Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

[Runningman]

True Christians on the other hand know that the Trinity doctrine is closer to incorporating the deity of Christ as testified by scripture without contradicting the Shema. Your "honest" theologians are either misinterpreted or misrepresented by unitarians so as to deny who Christ is.

Sorry, but to qualify as a true Christian you must even attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who taught that his and their God is the Father, that He is to be prayed to and worshipped, and left it at that. You are what is known as a trinitarian. Unitarians are Christians, don't mix this up.

 

[Runningman]

When you come out with a sufficient argument to deny that the personal self-existent Word became flesh as Jesus, then people could start listening to you. Other than doing that, you just keep quoting half passages while neglecting the testimony of the preexistent One who became Christ.
I can admit that the essence of Christ with origin from that preexistence has become clearer when researching the errors you have presented within your own belief system. Of course then, you have not made any advances in denying the preexistent One becoming flesh.

It would help you even begin to establish some credibility on this topic if you could even get your point across instead of just talking a lot. If you have no references to Jesus being God or a trinity then there is no debate, there is nothing to prove or disprove. You are simply attaching verses to your theories yet the Bible states none of your theories. On the other hand, we say the Father is alone the true God. Scripture says so.

 

[mikesw]

Sorry, but to qualify as a true Christian you must even attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who taught that his and their God is the Father, that He is to be prayed to and worshipped, and left it at that. You are what is known as a trinitarian. Unitarians are Christians, don't mix this up.

you contradict yourself when speaking of following scripture about Jesus but then you deny him as preexisting. Your word plays have no value in proving your view against the testimony of Jesus as preexisting as the Word.

 

[mikesw]

It would help you even begin to establish some credibility on this topic if you could even get your point across instead of just talking a lot. If you have no references to Jesus being God or a trinity then there is no debate, there is nothing to prove or disprove. You are simply attaching verses to your theories yet the Bible states none of your theories. On the other hand, we say the Father is alone the true God. Scripture says so.

You forget that we do not have to go to elaborate trinitarian explanation of the Godhead. You only have to show that the testimony of scripture of Jesus preexisting as the Word is false. You fail again to recognize that Jesus is speaking to the Father while reflecting to others with him that they have been given clarification of who God is. This is not saying Jesus is a second god, or a false god. It says nothing for or against Jesus preexisting as the Word. You miss that eternal life is also contingent on God's Son. You sloppily gloss over the context.

You know the testimony of scripture of the preexistence of Jesus as the Word. You just bury the evidence.

 

[Runningman]

you contradict yourself when speaking of following scripture about Jesus but then you deny him as preexisting. Your word plays have no value in proving your view against the testimony of Jesus as preexisting as the Word.

When you say "the testimony" I suppose you are actually just referring to your opinions, not the same thing as the testimony of Scripture about who God is. You dress up your opinions to make them sound more important than they are and even try to pass them off as authoritative. Your opinion of "Jesus as preexisting as the Word" is non-existent in the Bible. The "Word was made flesh" means Jesus was created.

Think, Mike. If the "Word was made flesh" then may I ask you if the Word is flesh then is flesh a creation?

 

[Runningman]

You forget that we do not have to go to elaborate trinitarian explanation of the Godhead. You only have to show that the testimony of scripture of Jesus preexisting as the Word is false. You fail again to recognize that Jesus is speaking to the Father while reflecting to others with him that they have been given clarification of who God is. This is not saying Jesus is a second god, or a false god. It says nothing for or against Jesus preexisting as the Word. You miss that eternal life is also contingent on God's Son. You sloppily gloss over the context.

You know the testimony of scripture of the preexistence of Jesus as the Word. You just bury the evidence.

I haven't seen you preach a false gospel yet, but it seems you are now testing the waters of that. Are you now saying, contrary to Scripture, that it is required to believe Jesus is god in order to be saved? Please show us where the Bible says that. If you think you have found it, you will be the first in history to have done so.

 

[mikesw]

When you say "the testimony" I suppose you are actually just referring to your opinions, not the same thing as the testimony of Scripture about who God is.

Uh. we are talking about who God is even with the preexistence of Jesus as the Word, having been conscious and with God in creation. Your denial of God does not help your argument.

You dress up your opinions to make them sound more important than they are and even try to pass them off as authoritative.

We see that even Ignatius recognizes the divinity of Christ.

https://greekdoc.github.io/early/i-ephesians.html#chapter18

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's management, both of the seed of David but and of the Holy Spirit; and He was born and was baptized in order that by His suffering He might cleanse the water

Your opinion of "Jesus as preexisting as the Word" is non-existent in the Bible. The "Word was made flesh" means Jesus was created.

Only the fleshly part. Duhhh. The preexisting Word did not need flesh in conscious participation with the Father in creation. Can you not figure out the basics?

Think, Mike. If the "Word was made flesh" then may I ask you if the Word is flesh then is flesh a creation?

Duhh. Flesh has to be created or the Word would not have taken flesh. Do you think God as incapable with interacting with creation in whatever way he sees fit?

 

[mikesw]

I haven't seen you preach a false gospel yet, but it seems you are now testing the waters of that. Are you now saying, contrary to Scripture, that it is required to believe Jesus is god in order to be saved? Please show us where the Bible says that. If you think you have found it, you will be the first in history to have done so.

If you are just ignorant about who Jesus is, you may just have not learned details of what scripture shares. If you are in adamant denial of the deity of Christ, it is rather suspicious of your heart condition and may be a bad sign of your status.

We see that even Ignatius recognizes the divinity of Christ.

https://greekdoc.github.io/early/i-ephesians.html#chapter18

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's management, both of the seed of David but and of the Holy Spirit; and He was born and was baptized in order that by His suffering He might cleanse the water

This is around the turn to the second century and thus does not support a gradual change of ideas about the deity of Christ. Even if written pseudepigraphically, the writings reflect early recognition of the deity of Christ.

 

[Runningman]

Uh. we are talking about who God is even with the preexistence of Jesus as the Word, having been conscious and with God in creation. Your denial of God does not help your argument.



We see that even Ignatius recognizes the divinity of Christ.

https://greekdoc.github.io/early/i-ephesians.html#chapter18

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's management, both of the seed of David but and of the Holy Spirit; and He was born and was baptized in order that by His suffering He might cleanse the water


Only the fleshly part. Duhhh. The preexisting Word did not need flesh in conscious participation with the Father in creation. Can you not figure out the basics?



Duhh. Flesh has to be created or the Word would not have taken flesh. Do you think God as incapable with interacting with creation in whatever way he sees fit?

Nah you don't know who God is. Let's demonstrate. So your god became flesh. Flesh is a creation. So flesh is not God. Thus the Word is not God. You have too many contradictions and fallacies in your religion for it to make sense. Now, if you understood that Jesus was created (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14) then that would be a different story perhaps.

Paul condemns your idolatry.

Romans 1
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise!f Amen.

 

[Runningman]

If you are just ignorant about who Jesus is, you may just have not learned details of what scripture shares. If you are in adamant denial of the deity of Christ, it is rather suspicious of your heart condition and may be a bad sign of your status.

We see that even Ignatius recognizes the divinity of Christ.

https://greekdoc.github.io/early/i-ephesians.html#chapter18


This is around the turn to the second century and thus does not support a gradual change of ideas about the deity of Christ. Even if written pseudepigraphically, the writings reflect early recognition of the deity of Christ.

I can quote God, Jesus, the prophets, and all of the disciples proving they didn't view Jesus as God. If that puts me in a "bad status" then your judgement must apply to God and the prophets as well. I know they aren't wrong, so I am confident I have the truth. That's how I know your god and your religion is fundamentally anti-Christ. There are many deceived people in your organization who deny the testimony of Scripture regarding the Father's exclusive deity and seek to turn Jesus into an idol. It is indeed paradonable.

 

[mikesw]

I can quote God, Jesus, the prophets, and all of the disciples proving they didn't view Jesus as God. If that puts me in a "bad status" then your judgement must apply to God and the prophets as well. I know they aren't wrong, so I am confident I have the truth. That's how I know your god and your religion is fundamentally anti-Christ. There are many deceived people in your organization who deny the testimony of Scripture regarding the Father's exclusive deity and seek to turn Jesus into an idol. It is indeed paradonable.

Nah you don't know who God is. Let's demonstrate. So your god became flesh. Flesh is a creation. So flesh is not God. Thus the Word is not God. You have too many contradictions and fallacies in your religion for it to make sense. Now, if you understood that Jesus was created (Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14) then that would be a different story perhaps.

Paul condemns your idolatry.

Romans 1
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise!f Amen.

Indeed you cannot deny that the deity of Christ has been recognized from the beginning of the church. It has been the basic concept that people did not know this or believe it until the 4th century. You must then at least hold that Jesus was both God and was created.

 

[Runningman]

Indeed you cannot deny that the deity of Christ has been recognized from the beginning of the church. It has been the basic concept that people did not know this or believe it until the 4th century. You must then at least hold that Jesus was both God and was created.

This doesn't hold up well if you will actually read the New Testament and the beginning of the church,

Jesus is a man who was certified by God, who God worked through, and was exalted as Lord and Christ. This is contrary to your claims that Jesus acted independently as God. Jesus was made something he previous was not. Scripture isn't in line with your co-equal, co-eternal, narrative.

Acts 2
22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.
36Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!”

 

[mikesw]

This doesn't hold up well if you will actually read the New Testament and the beginning of the church,

Jesus is a man who was certified by God, who God worked through, and was exalted as Lord and Christ. This is contrary to your claims that Jesus acted independently as God. Jesus was made something he previous was not. Scripture isn't in line with your co-equal, co-eternal, narrative.

Acts 2
22Men of Israel, listen to this message: Jesus of Nazareth was a man certified by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did among you through Him, as you yourselves know.
36Therefore let all Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!”

You are using part of scripture to deny the other part. You love to take the testimony of the humanity of Jesus and pit that against the testimony of his deity.
If you want to use "make" as create, then Jesus has made himself God.

When Jesus is asked concerning the basis or justification of His ποιεῖν (Mk. 11:28, 29, 33 and par.; 15:14 and par.; Lk. 2:48; Jn. 2:18; 18:35), this is an expression of the objection, made explicit only in Jn., that Jesus unjustifiably makes Himself God, Jn. 5:18; 8:53; 10:33; 19:7

Herbert Braun, “Ποιέω, Ποίημα, Ποίησις, Ποιητής,” in TDNT 1964–), 474.

The idea is more expressive of change than of creation. The point in Acts 2:36 is of changing Jesus from simply being a prophet to being endorsed and verified through resurrection as Lord and Christ. But if you had truly studied what you share instead of a superficial reading of the verse, you would have known this already.