All Claims of The Son's Deity

Might be why most Christian forums have banned the trinity topic to the point one cannot even voice their position for or against it or some have just banned all those who dissent from their statement of faith. This is an apologetics board, though, some healthy debate is going to occur since the forum seems to be open to everyone which is a necessary evil or else it would just be an echo chamber. Outsiders to Catholicism and Protestantism view the trinity as the weakest link in the entire machine so that's why it feels like it is being attacked sometimes. We believe it's the easiest one to debunk.
It is great to note that if this awareness of the Triune God is the weakest link, nothing can be brought against this essential doctrine or other essential doctrines. There has not been sufficient arguments by the unitarians to overcome the testimony of the Triune God of scripture. It is nice to know that the unitarians go after the hardest to defeat knowledge of God while thinking it somehow is easy to break.
This being an apologetics board means it is here to defend a belief or doctrine through reasonable argument or evidence. My perspective is this forum is attracting debates with its name because of what the word apologetics mean. Can't defend something that someone isn't challenging, thus challenges must be welcome.
I have identified plenty of times the failures of the arguments of the unitarians. They just fail to step up with something that makes sense.
Maybe the idea of the weakest link means that some weak Christians have not studied this properly and are easier to persuade away from the faith by selective choosing of scripture to deny who Christ is.
 
Last edited:
Correct, I don't speak to God as Yahweh - Yahweh, LORD is just his personal name and scripture even makes a point to establish that name by writing LORD in all caps in the OT.
I don't address my heavenly Father as ABBA either, if you do that's great.
When I pray or just talk to Him I usually just say Father or God or even sometimes heavenly Father. I wasn't making it legalistic that people HAD to say Yahweh when speaking about him - TO ME when I read scripture especially the OT, I like to read LORD as Yahweh. I really don't understand WHY you have gotten so offended . . .
Actually, I address the Father as Father God, & always end my prayers in Jesus' name.

Not offended at all, was just wondering what the problem was w/ speaking the name written in the native English tongue, Jehovah, which is one of Jesus' names in the Old Testament.

Pre-Islam era, the Edomites practiced polytheism, & worshiped various deities, including gods associated with nature, & fertility. Israel has been known to adopt deities from other nations to worship. I've noticed a lot of bad fruit associated w/ the name Yahweh, & just wanted to give a head's up.

I understand that the OT is about Israel. I understand that Jesus was a Jew and lived under the Law. But we need to learn from the OT and listen to all Jesus said in the gospels during his ministry.
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. [Romans 15:4]
That's great that you got what Paul wrote regarding the Old Testament, amen!
Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. What covenant is Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Hebrews 8:7-12) speaking of if not the new covenant? Hebrews 8:13 ends the chapter in this manner: "speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." It seems that Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 is talking about the new covenant.
The mediator of the new covenant God makes w/ the house of Israel, & the house of Judah in the future. The promises made to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. Christians confuse the New Testament w/ the new covenant. Paul makes no mention of the Body of Christ being promised an earthly inheritance, only a heavenly inheritance.

Replacement Theology teaches the Body of Christ is the true Israel (aka spiritual Israel). Romans 11 is a thorn in the side of those who claim we have replaced Israel. Paul says there's neither Jew, 'nor Gentile in the Body of Christ. Galatians 3:28

The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (Isa. 44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). All three phrases, “the First and the Last,” “the Beginning and the End,” and “the Alpha and the Omega,” are very similar in meaning and all are said of Jesus in Revelation 22:13.
And this is why Jesus said He, & His Father are one. The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit have always existed. None were created.
Revelation 1:8 refers to God . . . the Almighty - Jesus is never addressed as the Almighty.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” IOW, God has always existed. Only God is all-powerful (2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 4:8; 15:3; 16:7; 19:15; 21:22) and only God is immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). God is the only Almighty one.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16

Yes, one of the names of Jesus is Immanuel meaning God with us or God is with us = through His Son Jesus Christ - God is with us. God was in His Son and the Son in Him . . .“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. . . God with us.
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself . . . God with us.
God w/ us b/c He was God manifest in the flesh. You can't get around this, amazing.
Almighty God is the Father; Jesus Christ is His Son. How are those two gods? Did Paul also have two gods because he also made a distinction between God the Father and his Son in the greetings of his epistles?
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:7
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:3
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Corinthians 1:2,3
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, ...Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, ... Ephesians 1:1-3
etc., etc., etc. . . . that's the truth.
Christians don't have two, or three Gods. Only the one, true God.

I and my Father are one.
John 10:30

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7

I am a Biblical Unitarian. It really would be respectful to me that you not continue to label me as an Arian or as a follower of Arius. Thank you.
I apologize for being disrespectful, amazing. My only intent was to show you where Unitarianism got its roots from.


The Origins and Beliefs of Arianism

Arianism takes its name from Arius (c. 256–336 AD), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. Around 318 AD, Arius began teaching a radically different view of Christ’s nature, which sparked the controversy.

Arius’ Key Beliefs:

Christ as a created being:


- Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal with God the Father but was a created being.
- He believed that “there was a time when the Son was not”, meaning Christ was brought into existence by the Father.

Monotheism and simplicity of God:


- Arius emphasized the belief in one supreme God, suggesting that the Son, as a created being,
could not share the Father’s divine essence.
- This made Arianism attractive to those who feared that the doctrine of the Trinity threatened monotheism.


There are two schools...

1. Antioch, where they were first called Christians. Acts 11:26
2. Alexandria, which teaches:

Gnosticism
Witchcraft
Spiritualism
Philosophy
Tradition


Arius, as you can see, taught in Alexandria. It's a 4th century belief held by a man.
 
Might be why most Christian forums have banned the trinity topic to the point one cannot even voice their position for or against it or some have just banned all those who dissent from their statement of faith. This is an apologetics board, though, some healthy debate is going to occur since the forum seems to be open to everyone which is a necessary evil or else it would just be an echo chamber. Outsiders to Catholicism and Protestantism view the trinity as the weakest link in the entire machine so that's why it feels like it is being attacked sometimes. We believe it's the easiest one to debunk.
This being an apologetics board means it is here to defend a belief or doctrine through reasonable argument or evidence. My perspective is this forum is attracting debates with its name because of what the word apologetics mean. Can't defend something that someone isn't challenging, thus challenges must be welcome.
Arius started this belief, Runningman. It's either what God says over man, or what man says over God 🤷‍♀️
 
It is great to note that if this awareness of the Triune God is the weakest link, nothing can be brought against this essential doctrine or other essential doctrines. There has not been sufficient arguments by the unitarians to overcome the testimony of the Triune God of scripture. It is nice to know that the unitarians go after the hardest to defeat knowledge of God while thinking it somehow is easy to break.
It depends how you look at it. Using conventional reason and logic, yes we have proven the trinity to be a false doctrine. However, if you use philosophy, redefine words, and say it's your beliefs then it's non falsifiable because you can effectively invent the rules as you go. I believe that must be how trinitarianism has survived for so long; it stays as slimy as jelly and can't be nailed down in any one spot. Just when we have proven Jesus isn't God then you blame it on him being a man. When we say God didn't die, but Jesus died, you redefine the word "death." When we point out Jesus is begotten, then you find a different translation. The goal posts always move, the trinitarian is always on the run.
I have identified plenty of times the failures of the arguments of the unitarians. They just fail to step up with something that makes sense.
Maybe the idea of the weakest link means that some weak Christians have not studied this properly and are easier to persuade away from the faith by selective choosing of scripture to deny who Christ is.
Never seen a Unitarian say anything that didn't make sense. I showed you some examples of what trinitarians say that doesn't make sense above. Care to share what you don't understand about Unitarianism?
 
It depends how you look at it. Using conventional reason and logic, yes we have proven the trinity to be a false doctrine. However, if you use philosophy, redefine words, and say it's your beliefs then it's non falsifiable because you can effectively invent the rules as you go. I believe that must be how trinitarianism has survived for so long; it stays as slimy as jelly and can't be nailed down in any one spot. Just when we have proven Jesus isn't God then you blame it on him being a man. When we say God didn't die, but Jesus died, you redefine the word "death." When we point out Jesus is begotten, then you find a different translation. The goal posts always move, the trinitarian is always on the run.

Never seen a Unitarian say anything that didn't make sense. I showed you some examples of what trinitarians say that doesn't make sense above. Care to share what you don't understand about Unitarianism?
The only thing we had to show was that Jesus is incarnated from God. That totally blows away the unitarian belief system. All the unitarian has to do is show that the pre-existent One called the Logos did not really exist with God and become incarnate. Of course in using "all," that is an unreachable "all."
Since John 1 testifies against a reasonable argument being done by the unitarians, there is the slew of other passages that point to his divinity. Nothing has to be examined to the Trinitarian doctrine, since that only seeks to understand how Jesus is God without being another god.
 
The only thing we had to show was that Jesus is incarnated from God. That totally blows away the unitarian belief system. All the unitarian has to do is show that the pre-existent One called the Logos did not really exist with God and become incarnate. Of course in using "all," that is an unreachable "all."
Since John 1 testifies against a reasonable argument being done by the unitarians, there is the slew of other passages that point to his divinity. Nothing has to be examined to the Trinitarian doctrine, since that only seeks to understand how Jesus is God without being another god.
As I said, you use philosophy to introduce concepts foreign to Scripture in accordance with the Bible never describing or stating God incarnated. To most people, that means God isn't incarnated, but like a good lawyer to make the words bend to your reasoning and thus produce an idol that no one even mentioned once in the Bible.
 
As I said, you use philosophy to introduce concepts foreign to Scripture in accordance with the Bible never describing or stating God incarnated. To most people, that means God isn't incarnated, but like a good lawyer to make the words bend to your reasoning and thus produce an idol that no one even mentioned once in the Bible.
Do you wish me just to say the Logos (as the metaleptic reference to the One who was with God and was God) now became flesh? Okay. Logos is a metaleptic reference to the One as God who became flesh. We are settled then on the deity of Christ.

Your only argument is to deny language as a manner of arguing what is true in scripture.
 
@amazing grace


The Creator is Jesus Christ:

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath
been hid in God, who created all things BY Jesus Christ:
Ephesians 3:9

For by him were all things created,
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;

that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:16-18


It's "by Him" not "through Him."
 
Last edited:
Do you wish me just to say the Logos (as the metaleptic reference to the One who was with God and was God) now became flesh? Okay. Logos is a metaleptic reference to the One as God who became flesh. We are settled then on the deity of Christ.

Your only argument is to deny language as a manner of arguing what is true in scripture.
John 1:1-14 is in line with a creation. See John 1:2,3 in which the God the Word was with made all things and John 1:14 in which the Word made flesh. That explicitly mentions a creation. John 1:1-14 is what I use as well. Revelation 3:14 also states Jesus is a creation.
 
Actually, I address the Father as Father God, & always end my prayers in Jesus' name.

Not offended at all, was just wondering what the problem was w/ speaking the name written in the native English tongue, Jehovah, which is one of Jesus' names in the Old Testament.

Pre-Islam era, the Edomites practiced polytheism, & worshiped various deities, including gods associated with nature, & fertility. Israel has been known to adopt deities from other nations to worship. I've noticed a lot of bad fruit associated w/ the name Yahweh, & just wanted to give a head's up.
Thanks.
. . . . But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me. [2 Timothy 1:12]
That's great that you got what Paul wrote regarding the Old Testament, amen!

The mediator of the new covenant God makes w/ the house of Israel, & the house of Judah in the future. The promises made to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob. Christians confuse the New Testament w/ the new covenant. Paul makes no mention of the Body of Christ being promised an earthly inheritance, only a heavenly inheritance.

Replacement Theology teaches the Body of Christ is the true Israel (aka spiritual Israel). Romans 11 is a thorn in the side of those who claim we have replaced Israel. Paul says there's neither Jew, 'nor Gentile in the Body of Christ. Galatians 3:28
Yes, we all one in Christ.
remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. [Eph. 2:12-16] Yep, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. . . . . One body, one church of which Christ is the head.
And this is why Jesus said He, & His Father are one. The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit have always existed. None were created.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
I believe that particular rendering is questionable. There was no need for God to be justified (1. to render righteous or such he ought to be; 2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered; 3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be) - God was seen of angels in the beginning at creation, it was Jesus who was preached to the Gentiles; it was Jesus who was received up into glory.

AI: The oldest versions of 1 Timothy 3:16 read as "He who was manifested in the flesh" or simply "who was manifested in the flesh". The reading "God" appeared later, likely due to a scribal error where the abbreviation for "God" (ΘΣ) was accidentally substituted for the abbreviation for "who" or "he" (ΟΣ) in manuscripts like the Codex Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.
God w/ us b/c He was God manifest in the flesh. You can't get around this, amazing.
God with us because God was in Christ - thanks.
Christians don't have two, or three Gods. Only the one, true God.

I and my Father are one.
John 10:30
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.” [John 10:28-30] I and my Father are one in caring and keeping the sheep----one in purpose and mission.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:7
The above passage is also a disputed passage because it is missing from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts before the fifteenth or sixteenth century.
I apologize for being disrespectful, amazing. My only intent was to show you where Unitarianism got its roots from.


The Origins and Beliefs of Arianism

Arianism takes its name from Arius (c. 256–336 AD), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt. Around 318 AD, Arius began teaching a radically different view of Christ’s nature, which sparked the controversy.

Arius’ Key Beliefs:

Christ as a created being:


- Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not co-eternal with God the Father but was a created being.
- He believed that “there was a time when the Son was not”, meaning Christ was brought into existence by the Father.

Monotheism and simplicity of God:


- Arius emphasized the belief in one supreme God, suggesting that the Son, as a created being,
could not share the Father’s divine essence.
- This made Arianism attractive to those who feared that the doctrine of the Trinity threatened monotheism.

There are two schools...

1. Antioch, where they were first called Christians. Acts 11:26
2. Alexandria, which teaches:

Gnosticism
Witchcraft
Spiritualism
Philosophy
Tradition


Arius, as you can see, taught in Alexandria. It's a 4th century belief held by a man.
Unitarianism - Unitarian Monotheism has it roots in the beginning throughout the OT - The God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob ----- a single ONE.
The first century church was built upon the OT scriptures therefore they were also Unitarians.
The fourth and fifth centuries brought about the idea of a Triune God and developed from there . . .
I am a Biblical Unitarian - a monotheist.
 
The pot always calling the kettle black. Did you not accuse me of being an extremest, a cult, just b/c I happen to find the AV the most accurate, & reliable translation? I hold the #2 position. You parrot the same regurgitated nonsense you've been taught to parrot. Two Arians come along, calling God a liar, release a New Greek Text, & a great majority of modern day professing Christians jump on board.

Am I missing the hypocrisy here, praise?

We'll be judged one day. Where's the fear of God in the matter? There will be those who hold His Word in unrighteousness.
If God failed to preserve His Word, then yes, that would make Him out to be a liar! Not having God's preserved Word is sinful man's wishful thinking.

The AV exalts Jesus Christ, doesn't change 2 Timothy 2:15, teaches the Gospel that saves today, doesn't make salvation a process, but a done deal the instant one believes. Church history shows the apostasy w/ Rome until the Reformation brought forth a revival w/ the AV. Once the newer translations came forth, & caught on within modern Christiandom... apostasy returns, & is worse than ever.

The Word of God is the sword, our defense against the god of this world. Evil seducers will wax worse, & worse. How many lives were in danger, or were martyred just to bring us the New Greek Text, the so-called older, & more reliable manuscripts you speak of? Funny how the common theme throughout the Bible is people dying for their faith. Think Protestants.

I can honestly say the AV alone is all I need to defend the faith. Not once have I ever felt the need to go to the Greek.
If God's Word alone isn't enough, then perhaps you don't have the preserved copy of the copies of the originals.

Satan has always been at war w/ God's Word. It hasn't ended either, just look to the liberal scholars, & Bible Colleges.
You mentioned other versions that you use. If you use other versions yourself, then what is this nonsense about only needing the KJV?

I used the word "cult" and placed myself as one of them before. I used the word because that is a exactly description for what you current are a part of yourself. I understand you well, having been there myself.

The English snobs of this world have always wanted to rule mankind. There is no need to see it any other way. Jesus never spoke a word of English when He walked the face of this earth, that should be enough to abandon your snobbery and embrace the language of the Greatest among humanity. Jesus Christ. It is arrogant and condescending to say what your say about the KJV. Your king James accomplished what he desired from you.

We can have very detailed debate if you like. Start a thread in the versions forum and tag me. I've already given you homework on mansion and ruler. Did you even look yourself?
 
Might be why most Christian forums have banned the trinity topic to the point one cannot even voice their position for or against it or some have just banned all those who dissent from their statement of faith. This is an apologetics board, though, some healthy debate is going to occur since the forum seems to be open to everyone which is a necessary evil or else it would just be an echo chamber. Outsiders to Catholicism and Protestantism view the trinity as the weakest link in the entire machine so that's why it feels like it is being attacked sometimes. We believe it's the easiest one to debunk.

This being an apologetics board means it is here to defend a belief or doctrine through reasonable argument or evidence. My perspective is this forum is attracting debates with its name because of what the word apologetics mean. Can't defend something that someone isn't challenging, thus challenges must be welcome.
Good summary but as you know several of us Trinitarians have no problems defending what we believe. :)

I would also say John 17:1-5 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 are the 2 weakest links in unitarianism and the easiest to debunk but as we know are the 2 most often passages used to defend their position. :)
 
There are three main groups concerning the Bible:

1. Those who hold that the modern translations, based on the text of Westcott and Hort (aka., Critical Text, Nestle-Aland), are more reliable than the Authorized Version of 1611 (KJV) translation, which is based upon the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text;

2. Those who hold that the KJV is most reliable (in English) because it was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text,

3. Those who hold that a translation such as the KJV was given by inspiration and is the preserved Word of God and is the final authority in our present world, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus.

The second is the right position, the one that Scripture attests to. The third one is wrong, which I debunk in this linked report. The first one, the modern version position based upon the Critical Text, is a diabolical attack on God’s Word and under the condemnation of Rev 22:18-19 — my focus here in this report.
I am category #4.

For the NT, I mainly use the NKJV because the NKJV NT is based on the Received Text that is very closely aligned with the Majority Text, my preferred Greek NT text.

For the OT, I mainly consult English translations of the Septuagint (LXX) and stay far away from Masoretic Text. It was the predecessors of the Masoretes who ripped out all Greek OT text from their OT in their hatred of Christianity. Also, the LXX was the only Bible of the Early Church before Paul's Epistles made their rounds, decades after the inception of Christianity. The best modern English version of the LXX is the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS) found in the Orthodox Study Bible.
 
I am category #4.

For the NT, I mainly use the NKJV because the NKJV NT is based on the Received Text that is very closely aligned with the Majority Text, my preferred Greek NT text.

For the OT, I mainly consult English translations of the Septuagint (LXX) and stay far away from Masoretic Text. It was the predecessors of the Masoretes who ripped out all Greek OT text from their OT in their hatred of Christianity. Also, the LXX was the only Bible of the Early Church before Paul's Epistles made their rounds, decades after the inception of Christianity. The best modern English version of the LXX is the St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS) found in the Orthodox Study Bible.
The MT was reconstructed by unbelievers in the 9th century. Codex Alexandrinus contains the very best witness to the book of Revelation. Which is the most disputed book in any canonical collection. In the "west" the book of Revelation was regionally accepted but the broader context is lost until much later. Alexandrinus contacts the historical writings of Clement that most early church historians want to avoid due their false claims that they church wasn't divided in the late first and 2nd century.

This is a very meaningful subject and necessary to form a proper view of modern Christianity as we know it today.
 
John 1:1-14 is in line with a creation. See John 1:2,3 in which the God the Word was with made all things and John 1:14 in which the Word made flesh. That explicitly mentions a creation. John 1:1-14 is what I use as well. Revelation 3:14 also states Jesus is a creation.
I have shown the figure of speech in John 1:1-13. We know this also builds off of the logos concept of Philo but assigns Jesus as that logos. You just repeat the same errors over again.
Your off-the-wall interpretations fail when examining those against the contexts of verses you borrow for your arguments.
 
The MT was reconstructed by unbelievers in the 9th century. Codex Alexandrinus contains the very best witness to the book of Revelation. Which is the most disputed book in any canonical collection. In the "west" the book of Revelation was regionally accepted but the broader context is lost until much later. Alexandrinus contacts the historical writings of Clement that most early church historians want to avoid due their false claims that they church wasn't divided in the late first and 2nd century.

This is a very meaningful subject and necessary to form a proper view of modern Christianity as we know it today.
You raised some good points. As long as we use our discerning skills, such as acknowledging that the Church was in fact divided until the Council of Nicea took place, then we can put that discerning skill to good use when the Greek texts differ in one way or another.
 
Good summary but as you know several of us Trinitarians have no problems defending what we believe. :)

I would also say John 17:1-5 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 are the 2 weakest links in unitarianism and the easiest to debunk but as we know are the 2 most often passages used to defend their position. :)
Why would those be the weakest link when they both explicitly state who the one and only God is? I'll be sure to not be eating or drinking anything when you pull your answer out of your bag of surprises.
 
I have shown the figure of speech in John 1:1-13. We know this also builds off of the logos concept of Philo but assigns Jesus as that logos. You just repeat the same errors over again.
Your off-the-wall interpretations fail when examining those against the contexts of verses you borrow for your arguments.
What you lack from this John 1 passage is any sort of hint that God incarnated. It also isn't something repeated anywhere in the Bible. Being on a lonely theological island isn't a good place to be.
 
What you lack from this John 1 passage is any sort of hint that God incarnated. It also isn't something repeated anywhere in the Bible. Being on a lonely theological island isn't a good place to be.
The whole point is about the One who was before creation now becoming flesh. Here I have been so kind to avoid using the word "incarnate" so that you could be happier. Even if this were one time, the message is clear to those who have hears to hear.
 
The whole point is about the One who was before creation now becoming flesh. Here I have been so kind to avoid using the word "incarnate" so that you could be happier. Even if this were one time, the message is clear to those who have hears to hear.
Contradicted by 1John 1:1-3 which states the Word is a thing that was manifested in or revealed by Jesus. Start interpreting Scripture using Scripture, not interpreting Scripture using assumptions. There is no pre-existent being named the Word anywhere in the Old Testament saying or doing anything nor is God said to have became a man. Actually, Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9 explicitly state God isn't a man. Anything else?
 
Back
Top Bottom