - bringing people into the Kingdom, reconciling people to God in Christ's stead (gathering the sheep). The harvest is plenty . . .
